Safewords

Rand Al'tor · Post by **Rand Al'tor** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:48 am

Hmm, I encountered a pretty yummie page by a friend, including some extremely well written stories about lesbian domination. The writer claims the stories are 'true to life', and f she's a liar, then she's that good a liar that I don't really mind. I'm pretty ignorant on the whole scene, but it came across as pretty realistic. She's pretty deeply into it, but hey, that didn't really bother me.

And then here my imagination and libido suddnely got droned out by my conscience crying foul.

She, being usually submissive BTW, doesn't use safewords as a matter of principle. She accepts that other people do, but finds that their presence removes the thrill for her, and she absolutely trusts her partners. She says that it is an issue of security VS freedom, and that others should let her be free to do as she please and engage in submisison without any way for her to stop it.

I feel differently.

I'll freely admit any knoledge I have of domination and submission is second hand and some roleplaying fun over the net. But the existence of a safeword or another way for a submissive partner to say ' stop' is an important line between kinky sex and... well...

rape.

(oh yes, we're at THAT subject again)

She claims that lack of consent does not equal rape. After all, she searched these things out, she knos she greatly enjoys them, etc. etc. I on the other hand feel that those things are not the main thing. Someone engaging in sex should always, ALWAYS have the option to back out. When you take away that option, it doesn't matter if you guided her to Nirvana, it's rape. A safeword and other 'signs' (snap your fingers) gives that way, and are the one thing that makes all the begging and spanking and crying and rough anal taking part of the agreement. She says she would miss out on the biggest thrills of submission since she couldn't bring herself not to use the safeword until she is ' in the zone' , I say 'tough'.

I still read it, but.... it jarrs a bit no. Because a big part of me says. "If I was a cop or judge, and one ay or another I find out about stuff like this, I'm throwing the book at the dominant person in that relationship, no matter what the submissive one says, and if I'm not, most likely I WILL be telling it TO the police.."

What are your thoughts?

JaronK · Post by **JaronK** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:14 pm

I think you're absolutely correct. First off, it's dangerous for the dom if things go bad, legally. Second of all, if there's a safety issue, such as she's unable to get enough air to survive or the dom has accidentally done something that can cause serious long term issues, she needs a back door out. If she's suddenly lost feeling in a leg because she's lost circulation, she needs to be able to end things quickly to remedy this.

What's she's doing is very dangerous, and while I can understand that she's getting off on that danger, it's not healthy in the long haul. A better solution would be to get a safe word that she tells herself she'll never use. If she ever gets in a situation so bad she needs to use it, then so be it.

JaronK

Jackalope · Post by **Jackalope** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:19 pm

I'll just float the idea of "consent in advance." She wouldn't agree to have rough sex with someone if she didn't want it. That agreement is consent right there, regardless of whether or not she and her partner use a safeword later on. In fact, the agreement to not use a safeword could be considered part of the (spoken) contract between her and her partner.

This is worlds away from no pre-agreement at all. Her partners aren't just jumping on her and abusing her without any negotiating at all, are they? That would indeed be rape. What you've described is a grey area, but unless this woman and her partners are just plain stupid, some amount of negotiation has gone on before sex actually took place.

Rand Al'tor · Post by **Rand Al'tor** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:27 pm

Oh there has been. However, I still feel that an agreement to have sex should remain open to annulation during the whole thing. It's not a problem with the rough sex. It's the problem that she can't back out. After all, people DO have the right to change their mind in the middle of sex.

In fact, the whole POINT seems to be that she wants the sex to be non-consentual. It's not as bad as plain old 'grab and rape' I'll give you that, but when you remove the saford need, you're getting into dangerously muddy waters, and allowing for ' but I thought it was kinky stuff' defences.

I don't feel you CAN give consent to have your fundamental rights revoked. It'd be like selling yourself into slavery (and I mean economical slavery)

Jackalope · Post by **Jackalope** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:31 pm

I'm not saying it's a good idea to run without a safeword. But I don't think it quite qualifies as "rape," either.

Rand Al'tor · Post by **Rand Al'tor** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:36 pm

*nods* I kinda feel it is though. or rape-ish. The whole point is that at some point, no matter how much the sub WANTS the dom to stop, and really, REALLY wants them to stop, there's no way to do it. Ho can you tell the difference between that and someone taking advantadge of the situation and abusing someone. Sure, the people she is around tend to help her and make sure she's all right, etc. etc. but that doesn't alter the fact that they had sex with her while she specifically said ' no' and a 'no' that hasn't been 'neutralized' by a safeword means 'no' I feel, and continuing against the sub/victim's will qualifies as rape.

Sweet or Sour · Post by **Sweet or Sour** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:47 pm

Also it can't be ignored that the person playing the role of dominant is alloying the event to occur without a safeword also, and is exposed openly to danger [legal, emotional, and otherwise]. As with any activity that requires multiple willing participants [even if one is playing a passive roll, that person invited the situation], all involved are responsible for assuring that adequate and proper structure is in place. The sub is not the only one choosing to walk a tight rope, even if the dom isn't subjected to physical aspects of danger.

Warmachine · Post by **Warmachine** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 4:18 pm

I agree. Everyone has an inalieable right not to have sex not of their choosing, even in the middle of the act. This is a right, not a privilege. It cannot be signed away in an agreement. This is to prevent abuses of power in the same way that you cannot agree to work below minimum wage. An enforced minimum wage prevents employers abusing a buyers market and driving workers into abject poverty because the worker has no realistic choice. This is for the worker's protection, even if he does not realise it. A slave is still being tyrannised, even if he does not realise he's a slave.

Similarly, the right exists for everyone's protection, even if someone doesn't see it. Sex that someone doesn't want is emotionaly damaging, even if danger is exciting. Thus, this right always exists and must always exist. You cannot agree not to have it. Both parties must ensure that the right can be exercised in some way and a safeword is a common mechanism. If the sub agrees to not use it if something scares him or her until he decides he really can't handle it, he still retains the right and is protected.

If the sub panicks too quickly, then he must realise that he can't handle the danger at a subsconscious level, even if he's left unsatisfied. Breach that and damage will result, even if he can't see it. That is why the right exists.

Slander · Post by **Slander** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 4:32 pm

In the BDSM group I belong to, we use a principle called Risk Aware Consentual Kink, or RACK. Essentially, this means that all parties acknowledge the dangers of their play. They consent to what's happening. There is always a danger in BDSM, especially in edgier play, like knifeplay and breathplay.

I'm going to use gender pronouns here, referring to the dominant in the masculine and the submissive in the female. Please take these terms as neutral. Though I've experienced this from both sides of the whip, most of my first-hand experience with no longer needing a safeword comes from my experiences as a male submitting to female Dominants.

When two people have been playing together for a long time, when they know each other's limits intimately, the need for safewords lessens and, eventually, disappears. Some of these pairings (or groupings) discard using safewords with each other entirely at that point. The Dominant doesn't need the submissive to signal Yellow or Red; he knows when she's reaching that point even before she does.

Some BDSM partners prefer to keep that safety net, for all the obvious reasons (liability, some degree of control over a scene, etc.) Some submissives are looking for partners with whom they can eventually give up safewords because they want to submit completely, without reservations.

You have to have complete trust in your partner to give up safewords, yes. But any reasonably-intelligent submissive knows that you don't immediately jump onto the St. Andrew's cross with someone you've just met and give up safewording. The person in the stories mention by Rand probably plays with only a handful of partners, and they're probably partners she's been playing with for years.

In short, when a submissive gives up safewords to her partner, she is doing so consentually. She knows that her Dominant may take her to places where she did not originally intend to go and trusts that he will not take her too far. If a Dominant is worthy of that kind of trust, then the issue of consent vs. non-consent never comes into play.

Tellner · Post by **Tellner** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:28 pm

All very nice, but what does she do if things go beyond what she can tolerate? The joy of completely letting go and leaving someone else in charge to have his or her way with you is a nice fantasy and could be fun. But there are things that no sane person will allow to happen to her. There has to be a way out. "She said yes to anything before I started, so it was consensual even though she was screaming in agony two hours later" isn't going to cut it in court or in the meinds of even vaguely normal.

LindaH · Post by **LindaH** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:05 am

never ever remove safewords: in case something happens they are vital.

doesnt just have to be that you are getting into an area one of you dont like, could also be a health problem or emotional...

say the bottom is gaged and suddenly feels nauseous because that pizza she/he ate might not agree with her.. etc...

Warmachine · Post by **Warmachine** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:55 pm

Rights are enforced from without or they are not rights. In the same way that government departments slap employers for paying below minimum wage, even if no employer complained, the right to stop unwanted sex is enforced even if no one asked for it. In the case of minimum wage, all workers benefit even if they vehemently deny wanting it. In times of heavily baised, employers market, workers know not doing that makes them unemployed sooner or later. Minimum wage must be enforced from without.

In the case of sado-masochism, as other posters have pointed out, sooner or later, something will go wrong. Both partners must be reminded to keep the safeword or other mechanism. If the sub promises never to use the safeword, he can still change his mind in an actual emergency. If the sub panicks too quickly, then he doesn't want to experience new forms of pain and helplessness. Not really.

Is this paternalist? Yep. Can risk be eliminated? No. Should injury, whether physical or mental, be stopped once it's detected? Yes. Escape clauses are mandatory.

Indigo Violent · Post by **Indigo Violent** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:55 pm

jackalope wrote:I'm not saying it's a good idea to run without a safeword. But I don't think it quite qualifies as "rape," either.

I sense the hand of Errata, goddess of misunderstandings, in my post, but here it goes anyway.
Essentially, the person in this scenario has no way of saying no, no choice of making it stop. One cannot legitimately say she consents if she doesn't have that choice. Sex without consent is rape.

Rand Al'tor · Post by **Rand Al'tor** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:52 pm

Slander wrote:In the BDSM group I belong to, we use a principle called Risk Aware Consentual Kink, or RACK. Essentially, this means that all parties acknowledge the dangers of their play. They consent to what's happening. There is always a danger in BDSM, especially in edgier play, like knifeplay and breathplay.

I'm going to use gender pronouns here, referring to the dominant in the masculine and the submissive in the female. Please take these terms as neutral. Though I've experienced this from both sides of the whip, most of my first-hand experience with no longer needing a safeword comes from my experiences as a male submitting to female Dominants.

When two people have been playing together for a long time, when they know each other's limits intimately, the need for safewords lessens and, eventually, disappears. Some of these pairings (or groupings) discard using safewords with each other entirely at that point. The Dominant doesn't need the submissive to signal Yellow or Red; he knows when she's reaching that point even before she does.

Some BDSM partners prefer to keep that safety net, for all the obvious reasons (liability, some degree of control over a scene, etc.) Some submissives are looking for partners with whom they can eventually give up safewords because they want to submit completely, without reservations.

You have to have complete trust in your partner to give up safewords, yes. But any reasonably-intelligent submissive knows that you don't immediately jump onto the St. Andrew's cross with someone you've just met and give up safewording. The person in the stories mention by Rand probably plays with only a handful of partners, and they're probably partners she's been playing with for years.

In short, when a submissive gives up safewords to her partner, she is doing so consentually. She knows that her Dominant may take her to places where she did not originally intend to go and trusts that he will not take her too far. If a Dominant is worthy of that kind of trust, then the issue of consent vs. non-consent never comes into play.

You know... it's not even the 'medical safety that is my main issue with this. The writer gave some arguments saying that with experienced doms, safewords might do more good than harm. I have no way of knowing this is true, though I must say it reminds me of people saying earing seatbelts is more dangerous than not earing them.

Incidentally, the lady from the example never uses safewords... ever... and gets her partners in advertisements. Which just.... adds to the mess.

Still, EVEN among people that have been dom/subbing for so long their relation is as close as any married couple, I still feel that 'no safeword' makes the whole thing impalpatable. Even in a marriage, no means no, and there HAS to be a 'no' even if it's ' antideesablishmentarism'.

Yes, the sub trusts the dom, yes, the dom knos the sub intimately. STILL it is not for the dom to decide when the sub has reached their limit. The dom can decide when they don't feel it's safe anymore, but only the person themself can decide what she can and what she can't take. That is the INALIENABLE right of each and every person, and as said before, I feel it is not an ' option'.

I know this takes some of the more intense parts out of some people's play, but things like BDSM do not happen in a vacuum, and are just as subject to the laws of the land, and those say, I believe, that to remove the ways to deny or retract consent you're turning the whole thing into rape. And I believe that that particular law is a good one.

We are not islands. What happens to one of us, might happen to all of us. Once someone cannot retract consent, a sexual scene becomes 'possibly' against the sub's will. Just like someone you slip a roofie MIGHT have decided to have sex with you anyway, but is unable to give/remove consent (and removing the ability to consent halfway is as good as removing it beforehand) so even IF afterwards they take a look at you, fron, then shrug and decide that they wanted to get laid anyay (yeah, not likely, just making a point) you still committed rape. We, as people, cannot tolerate that someone, somehere is getting sex they might not be agreeing to. The only guarantee is the consent of BOTH partners. Not even the most trustworthy , intelligent and careful dom can provide that.

And as said, you can put strings attached to the safeword. You can even make clear that using it will be grounds for terminating the relationship. The safeword can remain unused for years and years. But it's still gotta be there.

Frombork! · Post by **Frombork!** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:55 am

Hmmm... seems I'm the minority here.

I agree with every statement made in this thread as to the danger, impracticality, and irresponsibility of "flying without a net". It turns my stomach to think of what could go wrong, for both parties involved. But I do not think it (as she described it in her article) is morally wrong, and as for legally... well, governments and bedrooms.

Shortcut: However, this is coming from someone who doesn't think risking bodily (or psychological) harm is necessarily morally wrong either, so if we don't agree on the latter we'll never agree on the former.

I'm new, please don't haze me. Or, if you do, the safeword is "Archipelago"

Tellner · Post by **Tellner** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:55 am

Oh, I don't think that risking harm is morally wrong per se just stupid or a sign of extreme addiction to your own adrenaline. If there are people who depend on you it becomes morally wrong. There are things I just can not do as a married man because I have a wife. My responsibility to be there for her trumps just about anything. If we manage to have children that gets squared and cubed. Die defending them? In a heartbeat. Die or be disabled doing something dumb for fun? Not any more.

Rand Al'tor · Post by **Rand Al'tor** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:38 pm

My main objection to OTHER people doing it (I've got plenty more why I'M not doing it) is not really the danger of people getting hurt. After all, I have no issues ith bungee jumping or skydiving. It is the loss of the ways to exercise right to decide what happens to your own body. Some people may not FEEL like exercising that right but AT ALL TIMES, and particularly in a sexual environment, should it be within reach. Doesn't matter if you just tied them up, gagged them and have vannilla sex otherwise or do things that would make my ears bleed. As long as they can give and withdra consent, it's none of my business, if they CAN'T, even giving them a handjob is beyond the line.

As for bedrooms. I believe the usual fill sentence is . "What two consenting adults to in the privacy of their bedroom is their business."

Keyword being consenting.

Once someone's rendered unable to withdraw consent, we must consider them as NOT giving consent, no matter what.

And when someone is in a sexual situation without consent, it is very much the government's business, bedroom or no bedroom.

Of course, I don't expect cops to go storm in dungeons demanding to have people say safewords or give other signals. However, if it becomes somehow known to the police that a couple has been operating without them (After a bad break-up for example) the dom shouldn't be surprised if they have boys in blue at their door.

Honor · Post by **Honor** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:52 pm

*it should be noted here, that I read most but not all of her (long) post on the subject, and agree almost completely with what I read. When I say "she" and "sub" in the explanation below, I mean a submissive or slave in the generic sense and not the author specifically.... Since, obviously, you know, I don't know her and stuff.

essentially, Rand Al'tor wrote:no safe word = rape

(also asnwers Indigo's point about the fact that she loses the capability to revoke consent.)

Deep, complex topic, but the short version of the answer is that, due to your well-intentioned position outside the matrix, you're incorrect.

Not having any kind of safeword, while it might very well be stupid, is not rape.

The argument, "but then she can't change her mind" doesn't go all the way to the wall, because what she's consenting to isn't "sex", it's surrendering completely to this other person... Sex may be involved, but it's not "The thing." It's not about the sex. Beatings may be involved, a certain mode of dress may be involved, protocols may be involved, cleaning the livingroom may be involved. But none of those are "the thing". "The thing" is surrendering complete and total control. That's what she's "consenting" to. And calling a hypothetical violation of this ...right to self control... "rape" is like calling prolonged fatal torture followed by bodily mutilation "assault".

Her consent doesn't say, merely "you can have sex with me" but rather "I belong to you, in the material sense, and thus you may do with me as you will."

And yes, it's better to have a safeword. And yes, the legal position is precarious (with or without one). And yes, the dom might be prosecuted for rape or whatever... In a lot of ways, the legal risks a Dom takes are more looming than the physical risks a submissive takes.

If you ask someone to kill you, and they consent, it's not murder, but it's still homicide... And, as Jack Kevorkian has demonstrated, in our current legal climate, they're likely going inside for all day for doing you that favor.

If you ask someone to rape you, and they consent, then it's not rape... it's... something else. Even if you change your mind. You pulled the trigger. In this most rare of circumstances, the "verb"... the impetus of action that makes rape rape belongs to you, not your "rapist". And, yes... If it somehow comes down to a court fight, against you or the state, they're probably going inside for all day for doing you that favor. But it's still not 'rape'.

The vanishingly rare situation you're afraid of, where a theoretical total immersion slave suddenly wants to revoke consent in situ could be prevented by the employment of a safeword, but it could also be prevented by the Dom knowing the sub and reading her properly, and giving a shit.

Which is why I generally say, only half jokingly, I strongly advocate the use of safewords in every situation but my own.

In case anyone's the least bit interested: I typically say pretty much exactly what she does... If you insist on having a safeword, I'm not the right girl for you. Thanks for the interest, now buh-bye. Sometimes, if the situation warrants further discussion, I'll say something like the following:

If you want to have a safeword, so you can have a special way of letting me know when you feel your limits are being reached, you can choose one, and tell me about it... But you have to be prepared for the possibility I might say that I know it hurts, or is emotionally or intellectually or physically uncomfortable, and I know you don't want to do it. But you're going to do it anyway.

If you're going to use the safeword to tell me "I think I'm injured." then say "I think I'm injured." if you're thinking you can use the safeword to say "I don't want to do this anymore." and I'll obey your wish, then you've greviously misapprehended the nature of the situation, and it's a good thing we found out beforehand. We won't be working together...

Rand Al'tor · Post by **Rand Al'tor** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:47 pm

Honor wrote:*it should be noted here, that I read most but not all of her (long) post on the subject, and agree almost completely with what I read. When I say "she" and "sub" in the explanation below, I mean a submissive or slave in the generic sense and not the author specifically.... Since, obviously, you know, I don't know her and stuff.

essentially, Rand Al'tor wrote:no safe word = rape
(also asnwers Indigo's point about the fact that she loses the capability to revoke consent.)

Deep, complex topic, but the short version of the answer is that, due to your well-intentioned position outside the matrix, you're incorrect.

I'm indeed, quite outside the matrix. however, their matrix is WITHIN the larger matrix of our society and has to unction within its rules. (well, maybe SHE isn't as Belgium and the US are pretty far apart but... a hypothetical Belgian dom or sub would be.

[quote[ Not having any kind of safeword, while it might very well be stupid, is not rape.[/quote]

Legally? I'd say yes. Which means disagreement. YAY!

The argument, "but then she can't change her mind" doesn't go all the way to the wall, because what she's consenting to isn't "sex", it's surrendering completely to this other person... Sex may be involved, but it's not "The thing." It's not about the sex. Beatings may be involved, a certain mode of dress may be involved, protocols may be involved, cleaning the livingroom may be involved. But none of those are "the thing". "The thing" is surrendering complete and total control. That's what she's "consenting" to. And calling a hypothetical violation of this ...right to self control... "rape" is like calling prolonged fatal torture followed by bodily mutilation "assault".

One thinbg clear. When i say 'rape' I mean it in the purely legal sense. 'sexual congress without consent' I agree that what happens is different in every way than the rape that happens in dark alleys. But apples and oranges are both fruit.

1:We have an inalienable right to decide what happens with our body. Inalienable meaning that it CANNOT be suspeded. Even when you might want to because of what you might get out of it. The right is there. hich brings me to #2

2: The violation of self-control is not hypothetical. The sub ithout a safe word HAS no control of hta happens to her. At all. I realize that is the whole point of the exercise, but I feel that in a society valueing freedom such a situation cannot be tolerated.

Her consent doesn't say, merely "you can have sex with me" but rather "I belong to you, in the material sense, and thus you may do with me as you will."

And that consent is not a valid 'contract'. As far as society is concerned, her body is her on, and always will be, and that must be respected. She can give it on WRIT that she wants to totally submit and it won't make a LICK of difference. She MUST have a way out.

And yes, it's better to have a safeword. And yes, the legal position is precarious (with or without one). And yes, the dom might be prosecuted for rape or whatever... In a lot of ways, the legal risks a Dom takes are more looming than the physical risks a submissive takes.

True... we had a judge here in Belgium that got in troubles. And he didn't go very far ith his wife AND used safewords. I'm very much in favour of getting the legal positions of Doms and subs 'legalized' so all parties involved can do their thing without worry of getting accused of assault. However, I feel that any law addressing the issue should make the existance of a safeword the limit between 'legal' and ' illegal'.

If you ask someone to kill you, and they consent, it's not murder, but it's still homicide... And, as Jack Kevorkian has demonstrated, in our current legal climate, they're likely going inside for all day for doing you that favor.

Ah, I thought that topic would come up. That particular one IS a toughie. For those who CAN end themselves, I would say that it is something they should do themselves. (IIRC Ghastly mentioned he felt there should be pills that you could get, after some guidance and such, that would allow someone to reliably and painlessly pass away) If you do it to someone else, I don't know what the courts said exactly, I'm inclined to call it murder still.

Now when someone CAN'T off themselves, and is in SERIOUS agony ith little hope for ever having a normal life? THEN, with PLENTY of safety measures and society watching, we could allow someone to give up his right not to have someone do that to his body.

But giving up all rights because of something which I realize runs deep, but is still not essential?

Not a chance. All rights still in full effect. Ignore them at your legal peril.

(Of course, all this assumes that Rand runs the show... which he doesn't. So the rules are different, often more strict and more vague... which isn't a good thing for laws to be)

If you ask someone to rape you, and they consent, then it's not rape... it's... something else. Even if you change your mind. You pulled the trigger. In this most rare of circumstances, the "verb"... the impetus of action that makes rape rape belongs to you, not your "rapist". And, yes... If it somehow comes down to a court fight, against you or the state, they're probably going inside for all day for doing you that favor. But it's still not 'rape'.

If, halfway the scene, you clearly showed that you wanted to stop... and the rapists had no way of knowing that you DON'T mean that (safewords) then YES, that is rape. And if I'd be a jury, I'd be damn well adamant that said persons go down for rape. Your right to withdraw consent for a sexual encounter can NOT be invalidated, even by yourself. Just as I can post in the newspaper that everyone can shoot me if they like to, but you're STILL a murderer if you do.

The vanishingly rare situation you're afraid of, where a theoretical total immersion slave suddenly wants to revoke consent in situ could be prevented by the employment of a safeword, but it could also be prevented by the Dom knowing the sub and reading her properly, and giving a shit.

It's not just the sub and the dom. we as a society have a stake in this, because both sub and dom are a part of us. We are all equal under law. what is allowed for one, is allowed for the other. And I, and I think many others, do not trust some person to take another person in a situation where we just have to trust the dom ill be kind and smart enough.

Which is why I generally say, only half jokingly, I strongly advocate the use of safewords in every situation but my own.

In case anyone's the least bit interested: I typically say pretty much exactly what she does... If you insist on having a safeword, I'm not the right girl for you. Thanks for the interest, now buh-bye. Sometimes, if the situation warrants further discussion, I'll say something like the following:

If you want to have a safeword, so you can have a special way of letting me know when you feel your limits are being reached, you can choose one, and tell me about it... But you have to be prepared for the possibility I might say that I know it hurts, or is emotionally or intellectually or physically uncomfortable, and I know you don't want to do it. But you're going to do it anyway.

If you're going to use the safeword to tell me "I think I'm injured." then say "I think I'm injured." if you're thinking you can use the safeword to say "I don't want to do this anymore." and I'll obey your wish, then you've greviously misapprehended the nature of the situation, and it's a good thing we found out beforehand. We won't be working together...

Hm... good thing we're in different countries then, and happily anonymous, so we'll never have to meet in court and all this discussion is wonderfully academic, because... welll... if I were on jury duty when someone whom you misjudged and stepped to the police, I would give a guilty on rape.

Mind you. Wouldn't it be tolerable if you just said. "Okay, here's a safeword.... but if you use it, I untie you, take my stuff, wish you a good life and leave."

Ah crap... kinda sounds more mean than I ish. I don't think you're a bad person, Honor. I just feel strongly about this.

Indigo Violent · Post by **Indigo Violent** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:56 pm

All well and good, but most people don't know themselves well enough to know when enough is enough until they're actually in that situation. I don't mean just sex. I couldn't wait to learn to drive - then, on my sixteenth birthday, I sat down in the driver's seat and got the shakes so bad I almost threw up, and didn't get behind the wheel again for a year. A friend of mine went in to get her navel pierced, completely cool about the whole thing, until the piercer brought out the needle and she fainted. Basically, unless you're psychic, you've got no way of knowing sometimes.