What is 'Safe, Sane, and Consensual?'

[Never]

'Safe, sane, and consensual' is a frequently used BDSM phrase. It's also a phrase I've yet to see rigorously defined. The last term, consensual is the only one I've seen any agreement on so I'll cover that one first.

A consensual activity is one in which all parties agree to participate in and in which all parties are adults who are knowledgeable of the realistic consequences of undertaking that activity.

CONSENSUAL

To me, this suggests that SSC BDSM:
1) Cannot occur with a minor. (18+ in my state)
2) Cannot occur unless all participants take the time to understand the possible social, psychological, and physical repercussions of their actions.

Yes? No? Maybe so?

I'll assume, for now, that this is an adequate definition and move on.

SANE

According to current psychological theory, sadomasochism is a disorder. As a community, I don't believe we can agree with that theory so I'd like to us to come up with a definition of a 'sane' activity.

My first stab at it is that SSC BDSM would not effect a participant's quality of life. They would still be able to function socially; maintaining friendships with 'vanilla' individuals, maintaining one's profession, and avoiding criminal acts; personally; maintaining one's self worth and adult responsibilities; and sexually; being able to experience and enjoy emotional/physical fulfillment outside of specific BDSM activities.

Yes? No? Maybe so?

SAFE

And here is where I predict we will have the most problem. I've noticed that a number of activities I would regard as unsafe are routinely talked about on the board. I don't know if this is because other board members have a different view of an activity's safety, if the community's philosophy is that each BDSM relationship should have it's own criteria for what is safe or not, if there are different levels of 'unsafe' activity and that some unsafe activity is acceptable while others are not, or if many view the 'safe' criteria as unneeded.

Personally, I find anal fisting and breath play unsafe but I know others feel otherwise. I'd appreciate is if other posters would contribute activities they definitely label as 'safe' and those they definitely feel are 'unsafe'.

 

[Shadowsdream]

SSC cannot be adequately explained for it is one of those convenient (newer) catch all's that give the illusion of all inclusive expectations on both sides of the whip.

So personally while I have My own standards of expectations that will take care of the one under My foot and of My own expectations of who I will accept to be there My mind never goes to the expectations of the one that originated the SSC mantra. To do so would cause a re-creation of Myself and a molding to the expectations of said creator or the followers of the same.

Responsibilty covers all of the above with a large dose of common sense and respect.

Can you tell that SSC annoys Me ~~grin~~

Good morning never.

 

[Caitlynne]

Can you tell that SSC annoys Me ~~grin~~
[/B]

Yes Ma'am I can.

I think SSC is fine as a catch-all propaganda phrase to enable the 'vanilla' public to grasp it and just let us be. It has a marginal use in that arena. What I take exception to is how it is used within the community as a means to avoid real discussion. It is often (from my observation) used as an excuse not to communicate, not to explore, and not to go deeper into the power exchange.

All too often I've seen parties (both D & s) pass off 'getting to know one another" with a wave of the hand saying.. "Well, of course, safe, sane and consensual", without ever discussing in depth what experience one has to keep a submissive safe, how one defines sanity and what is being consented to. People on both sides of the whip do this with alarming frequency.

Slogans are fine within a VERY narrow context, but they are not a substitute for the real process of BDSM. It's a fine phrase in terms of PR, but it means nothing if we buy into the PR ourselves and fail to 'do the work' necessary when making our choices.

Just my thoughts...

~ cait

 

[Never]

So, what I'm getting is that SSC is just a slogan that no one seriously involved in BDSM should really follow?

 

[Quint]

So, what I'm getting is that SSC is just a slogan that no one seriously involved in BDSM should really follow?

So, what I'm getting is that the Bible is just a book that no one seriously involved in Christianity should really follow?

No. It works just fine for lots of people. Many live their lives by it and are completely happy. For others, you can pick and choose what is applicable and discard the rest without feeling too guilty. Some people may follow precepts outlined in it because they think those precepts make sense regardless of the source, and in fact would scoff if you asked "Are you doing that because it's in the Bible?"

When getting big, hoity-toity dogmas involved, "should" is a touchy word. Find what works best for the individuals and the situation is my personal answer.

 

[Caitlynne]

So, what I'm getting is that SSC is just a slogan that no one seriously involved in BDSM should really follow?

LOL, no, not at all. What I'm saying is that one shouldn't reduce BDSM to a catch phrase. People need to be safe, sane and engage in consensual activities. No one denies that, at least I don't think so.

I was referring to replacing real safety, sanity and consensus with a slogan. One has substance the other is just a catchy tune that you can dance to.

I apologize if I came across as dismissing the very real need to communicate, be safe, and as sane as consenting partners determine.

What I object to is using a catch phrase to replace real interaction and investigation. Like people shouting "Remember the Maine!" It gets everyone all excited and it illicit's an emotional response, but how many remember what it actually means.

I've seen people 'mouth' SSC and then proceed to forget what those words represent. We end up hearing the phrase a lot without any substance. That's all I was referring to, keeping the substance in it and not falling into a 'mantra' like chant.

~cait

 

[Caitlynne]

When getting big, hoity-toity dogmas involved, "should" is a touchy word. Find what works best for the individuals and the situation is my personal answer.

Or, what she said....

 

[Never]

Caitlynne
"I've seen people 'mouth' SSC and then proceed to forget what those words represent. We end up hearing the phrase a lot without any substance. That's all I was referring to, keeping the substance in it and not falling into a 'mantra' like chant."

Yes, but... that was the entire point of this thread. I wanted to see what substance people put behind that phrase. So far, all I've heard is that no one puts any substance behind it.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think that is taking it a bit too far. SSC has it’s uses and it has served a purpose in raising acceptance in the vanilla world for BDSM.

They are good guidelines to know, there are others like RACK. But in essence what it comes to is that you should know SSC, you should practice SSC to the degree that suits you.

But they are not the bible by which we all have to live by. Here are some good links about SSC and RACK.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=276286

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=185471


Also our library has under the philosophy section a couple of good links.

Francisco.

 

[Never]

Quint:
"When getting big, hoity-toity dogmas involved, "should" is a touchy word. Find what works best for the individuals and the situation is my personal answer."

Do you think that the term consensual should be decided by the individual based on their particular situation?

Do you think that someone who derives intense sexual pleasure from cutting off another's fingers can act on that desire in a safe manner?

Do you think that maintaining a 24/7 BDSM relationship is healthy even if to do so one must give up one's job and forgo any relations with outside friends or family?

 

[Never]

Francisco:
"I think that is taking it a bit too far."

No, that's a fairly accurate summery of what I've read in this thread. No one has provided their interpretation of the term SSC but me and no one has provided specific examples of what is or isn't SSC but me.

Safety, sanity, and consensuality are either relative or not. If they are relative, which is what I'm hearing, then I don't see how they serve any purpose as guidelines. In fact, I would suggest (based in what people are tell me) that this particular phrase is just a lie the BDSM community came up with to get the vanilla world off its back.

 

[Caitlynne]

Humm, well I think that it is a double edged topic, in many ways like defining the difference between a slave and a submissive. It's always interesting to discuss, but I'm not always sure to what end the discussion is intended to go.

I suppose the handy dandy catch all phrase.. "It depends" serves well to begin with.

My own take on SSC is that I use TIME to reveal how safe I am, how sane an activity is and how my consent bares on the situation.

Things that I would do now, I would have squicked over just a scant year ago. What is safe, sane and consensual becomes a sliding scale when views in the context of time. I pretty much have sought Dominants who held a similar view regarding TIME. Dominants who held an interest in using time to reveal 'more' than the surface of SSC.

What I would consent to at a play party, or negotiating a scene at same, is completely different from what I consent to in a collared situation. Part of the substance of SSC is knowing these differences, and for me, recognizing these differences and choosing wisely (safe).

If one just does a checklist with a prospective partner, it doesn't really reflect what I'd consent to always. I might not engage in certain edge play with someone I'm newly involved with. But on a checklist I'd have to put a Yes on the item because it is not a limit. A yes on a checklist might be seen as consent, I'm just not sure it always is. This is where time plays a revealing part.

But then, I suppose this is the crux of my knee-jerk reaction to SSC (as a slogan), that time is often factored out of the equation. It's almost as if all the other social skills we have learned while 'growing up' are no longer necessary because we now have SSC.

Giving you a detailed list of what I consider not safe, SO depends on who I am submitting to. I don't submit in a vacuum. I summit to a person, and when I do, what is safe, sane and consensual may vary. As I've said, time usually mitigates all these things, not the integrity of a Dominant.

I'm fortunate, because of my need to take my time, I've usually been on then same wave length as the Dominants I've known. So, consent became a non-issue over time, as I had the same limits as those I bent my knee to. I think the substance of SSC is in the time spent. Time will reveal how safe, sane and consensual your BDSM really is, AND how rewarding it can be.

I know this isn't exactly answering your query, but it is the best I can do. I don't have a list of things I consider unsafe. I have a list of things I'd consider unsafe to do with certain Dominants--but that is a different issue. Because I'd consider it unsafe, my consent would fall into question and this is how I exercise my own brand of sanity.

~ cait

 

[Caitlynne]

In fact, I would suggest (based in what people are tell me) that this particular phrase is just a lie the BDSM community came up with to get the vanilla world off its back. [/B]

That's not entirely off base as an evaluation. I'm not sure I'd characterize it as a lie, but I'd certainly say that it was indeed relative.

It just depends....

I can't tell from your posts whether or not you are really looking for some 'answers' or just playing the 'devil's advocate with us (Although I suspect you are merely stiring a pot here). I don't mind discussing something in depth, we don't do it often enough around here, but I'm not interested in just playing with you because you're bored on a Sunday afternoon.

Let me ask you a few questions..

How does knowing what I consider to be unsafe (in detail), help you determine what is safe for you?

We either can share our 'perspectives' and increase our awareness of how others live, or we can wrangle over the details. I'm not sure what your goal here really is. If it's details you want, I'm sorry I can't give them to you, because it is all an "It depends".

I'm also not interested in compiling a list of 'unsafe' activities meant to define absolutely what the "Safe" in SSC really means. It's a waste of time and energy and too much like just running down a checklist. Or is that what you are really asking here, what is on our hard limits list?

 

[ownedsubgal]

i've always viewed SSC as a bdsm mantra/slogan, having to do with bdsm play and activities. and from what i've heard about the origins of the term, it did originally refer to bdsm play within the leather world.

with that said, it's nothing that i felt has ever applied to my lifestyle, since my lifestyle is not bdsm. i certainly don't see it as applying to a D/s Master/slave relationship such as i live with my Master.

 

[Lancecastor]

I think people ought to spend more time fucking and less time attaching and interpreting lables used to judge and grade each other.

 

[Quint]

In fact, I would suggest (based in what people are tell me) that this particular phrase is just a lie the BDSM community came up with to get the vanilla world off its back.

Oh, is that the thought you had from me bringing up the Bible?

Honestly, the progression of this thread feels very reactionary of you. It feels like you're deliberately ignoring why the SSC credo would develop in the first place--are we really just trying to cover our asses or are we acting out of genuine concern? If it's the former, then yeah, all this talk about gray areas and interpretation of consensual and such is crap. Black is black and animals can't consent and breathplay is not sane and the vanilla world can always trust us to be superhuman and never make mistakes because we follow SSC!

I think not. I think we're humans before we're sexual gods. Give me my imperfect sex, fuckups and all, and let's assume the latter.

So, if it's the latter, who cares if the details of my "safe" list differ from yours? Lots of people know here, I've made no secret, that I have regularly engaged in breath play, which is not on anybody's "safe list," really. What IS safe is my awareness of the inherent dangers of said play. My friends here know that they can trust my judgement if not the nature of the things I do. They know that when I play edgy, I play aware edgy. That helps them sleep at night. If they knew that my edge came without a manual, they would be well within their rights to caution me. That's what I would call SSC at it's best.

Sorry I didn't play the "what do I think is safe and what don't I" game. It's fun but honestly, I do a lot of stuff that I don't recommend to most people until I'm sure that they are going in with a clear head. I also deliberately drink until legally I can't give consent to what happens to my body. And I believe that a person can sanely disassociate from work (housewives), friends (military), and family (adoptions) without negative repercussions.

Hiya, Lance. Nice to see you cutting through as usual.

 

[Caitlynne]

I think people ought to spend more time fucking and less time attaching and interpreting lables used to judge and grade each other.

I swear some day I'll learn the art of brevity.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Francisco:
"I think that is taking it a bit too far."
Safety, sanity, and consensuality are either relative or not. If they are relative, which is what I'm hearing, then I don't see how they serve any purpose as guidelines. In fact, I would suggest (based in what people are tell me) that this particular phrase is just a lie the BDSM community came up with to get the vanilla world off its back.

I put those links in there and I referred to the library for a reason. Defining SSC is something which has been done many times over and over again, which is why I pointed you to the Library and named an alternative namely RACK, which is not so well known and might be more suited to your character.

You make however a very valid remark, is SSC a lie made up to justify BDSM to vanilla? Maybe to a degree that is a correct assumption. But to understand SSC we need to first look at history, in the old days when the old guard ruled the world SSC did not exist and there was no clear cut way or direction to what was safe and not. Basically it came down to the negotiation of the parties involved, which is basically still the case nowadays.

There existed a more of a wild west feeling to BDSM and a less regulated and sophisticated BDSM ruled the waves, where safety was concerned that is. This made BDSM have a very bad reputation and actually scared people away from it. This I have of course all out of literature as I am not old enough to have actually lived in those days.

So SSC was invented for two reasons, to make guidelines and nothing more than that, guidelines for the involved parties so they would know how to negotiate and have some idea of what was dangerous and not. The second part was for public image which has worked really well.

The problem with SSC is that it has been adopted not as a set of guidelines or maybe advisories is a better word in this context but basically as the BDSM bible to live by. Most have forgotten why SSC was thought up and ignore the fact that we (PYL) sometimes let our partners endure things which definitely are not SSC.

Francisco.

 

[Lancecastor]

I swear some day I'll learn the art of brevity.

Your posts were great; I read them all in full.

But isn't that what it comes down to?

Does anyone question the sanity of a vanilla relationship? A gay relationship? A lesbian relationship?

Then why question the sanity or two who where one likes her ass spanked hard when she cums?

It's insecurity, control, guilt and general bullshit.

It my mate wants her nipples pulled... hard... while I go down on her, that's our business. Nobody else's. Period.

 

[WildRose40DDD]

SSC

I don't post here often....but this one caught my attention.

It isn't hard for me to define SSC

Safe is probably the easiest. It means a Dom/Master (I use male only to cut down on / and titles) should be skilled with those instruments/tools/techniques that He brings into play. That He should be prepared for emergencies or accidents that may arise. That He take into account the physical condition and any physical problems His sub/slave may have. And that He do no lasting physical harm and nothing intentionally that would require medical intervention.

Sane is a bit tougher but still clear. That neither party is harmed emotionally from the encounter. That both have discussed past issues or traumas that could cause them to react poorly to certain things. I cannot tolerate anyone, including Master to smack my face, it is deep and emotional, and would hit some deep psychological sore spots, so it is Sane for Him to avoid it. Sane is not locking a claustrophobic in a box or sealing them in a body bag.

Consensual is the easiest as there is little debate on this one. That both parties have discussed what their limits are and have entered into the situation/scene voluntarily. That both parties be of clear mind, not drunk or drugged and be legally capable of consenting.

I hope this helps, because to me SSC does have a meaning, and it is not so general it loses it's meaning. Yes it is a basic guideline, and much negotiating should be done besides saying I play SSC, but it is still meaningful.

wildrose

 

[Caitlynne]

Your posts were great; I read them all in full.

But isn't that what it comes down to?

Does anyone question the sanity of a vanilla relationship? A gay relationship? A lesbian relationship?

Then why question the sanity or two who where one likes her ass spanked hard when she cums?

It's insecurity, control, guilt and general bullshit.

It my mate wants her nipples pulled... hard... while I go down on her, that's our business. Nobody else's. Period.

Yes, I believe this is exaclty what it comes down to.

 

[Guest]

*grin* Brevity eh?

I swear some day I'll learn the art of brevity.

Okees.....

Safe: You won't die or be permanently injured/marked by whatever activity you agreed to in a moment of lust...

Sane: Fucked if I know...This one NEVER made any damn sense.

Consensual: Means you both agreed to it. (Notice the BOTH).
If you however did NOT agree to have the Chipmunk inserted in your ass...Then you have a right to bitch..

 

[Caitlynne]

Re: *grin* Brevity eh?

If you however did NOT agree to have the Chipmunk inserted in your ass...Then you have a right to bitch.

*snicker*

 

[Netzach]

http://www.leatherleadership.org/library/safesanestein.htm

SSC, as evidenced by the link, has a history, it's not just something people thought up in an effort to drive one another crazy. It's not the fault of the GMSMA that the leather world got so big, so mainstream, and so multilayered that a perfectly good idea, in my book (let's not kill one another, let's not psychologically damage one another and let's not do things to people who don't want any part in it) got so incredibly overblown.

I don't like the anti-SSC backlash and the RACK craze very much. I personally always felt there was a tinge of, well, homophobia about the way pan/het BDSM folk felt the compulsion to reinvent this wheel and screech about how flawed it is every six seconds.

It's not perfect. Well, duh, it's an acronym and a slogan. It's meant to be the entry point to a dialogue not the ending point. If people are too silly to figure that out, that's their problem.

 

[catalina_francisco]

http://www.leatherleadership.org/library/safesanestein.htm

SSC, as evidenced by the link, has a history, it's not just something people thought up in an effort to drive one another crazy. It's not the fault of the GMSMA that the leather world got so big, so mainstream, and so multilayered that a perfectly good idea, in my book (let's not kill one another, let's not psychologically damage one another and let's not do things to people who don't want any part in it) got so incredibly overblown.

I don't like the anti-SSC backlash and the RACK craze very much. I personally always felt there was a tinge of, well, homophobia about the way pan/het BDSM folk felt the compulsion to reinvent this wheel and screech about how flawed it is every six seconds.

It's not perfect. Well, duh, it's an acronym and a slogan. It's meant to be the entry point to a dialogue not the ending point. If people are too silly to figure that out, that's their problem.

You may have a point there Netzach. In most things which work and become known and associated with a particular societal group, it seems those that come after and do not belong to that same group tend to fiddle and change it, often try and claim ownership to a degree, and usually try to remove references particular to the original group. In part it is a matter of refining to suit the needs of the new group, but like you, I also think in some way, subconscious or otherwise, it becomes a matter of creating a distance from the original group. You would think people could just accept by the 21st century that we are all part of the human race with the same biological and emotional needs as each other, albeit at times through a different means.

Catalina