RACK versus SSC

[MissTaken]

Is anyone familiar with the philosophy of RACK?

Is RACK a step in the right direction for those who don't believe that SSC accurately defines their BDSM?

RACK stands for Risk Aware Sexual Kink, although you will find a number of variations on the actual word forms.

Here is an article written by Gary Switch, which addresses these issues in a short readable form.

Origin of RACK - Risk Awareness Consensual Kink
RACK vs. SSC
by Gary Switch

Nothing's perfectly safe. Crossing the street isn't perfectly safe. Remember that it's technically called "safer sex," not "safe sex." If we want to limit BDSM to what's safe, we can't do anything more extreme than flogging somebody with a wet noodle. Mountain climbers don't call their sport safe, for the simple reason that it isn't; risk is an essential part of the thrill. They get away with it by identifying and minimizing the risk through study, training, technique, and practice. I believe that this approach will work better for us leatherfolk than claiming that what we do is safe. We want to foster the notion that we develop expertise, that to do what we do properly takes skill developed through a similar process of education, training and practice.

Negotiation cannot be valid without foreknowledge of the possible risks involved in the activity being negotiated. "Risk-aware" means that both parties to a negotiation have studied the proposed activities, are informed about the risks involved, and agree how they intend to handle them. Hence "risk-aware" instead of "safe"

The "sane" part of SSC is very subjective. Who's making the call? Person A might think fisting is insane; persons B and C might enjoy it very much. "Sane" always reminds me of Pat Paulsen's campaign slogan from the old Smothers Brothers show: "Vote for Paulsen; he's not insane!" If you go around constantly reassuring folks that you're not crazy, they'll start to wonder.

I've heard "sane' interpreted as: "able to distinguish fantasy from reality" and "not intoxicated," which are both perfectly valid, though the latter is similar to the above--you don't go around constantly reassuring folks that you're not drunk, either. "Consensual" is the crux, implying negotiation which implies being able to distinguish fantasy from reality, as well as dealing responsibly with risk factors. If you don't know the risk factors, if you don't know what will happen in reality, then you don't know what you're consenting to. Meaningful negotiation must always take place on the common ground of consensus reality.

The "kink" part went in to make a snappy acronym and because SSC doesn't tell you what you should be SSC about. Safe, Sane and Consensual trout fishing? Alluding to the rack, an archetypal torture instrument, has been criticized, but to me it signifies our transformation of atrocity into ecstasy, and admits that though we may enjoy some dark fantasies, we realize them harmlessly.

RACK is admittedly more confrontational than SSC. It's defiant, the same way the GLBT community uses "queer." RACK allows us the freedom to have non-PC fantasies. Don't a lot of us enjoy non- consensual fantasies, either from the top side or the bottom side? We enjoy them in our literature; we may very well enjoy them while we play. But we act them out responsibly and consensually.

Permission is granted to reproduce and distribute essay, as long as it's reproduced in its entirety and is attributed to: GarySwitch@aol.com

 

[Etoile]

RACK is admittedly more confrontational than SSC. It's defiant, the same way the GLBT community uses "queer."

I don't totally agree with this. The word "queer" is defiant because it's a reclaiming of a word that's been used in a derogatory sense. Same thing with "dyke" and even "hebe" (the latter is being used by some Jews now). But the word "rack" was never used in that sense. Yes, it's slightly in-your-face, but it's also more obscure. While I'm aware of the torture device known as the rack, my first thought (even as kinky as my mind can be) is of a place to store things - spices, bicycles. Using the acronym RACK is catchy and I like the ideas behind it, but I don't think it's particularly confrontational.

That said, I do like the rest of the article. It raises many valid points.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Will have to give this some thought as my mind is not in working mode tonight. Was amused to read the observation that people might wonder about those who continually insist they are sane though. Reminded me of my counselling and as many probably know, women in DV often through tactics used by the perpetrator, and/or the abuse they live with, think they may be insane. In counselling it was always good to be able to tell them that the reality of mental illness, as in insane, is that those who are rarely think they are. Was always an 'aha' moment for them and a great relief which more often than not gave them a good laugh. So maybe there is a message there in the way we need to present ourselves at times.

Catalina

 

[ownedsubgal]

i prefer RACK to SSC, just because for me it's a bit more on target, but to be honest i don't particularly care for the "consent" and "kink" bit...kink makes it sound like fun and games, and sure that's what it is for some, but not for all. for some of us it's just real life. the consent part bothers me a wee bit because it doesn't apply all that well to slaves, where consent is simply a non-issue. if a slave isn't "in the mood" to do something on a particular day, it's of no consequence, they must still do what their Owners wishes them to. so consent doesn't really fit me. i tried to think of my own lil safety catch phrase and came up with RAP...risk aware pervert. says it all without any sugar coating or leaving anyone out. (unless you're not a perv, but why wouldn't you be??)

 

[Netzach]

SSC was just a nice little nugget some gay boys developed in an attempt to make it clear that we don't kidnap people off the streets, skin them alive, and fuck their fresh wounds while singing hey diddle diddle.

It got all blown out of proportion, with people throwing around "he's not SSC!" as the ultimate way to signify persona non grata around some pretty subjective stuff.

It's a guideline, it's a generality.

RACK is like trying to build a better mousetrap while we aren't necessarily even trying to catch mice. I wish we'd just say what we mean instead of more acronyms.

 

[catalina_francisco]

i prefer RACK to SSC, just because for me it's a bit more on target, but to be honest i don't particularly care for the "consent" and "kink" bit...kink makes it sound like fun and games, and sure that's what it is for some, but not for all. for some of us it's just real life. the consent part bothers me a wee bit because it doesn't apply all that well to slaves, where consent is simply a non-issue. if a slave isn't "in the mood" to do something on a particular day, it's of no consequence, they must still do what their Owners wishes them to. so consent doesn't really fit me. i tried to think of my own lil safety catch phrase and came up with RAP...risk aware pervert. says it all without any sugar coating or leaving anyone out. (unless you're not a perv, but why wouldn't you be??)

I can understand completely where you are coming from. A slave in certain kinds of relationships gives a blanket consent to their Master, Which is in essence is still giving consent although be it maybe in a very broad perspective.

I do feel comfortable with both terminologies, RACK or SSC it does not really matter they are guidelines to make sure that we as a community do not forget about certain infrangible rights people have.

I would like also to point to this excellent article.

http://www.domsublifestyle.com/article9.html

Francisco.

 

[Ebonyfire]

RACK

I never heard of it, but that means nothing cause I am buzz word challenged.

I hate to see acronyms and abbreviations used in everyday writing and speech.

 

[RisiaSkye]

SSC's a fine idea, but some people have pounced on it as a way to marginalize those of us who play at the edge. So, personally, I find RACK more useful. But, to each their own. Doesn't really matter, except as a political tool which can turn weapon in some hands.

 

[le_kinklet]

I have encountered this b4 and even put it up for debate in one of my BDSM groups,, and it was uninomously voted that it should stay S.S.C, purely for the fact that the other does sort of imply madness in a way, and if we want our lifestyle respected. R.A.C.K seems to imply something a lil more sinister!
So i guess i am happy to stay with S.S.C.
~*HuGs*~

 

[ownedsubgal]

i think that those in the D/s and bdsm lifestyles perhaps shouldn't care so much about what the rest of the world thinks of us. SSC to me is a way of making the lifestyle more "politically correct", more palatable to the normals, so they don't think we're a bunch of insane wackos. of course, that's how the term is used now. but from research i've done SSC came from the bdsm gay leather world, and referred mostly to those who played casually. a way of sticking to house rules so to speak. now it's a mantra that we all are supposed to live by and respect, despite the fact that it couldn't be any more subjective. not to mention inaccurate (what's "safe" about this lifestyle, or life period?). most have their own idea of what defines SSC, and they view those who do not live by their own personal SSC definitions as unhealthy/disturbed/dangerous/etc. this seems to be especially the case online, where i can't count the number of times i've read the words, "that's not SSC!", "we preach SSC here so those views are not welcome", etc. so you have a case of the freaks calling out the freaks, in an attempt to make themselves appear less freakish, more like the normals, more acceptable. you can see i have many issues with that pesky SSC!

RACK doesn't bug me nearly as much as SSC, but as i said above it really doesn't include all of us either. i don't have a problems with labels or catchphrases, but i don't like things that cause even more division between those in the lifestyle. these terms both do more to divide us than to unite us.

Francisco, thanks for posting the link. as for "rights" we all have, that too is subjective, and different for all.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi ownedsubgal,

I can agree with you on lots of your comments about SSC and RACK. To me they are just guidelines, nothing more nothing less. And yes it is to easy to use them to judge others in the 'lifestyle'.

About the rights feel that is a completely new discussion.

Francisco.

 

[MissTaken]

I am still reading and thinking on this discussion.

I have noticed that RACK is used often when an organization is planning an event.

"We practice RACK. If you aren't familiar with it, research it here."

To that end, guidelines serve a funciton in terms of defining the expectations when people gather who do not know one another and there may be some play.

I do have many more thoughts that I am putting together and will return later.

 

[Temptress_1960]

SSC was just a nice little nugget some gay boys developed in an attempt to make it clear that we don't kidnap people off the streets, skin them alive, and fuck their fresh wounds while singing hey diddle diddle.

We don't???

well, dammit. You have just destroyed all my conceptions of D/s.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Actually there is a group inside the BDSM community lead by the infamous Jon Jacobs that believe exactly that.

They believe that it is the right of a 'true' dominant to get possession of their ‘true’ slave anyway they can.

Francisco.

 

[MissTaken]

I have encountered this b4 and even put it up for debate in one of my BDSM groups,, and it was uninomously voted that it should stay S.S.C, purely for the fact that the other does sort of imply madness in a way, and if we want our lifestyle respected. R.A.C.K seems to imply something a lil more sinister!
So i guess i am happy to stay with S.S.C.
~*HuGs*~

Hmm interesting.

I didn't get a sense of "sinister", but do see where RACK seems less restrictive as a guideline. I believe that part of it's development came about as SSC doesn't embrace the edge players.

There are times when what we do just simply is not "safe."

But, then, perhaps you can respond as a result of your group, did they feel that some malicious and nasty sorts of Doms would use RACK as blanket permission to harm their subs in the name of BDSM and RACK?

Flippin alphabet soup...

 

[MissTaken]

SSC's a fine idea, but some people have pounced on it as a way to marginalize those of us who play at the edge. So, personally, I find RACK more useful. But, to each their own. Doesn't really matter, except as a political tool which can turn weapon in some hands.

True enough.

Guidelines have a time and place.

As for SSC, though, I have had difficulties with the concept on a professional level. The concept of SSC opposes what I know and practice as a social worker.

As you know, in due course with my chosen profession, "Safe" behaviors are often the barometer used to measure one's sanity (using the term loosely.) Some in the mental health world might say you cannot have unsafe behaviors based on the persons judgement, *consent* and still have a well person. Do you think that SSC has helped or hindered BDSM being accepted in the main stream and might SSC have been part of what has caused or contributed to so many attributing D/s behavior to mental illness?

Okay. It is early and I may not be making sense, but I was thinking SSC would only provide more fodder for those who can only understand D/s through a cloud of mental health diagnosis.

 

[MissTaken]

the consent part bothers me a wee bit because it doesn't apply all that well to slaves, where consent is simply a non-issue. if a slave isn't "in the mood" to do something on a particular day, it's of no consequence, they must still do what their Owners wishes them to. so consent doesn't really fit me.

In relationships such as yours, is your consent given at some point, perhaps once, and then assumed throughout the relationship?

By agreeing to become His slave, aren't you also providing blanket consent?

 

[MissTaken]

Thank you, francisco for the link.

One of the things that jumped out at me and I will summarize it here, is that the use of the terms "Risk Assessment" implies that those engaging in an activity should be familiar with what the activity and the potential risks involved.

As opposed to following the mantra, SSC, a submissive may engage in an activity that they have very little knowledge about as they believe and know their Dom would never harm them. That is all well and good and I have done the same, however, I do believe making informed decisions is a better way to make a choice.

I will add that the Dom can find themselves in a situation with a sub who says, "I love this, it is very safe. Try it." and while it is responsible of them or not, they may engage in behaviors that cause risk.

Also, RACK is used as a guideline for those who don't use safewords, as I understand it. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

[Temptress_1960]

Do you think that SSC has helped or hindered BDSM being accepted in the main stream and might SSC have been part of what has caused or contributed to so many attributing D/s behavior to mental illness?

I think SSC has helped acceptance of BDSM. It makes more sense of it for those unfamiliar with it.

The basic concept of consent makes a great deal of a difference, and once people understand that, BDSM is more acceptable.

The idea of safety, that safety or risk assessment is considered, also makes it more palatable.

And the concept of sanity, regardless of how you define it, at least tells people that you won't do something totally nuts, like strapping the subbie to the roof of your car and going for a drive (or so I'd hope).

I would think people would be more apt to attribute D/s behavior to mental illness without SSC being a factor.

 

[catalina_francisco]

IMHO I don't think SSC has attributed, or dissuaded people from associating D/s with mental illness. Partly because those who are not in the lifestyle and apt to attach such negative judgements, do not know of the term, and/or understand it's concepts. Added to that, I tend to think on the whole it is human nature for many to attribute anything they do not understand, or approve of, to mental illness in an effort to invalidate it's usefulness and authenticity as a purposeful, and/or reality based practice for thos who are part of the target goup.

As an example, homosexuality was long considered a mental illness, and some still maintain it can be 'cured'. Women also have been, and still are at times described as over emotional because when measured against the male dominant guage of what is 'normal', from the perspective of a science historically formulated and judged by male benchmarks, emotional women were found to not fit the description of normal. D/s is no different.

Catalina

 

[Etoile]

Re: Re: RACK versus SSC

I didn't get a sense of "sinister", but do see where RACK seems less restrictive as a guideline. I believe that part of it's development came about as SSC doesn't embrace the edge players.

I think the "sinister" bit is because Safe is a nice, non-threatening word. The acronym RACK includes the word Risk. Oooh, risk! Scary! I think it's just a semantics thing.

 

[WriterDom]

Risk aware is much more accurate than safe. There are risks in many bdsm type activities. But, there are risks to sky diving, mountain climbing, and riding a bicycle. Perhaps SS&C has outlived its usefulness. It sounds more like a defense of what we do.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Actually there is a group inside the BDSM community lead by the infamous Jon Jacobs that believe exactly that.

They believe that it is the right of a 'true' dominant to get possession of their ‘true’ slave anyway they can.

Francisco.

That mentality is not unknown the the vanilla world.

 

[Quint]

A point I'd kind of like to bring up is that I have often read something to the effect of "If it isn't SSC, it's not BDSM--it's abuse." When you include "which is safe, sane, and consensual" in the definition of BDSM, it becomes an irrelevant topic. You can't discuss if a particular BDSM activity is safe--it's true by definition. When it gets to that point, I get frustrated.

I personally see SSC as many of the posters here, a means to appeasing the political gods. The fact that so many of us play around the fuzzy edges and are still welcome members here kind of suggests that "SSC is a good idea, it's healthy and everything, but you can play around with it--just try not to die or get your partner arrested or anything because that would suck and it would reflect poorly on the rest of us." I wouldn't reduce it entirely to "covering our collective ass" but sometimes it doesn't seem to mean much more than that. That which makes BDSM not-abuse. *shrugs*

I like "risk-aware" much more than "safe" as well. That's what I consider what T and I do.

 

[Ebonyfire]

I would think people would be more apt to attribute D/s behavior to mental illness without SSC being a factor.

People attributed mental illness to a lot of things.

For example, sexual intercourse in any position other than missionary is considered an aberration worthy of mental illness.

Disobedient women, were considered mentally ill and committed to institutions because they exercised free will.