Below is a message I posted jsut now in response to a discussion on the TES-Talk mailing list. Since I haven’t quoted any text that isn’t mine nor have I revelaed the location of our secret satan worship potluck and happy hour I can post it publically without fear of attack by the Guardians.
The discussion was about “Safe Sane and Consensual”. If your at all involved in the BDSM community you will recognize this little gem. Its sort of like “no child left behind” and “I did not have sex with that woman”… a cool political slogan that has almost no relevance to reality.
posted by Soulhuntre to TES-Talk on 06/04/2006 at 17:58
Hey all ๐
So I ignore this list for a while and things go all crazy. It’s always interesting to come back and see all the drama from the perspective of not having been involved in it minute by minute. I could go ahead and recap the high points, but then there would just be a lot of arguing about whether or not they are accurate and frankly why bother? However I will make some comments and observations and offer some links to longer comments on the relevant topics.
It has always been clear that a segment of the BDSM activist community (in this case as represented by the NCSF) considers SSC as the “one true way” to practice BDSM. They also consider anyone who doesn’t agree with the adoption of that slogan as policy and mantra are dangerous psychopaths they can equate to serial killers at every opportunity. The same basic issues go with the topic of safewords.
When all the hair splitting is done, the core difference between what is often presented as the view of good, right thinking BDSM people has these concepts at its core:
- The submissive / bottom is ultimately in charge
- That moment to moment consent is necessary and that the bottom / submissive can remove consent at any time and all activities they don’t consent to must immediately cease.
There are some additional points that are implied but not always stated flat out. One interesting thing abou the recent conversation here is that these WERE stated “out loud”.
- Anyone who doesn’t hold this view is advocating abuse and is at “home grown psychopath” who will someday rise up and kill like the death machine they are.
- Novices submissives / bottoms, despite usually being full grown adults with jobs and who are trusted to make decisions in their lives in other areas, are easily swayed sheep who need to be protected and educated because BDSM is somehow complex or difficult and dangerous.
Obviously, I disagree with the majority of the above as being the litmus test for sanity.
Now, that all being said – for as long as the legal and political environment it is sad but true that TES is regrettably having to toe the line and be an officially “SSC” organization. As a practical matter all that really means is that at our events and our parties TES rules include a safeword entry. Fine, I can live with that. I even see the advantages.
However if this “SSC” policy at TES ever boils down to TES repressing the discussion of or education about relationships that don’t base themselves on either the SSC mantra or tactical consent then TES will lose any relevance it has had as an organization for a large portion of the BDSM community.
The simple reality and dirty little not so secret is this – many, many, many people in the BDSM community who are not serial killers, abusers or psychopaths do not use safewords in their relationship – and think the simplistic mantra of “SSC” is a detriment.
Here’s the thing… being against SSC is no more about being against sanity or safety than being against the “Patriot Act” means that someone hates America. Yet the same silly rhetoric is applied to the arguments. Whenever I discuss the deep and serious problems with SSC I can count on some yahoo asking me why I think sanity is a bad idea. That is, before they equate me with a serial killer.
And herein of course lies the appeal SSC holds to some of its advocates. To be an SSC advocate is to be able to wield a club of moral authority. Anyone who opposes you can be painted as dangerous and insane. This is a powerful tool for political control and is wielded like a hammer by many who want some measure of scene pseudo-power.
Similarly if one can convince the incoming novices to BDSM that the are poor naรฏve fools who will be taken advantage of by the evil predators out there unless they accept your teachings, philosophy and guidance is a classic fear mongering tactic. We see similar attempts at control and authority through appealing to fear in groups around us every day.
IT NEVER CEASES TO AMAZE me when I see someone attempt to tell a human being who is a doctor and makes life and death decisions every day that they couldn’t possibly know whether or not they should let person X hit them with a flogger unless they are “educated”. I’ve seen this and similar conversations happen time and time again.
- You can vote, sure!
- You can decide to drink!
- You can join the military!
- You can have and raise children!
- But dammit you aren’t smart enough to navigate the deep dark world of BDSM without our guidance and protection you silly sheep you!
Of those who I know and respect who happen to be in the BDSM community I find it amusing that almost none of them allow or accept tactical consent in their personal relationships. Obviously they are the dangerous and evil people ๐
Same old same old.