This post is on the D/s & M/s web board.
| 5 Feb 10, 8:47 PM LittleDove UK(BN), 3 yrs  |
[/quote]With my life i trust him completely and utterly... he does scare the crap out of me though 
[/quote]
I couldn't have said it better myself!
Not a shred of evidence exists in favour of the idea that life is serious. | |
| 5 Feb 10, 8:47 PM ClassAct2005 UK(N), 7 yrs  |
Risk aware consensual kink v safe sane consensual - is that what those terms mean? I'm not really into risky sex things at all except that I suppose totally submitting to smoeone for life is may be much riskier long term than occasional risky physical play. So the difference is one is risk aware and the other safe and sane? So someone into the RACK one might do things other might think insane or riskier than SSC? The excitement of a risky sexual practice going wrong... just not something I can imagine feeling sexy for me at all. | |
| 5 Feb 10, 8:52 PM areyouok 2 yrs |
I don't understand why people are so concerned about the terms SSC and RACK. What you call something has no bearing on what it is. Isn't being aware of a risk and accepting it the same as considering that it is safe enough and sane enough for oneself? Frankly, it all just sounds like marketing bollocks to me. But I'm open to arguments about why the language rather than the reality actually matters... Edited 5 Feb 10, 8:54 PM by areyouok | |
| 5 Feb 10, 10:43 PM just_cassie UK(BN), 4 yrs |
Basically, you're right Accordingly to Wikipedia: "Most attribute the term [Safe, Sane, Consensual] to David Stein who coined it in 1984 for GMSMA. More information can be found in the essay titled Safe Sane Consensual: The Evolution of a Shibboleth, in which he states that the term was developed "to distinguish the kind of S/M I wanted to do from the criminally abusive or neurotically self-destructive behavior popularly associated with the term 'sadomasochism'." In other words, admittedly mine in this case, it was orginally coined to highlight the fact that we're not all completely off our respective trolleys and we do actually think/care about what it is we do... RACK came about, essentially because someone(s) pointed out that both "safe" and "sane" were somewhat subjective terms and therefore deciding to do something in full knowledge of the risks involved was perhaps a more honest and meaningful(?) description. Interestingly, there does now seem to be a new distinction whereby someone who claims to play by RACK is more likely to be playing on the edgier side of things than someone who adheres to the mantra of SSC. (Note: I'm not saying this is wrong, these things invariably evolve but I don't believe it was the original intention of the terms). cassie x
| |
| 5 Feb 10, 11:33 PM just_cassie UK(BN), 4 yrs |
Hmmm... if you're guessing that submissives make their own risk assessment prior to handing over consent then I would have to say, not necessarily, at least not to the extent that you, as a (presumably non-submissive) masochist, obviously do (and enjoy) and that's cool... and all that stuff... but... Part of the whole (or is that THE WHOLE) point of submission is that you're handing over control to someone else. Of course, how much and how far, is down to the individual submissive - some will come with a whole list of limits and others will claim to have none... The difference between a "pure masochist" and a submissive is that the latter is more likely to "risk assess" who she/he plays with than what she/he actually *does*... Once the submissive has made that decision, they hand over the control of whatever happens next, which, consequently, is why it is such an important decision to make. I suspect that in many cases, that means that the submissive may not be any *more* RACK/SSC than the partner to whom he/she chooses to submit, indeed, I would suggest that *neither* definition is as significant to a submissive as the question of whether this/that person will do more/worse to them than the things he/she is happy to have done to him/her... cassie x
Edited 5 Feb 10, 11:34 PM by just_cassie | |
| 5 Feb 10, 11:48 PM UberLord UK(LL), 3 yrs |
The key thing with any high risk activity is to mitigate the risk as far as possible and then rely on training, skill and judgment for the rest. From 25 years of extreme Wild Water and Sea kayaking: Risk = Chance of fluffing up * Consequences of Fluffing up My opinion is: No one has the right to tell you what is acceptable risk. That is a personal decision. If it kills you so be it. AND No one has the right to expose another to risk that they are not happy exposing themselves to. You cannot make risk assessments for others. I will not accept anyone telling me that Ice Climbing, Mountaineering, Diving, Kayaking, Pot Holing, Motorcycling, Edge Play etc. should be banned because they are too dangerous for the average person on the street to do safely, or with a suitably well calculated risk.. We should all be free to make our own fully informed calls on what we are comfortable with and able to do. We should all plan for our own contingencies, and if we fluff it all up.. well we didn't know what we were doing did we? There is too much reliance on a nanny community or nanny state protecting us from ourselves. If it happens to you, then it's your fault! Take responsibility for yourself, and what happens to you! Cheers
Rxx Edited 5 Feb 10, 11:52 PM by UberLord | |
| 5 Feb 10, 11:50 PM areyouok 2 yrs |
just_cassie makes a very important point - the difference between “who” and “what”. Ultimately, I think it's all about trusting a person rather than demarcating mere activities.
|
