BDSM at Satanic International Network Forum

io Aug 31 '14

Quote from Vampira 1. You don't know what I've been through, nor what I experienced both in real and online so before judging me so bluntly please inform yourself better.

I am not sure why this is difficult to comprehend, but I'll explain anyway.

Questions are indicated by "?" at the end of a sentence. If you talk about people you encounter and I ask if these are the people you've only met online, you can answer that question with a "yes" or a "no" and even elaborate if you wish.

If you sincerely feel I was "judging you bluntly," you are very mistaken, and should probably examine why that is. Also, think about how you're approaching your interactions on this forum; you may be limiting yourself.

Quote from Vampira I was just trying to understand why certain extremities are acceptable and not.

You asked why certain things should be acceptable. I asked you why they shouldn't be. You stated "some forms" of restraint should be acceptable - implying that others should not. So I then asked about that. You haven't shown me anything so far that demonstrates you're "just trying to understand." You're making value judgments, and I'm questioning them. Put your sardonic eyebrow away, pull on your big girl panties, and stop being a persecuted victim for a moment to let that connect.

Quote from Vampira I mean why would it be acceptable for you or even for me to whip and beat until you bleed the living daylights out of you for the sheer pleasure of it huh? and don't tell me fun within limits because I'll ROFL as hard as I can

You can roll on your floor and laugh as hard as you like, but for some people, getting beaten and bloody ("within limits") is fun. For some people, doing the beating is fun. There can be many emotional, psychological, and physiological reasons why giving or receiving pain can be fun, pleasurable, enlightening, or something other than bad or negative.

Quote from Vampira I'm not any less experienced than you are.

How would you know?

#21

io Aug 31 '14

Quote from Dimitri It might help if you knew your history...

History based on whose telling? Again - where'd you come up with this? It's a legit question and should be easy enough to explain. You act as if it's general knowledge available to anyone who isn't a "kink amateur."

Quote from Dimitri Guess you're dealing with a lot of amateurs...

Absolutely.

Quote from Dimitri My best guess is that "your experiences", and the following guidelines, are a result of you being an amateur. Your attitude during this debate, and the statements brought forth on the table, indicate you're more of a mental fetishist than an actual "kinkster".

Have ye anything more than your straw men? Something substantial?

#22

Member

Khandnalie Aug 31 '14

Quote from io

Quote from Dimitri It might help if you knew your history...

History based on whose telling? Again - where'd you come up with this? It's a legit question and should be easy enough to explain. You act as if it's general knowledge available to anyone who isn't a "kink amateur."

Quote from Dimitri Guess you're dealing with a lot of amateurs...
Absolutely.

Quote from Dimitri My best guess is that "your experiences", and the following guidelines, are a result of you being an amateur. Your attitude during this debate, and the statements brought forth on the table, indicate you're more of a mental fetishist than an actual "kinkster".

Have ye anything more than your straw men? Something substantial?

His point is completely valid. Your attitudes and apparent beliefs indicate that all, if any, experience you have comes from nothing more substantial than mind play. You've obviously never done much of anything that would warrant SSC it RACK to be concepts to be aware of.

Understanding the risks and taking proper precautions to mitigate them is important. Common sense is important. Consent is *hella* important. Any person in the Lifestyle will tell you this. Any even modestly experienced Dom or slave or switch will tell you this. That you can't wrap your head around this indicates that you obviously have no real experience in BDSM.

#23

Vold3mortia Aug 31 '14

@io, quit quoting line for line an just tell it as it is. At least I openly admitted my ideas feelings and thoughts in the matter.

You just picked up my lines and thought it was fun to twist them around. You've given me nothing substantial to argue about thus far have you?

Persecuted victim? Really? I'm sorry to deflate your ego but you're on the wrong side of the running track.

Still you're most welcome to entertain me in either way you choose.

About my interactions. I don't see how I'm limiting myself. I talk in a respectful manner and in an open-minded way and trying not to insult others and am pretty much broad to talk about any subject.

Then again, alas if you want to bleed yourself to the point of excitement please do so, it's your choice not mine, I just do not see the point and likewise a couple more things related to sadomasochism.

V

#24

Member

Khandnalie Aug 31 '14

Quote from Vampira
I just do not see the point and likewise a couple more things related to sadomasochism.

Speaking as someone who is not actively trying to insult you (and everyone else) in this thread, I'd be happy to explain any fine points that may elude you. What, specifically are your questions?

#25

Vold3mortia Aug 31 '14

Many. I'm mostly in it's psychology not it's practice. I'm going to repeat this again. I do not intend to insult anyone, only understand.

To me the practice of BDSM is supposed to be practiced as it actually states : Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism. The thing I cannot get is how people willingly get to such extremities. My point is that BDSM can lead to possible abuse an unwanted situations.

For example some people tend to play out roleplay say scenes of humiliation, degradation heck even play as an obedient and willing pet at the hands of some sadomasochist. I mean when I take a broader look at 'sexual slavery' as a whole there is nothing so tempting about it.

A woman likewise even a man can willingly submit to someone for pleasure without the use of violence and sadistic measures and the other way around. Of course you could use material objects such as ropes, handcuffs, sex toys or whatever else floats your boat to spice and enhance the experience.

Or so I think.....

#26

Ray Ripper Aug 31 '14

Quote from Khandnalie

Quote from Vampira
I just do not see the point and likewise a couple more things related to sadomasochism.

Speaking as someone who is not actively trying to insult you (and everyone else) in this thread, I'd be happy to explain any fine points that may elude you. What, specifically are your questions?

That sounds very constructive, Khandnalle. I think you'd agree that he 'point' of anything is that it gives pleasure to those concerned, but it's also entirely reasonable that others can't see that point. That's what makes human beings so diverse and interesting. And there are limits for some people and not others. The latter beings may be considered insane, but who am I to judge...?

#27

io Aug 31 '14

Quote from Dimitri A guy named "David Stein". I'll give a direct link: http://www.boybear.us/ssc.pdf

That's cute.

SSC is basically the same as RACK. The only difference is that the abbreviation "RACK" substituted SSC by reason there were amateur kinksters who failed to understand the original intent of SSC in the first place.

This is what I wanted you to elaborate on. I wanted you to explain to me what you assert is the original intent of SSC, not give me a link from the first Wikipedia article you happen to Google. Did you even read Stein's article on the origin of the phrase? Do you understand the context in which it came about, and what it quickly became (and still is today)? Does its content seem to disagree or agree with what I said about the SSC vs RACK crowds? RACK was not intended as a "substitute," as you claim, but as an alternative way to view BDSM/kink--this according to the guy who coined the term and wrote about the differences between SSC and RACK. You can find that, too, if you Google a bit more.

SSC as it is commonly understood now (by people such as Khandiwhatever, for whom my original "SSC wtf?" comments were directed) is not the same as RACK. Both acknowledge risk, yet the former advocates a kinder, gentler version of kink, whereas the latter is less "judgmental." A SSC person like Khandiwhatever would lose his precious head if I told him my idea of happysexyfuntimes involved sux injections, "rape," and subsequent tracheal intubation to prevent death via hypoxaemia. Cause, you know, that's cray cray.

A bit of advice: if you don't know what you're talking about, you can figure it out, talk to someone who might actually have some interesting insights on the matter based on years of actual non-internet experience (hi), or STFU.

People like Khandiwhatever regurgitate SSC because that's the kind of dogmatic, PC thinking "acceptable" in the larger kink community. FWIW, I'd rather have the little newbs err on the safer side of things as opposed to being blundering, maiming idiots; however, as I've stated before, BDSM and kink can be quite nuanced and lead to interesting, challenging places if one is willing to think more critically about certain aspects of it (i.e., question the status quo).

For a lot of self-proclaimed Satanist (or Satanist types), the lot of you sure do swallow bullshit readily.

#28

io Aug 31 '14

Quote from Khandnalie Your attitudes and apparent beliefs indicate that all, if any, experience you have comes from nothing more substantial than mind play. You've obviously never done much of anything that would warrant SSC it RACK to be concepts to be aware of.

Giggle.
And you even brought out the big font to really make your point hit home. Aren't you adorable.

#29

io Aug 31 '14

Quote from Vampira You just picked up my lines and thought it was fun to twist them around.

Yes, this is definitely the kind of statement an open-minded person would make when faced with simple questions such as, "Why are some forms of restraint 'acceptable' and others not?"

Quote from Vampira I don't see how I'm limiting myself.

Well, disregard then. :)

#30

io Aug 31 '14

Quote from Dimitri What he's basically saying is that the abbreviation SSC had the original message as RACK. It was only due an increase in popularity and people ... using it as a slogan that multiple interpretations and views made it look as deviated from the original intent.

Show me where I disagreed with this.

You stated on the first page: SSC is basically the same as RACK. This I disagreed with. That's why I asked where you came up with it. Subsequent replies to you illuminated my reasons for the disagreement (SSC camp vs the RACK camp), though you have ignored them in favor of quoting large chunks of text to "prove points" I never contested--i.e., the SSC of yesterday has the same principles of RACK today. (As an aside, I tend to think people do this when they are unable to assimilate information and paraphrase based on their own understanding. It demonstrates a lack of comprehension or outright ignorance of a subject. It's also a bit cowardly because it shows you are afraid--on the internet--of being perceived as ignorant.)

Stein speaks about the "original intent" (as you put it) of SSC and what SSC is today. SSC today is not the SSC of the 80s gay s&m subculture. This is my point. (Reminder, your initial point was: "SCC is basically the same as RACK" - not "SCC was basically the same as RACK.) The SSC party line is preachy and limiting and other statements I made still apply, because that is the SSC you encounter in the kink community; that is the SSC - the dogmatic, automatic bullshit-eating SSC - I encountered in Khandiwhatever, which inspired my reply to him.

Because you apparently missed it before, I'll restate my question to you:

Does its [Stein's article] content seem to disagree or agree with what I said about the SSC vs RACK crowds? Let me be absolutely clear and qualify with "crowds today," since that is where my imaginary experiences come from.

I will also reiterate:

RACK was not intended as a "substitute," as you claim, but as an alternative way to view BDSM/kink--this according to the guy who coined the term and wrote about the differences between SSC and RACK.

SSC as it is commonly understood now ... is not the same as RACK.

People ... regurgitate SSC because that's the kind of dogmatic, PC thinking "acceptable" in the larger kink community.

Are we on the same page yet, or are you too busy endeavouring to "win" at the internet?

#31

io Aug 31 '14

Quote from Dimitri Mainly being the one where I said it is primarily a semantic debate.

Making the claim that SSC and RACK are "basically the same" is not a semantic argument; it's just an ill-informed one. However, because you fail to admit this, we've devolved into semantics. SSC as originally defined in the 80s gay/leather subculture is never the intention when discussing SSC with the kink masses today. In real life, in real kink communities, people identify as SSC (like Khandiwhatever) not in the original "intended" context (because few even know what it was) but the commonly interpreted one--the one I've explained at length. These are the less-than-critically-minded folk whose kink is "right" while anything not deemed SSC by them is "wrong." I'm pointing this out again because it got buried in your weaselly attempt to not look like you were mistaken with your dumb argument.

If I'm twisting anything, I wholeheartedly invite you to point it out. You have yet to actually address the content of my posts other than to misinterpret them. I don't see where anyone has "exposed" me as a bullshitter. I have made no apologies. And, again, I ask you to show me my which of my statements are inane.

The thing is... you can't.

#32

io Aug 31 '14

For anyone who might be interested in the SSC vs RACK distinction beyond Dimi's weaseling, this might be helpful:

From Midwest Alternatives:

While "Safe, Sane and Consensual" (SSC) attempts to describe and differentiate BDSM from abuse in ways that are easy for the non-BDSM public to comprehend, RACK differs from it in that it acknowledges that nothing is ever 100% inherently safe. By acknowledging that what may be safe or sane to one person may not be considered the same to another, the RACK philosophy tends to be more inclusive of activities that others may consider as edgeplay. There is no "safe" or "not safe" within RACK, only "safer" and "less safe."

And an article written by an NLA member from XCBDSM:

SSC continues to be the most used phrase to define that difference between what we do in our community and what those other people are doing. It is serving that purpose well. But many of us have simply grown tired of having the phrase used against us whenever we do something that others view as “not safe enough”. Gloria Brame described it as “this need people have to assert their superiority and place themselves in some imaginary hierarchy of sexual enlightenment. Obviously, over-compensation for insecurity . . . but also something that is very dangerous in a dominant, i.e., Major Ego Problems! It’s used at times to enforce an “us vs. them” mentality . . . . All you have to do is say you’re SSC (whatever it means, whether or not you’ve really given any thought to what it means, whether or not what you think is right or not or has any basis in reality) . . . et, voilà! you’re a top who deserves respect and even kudos for “playing by the rules.” (Hey Khandiwhatever, are your ears burning yet?)

Due to this major concern, as well as a variety of smaller ones, many of us within the BDSM community have begun to reject SSC in place of RACK (Risk Aware Consensual Kink). We do this, not because we don’t appreciate and respect SSC or it’s origins, but because we want something better and more accurate. SSC is a great slogan to put on the public face of kink. It is simple to understand to outsiders, but for us on the inside, it just isn’t the kind of practicality we need, and can mean too many things. So while we keep SSC as our community’s banner, we use RACK as our motto and our guide in the day-to-day practices of kink.

RACK puts the responsibility, not on supposed “experts” and judgmental community leaders, but on the individual. It empowers each person to define their own risk profile.

Emphasis on personal responsibility, eh? I don't suppose that's a characteristic anyone around here would value, is it?

The Forum post is edited by io Aug 31 '14

#33

Member

Khandnalie Aug 31 '14

If you'll go back and read my damn posts, I never discounted RACK. They're both perfectly fine ways of doing things. What I called you out on was your lack of concern for that ever-critical consent. There's a reason it's in both acronyms. You are the one who took that and ran with it, exposing your rampant ignorance and inexperience along the way.

They're both just two different ways of saying the same damn thing. It's not some ideological BDSM civil war, it's just different ways of saying "Hey, don't be a dumb ass. Take proper safety precautions and respect safe words"

Quote from io . And, again, I ask you to show me my which of my statements are inane.

The thing is... you can't.

The thing is... He already has.

And, since you seem to lack the mental capacity to properly type my name, you can simply call me Khan, if that would be easier for you.

#34

Member

Khandnalie Aug 31 '14

Vampira: It's true that BDSM can lead to abusive situations - but so can Vanilla relationships. The whole point of BDSM is to experience something beyond what a mundane relationship can give you. How this plays out is different for each person. Some people genuinely get physical pleasure from pain. Some enjoy degradation and humiliation. Some feel a sense of pride in what they can endure from their Owners. Some simply want to give away their responsibility for a time. Every person is different in their motivations and in what they get from it.

The big important thing that helps to separate BDSM from simple abuse is the SSC and RACK acronyms you've been hearing is throw around. They stand for Safe, Sane, Consensual, and Risk Aware Consensual Kink, respectively. The acronyms are just buzz words that basically boil down to responsibility. No matter what you and your partner(s) get up to, it's important to do it responsibly, and as safe as you can reasonably make it.

Towards this end - of consenting adults performing all manner of activities, most of which are inherently unsafe or harmful - there are many many resources to help kinksters of all experience levels practice their given kinks as safely as possible. There are also a couple of generally agreed upon practices and customs that are observed in Kink - safe words being chief among them.

It's all about whatever floats your boat. Some people have kinks that I can never understand, and I have a lot of kinks that most other people could never understand. Sex, if you haven't noticed, is fucking weird. I hope this helps explain and clear some things up for you. Feel free to ask more questions, or to message me with anything else.

#35

io Aug 31 '14

Quote from Khandnalie They're both just two different ways of saying the same damn thing. It's not some ideological BDSM civil war, it's just different ways of saying "Hey, don't be a dumb ass. Take proper safety precautions and respect safe words"

And therein lies the subjectivity of both, with SSC being more "you can't do x because it isn't safe" and RACK (at the more extreme end of the spectrum) being more "you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you want, as long as you can appreciate the risks involved."

Not everyone uses safe words. SSC folk do. Not all RACK people do. Before you go off on some tangent, realize I'm not stating this is a "good" or "bad" thing, but am merely pointing out yet another difference between the two.

As for the issue of consent: you took my "Consensual? Maybe. Mostly" and "light on the C" and ran with it, turning me into Mr. Domly Rapist, while I could very well be ms. subby rape enthusiast. (Tell me how that's not a stupid assumption on your part?) You interpreted my comments to mean "lack of concern" for the "ever critical" (ha) consent. Instead of asking questions - something like, "what do you mean by that?" or "can you explain further, because I am in no way an egotistical douchebag with something to prove to a stranger on a message board, but a truly interested individual who likes to consider things from different perspectives" - you made stupid assumptions about me and my take on consent; based on those assumptions, you then implied or stated that I was an asshole and a rapist, that I am the type to give kinksters a bad name.

Khandibitch, please.

#36

Member

Khandnalie Aug 31 '14

You heavily implied that you care little for consent. Even right up there - you mock the concept of consent as a requirement. If you call yourself a sub, you're a stupid one. If you call yourself a Dom, you're a rape waiting to happen.

I don't honestly care what you call yourself, you're no sub, youre no switch, and you're certainly not a Dom. In the context of BDSM atleast, you are nothing.

#37

Vold3mortia Sep 1 '14

Oh. Argh. I think I've figured out that....silence is probably the best answer and that I speaks volumes :P

Thanks for the response khandalie. I'll message you as soon as I get more free. This thread I clearly getting more out of hand.

#38

io Sep 1 '14

Quote from Dimitri In other words: within the BDSM community, the abbreviation "RACK" was being used instead because the now turned sloganesque SSC became suspicious to individuals, like yourself, who claim "instant-expertise" and dictate (subjectively and ill-informed) what it should be.

Are you punking me? Am I being punked? I think I'm being punked. I do not believe you are sincerely this dense. The only thing I can think of is that since English is not your first language (if I recall correctly? let me know), there are some comprehension issues going on? Are you sleep deprived, intoxicated, or otherwise cognitively altered?

The article states SSC folk are the ones who claim "instant expertise" and dictate what kink "should be." Are you saying the article states it's the other way around? Let me throw a few highlights at you:

Use of SSC has led to many self-proclaimed “experts” attempting to dictate what practices are acceptable or not for the rest of us.

People who believe that their knowledge or experience ... gives them the right to tell other people what is an acceptable amount of risk. And they usually do so under the banner of SSC.

All you have to do is say you’re SSC (whatever it means, whether or not you’ve really given any thought to what it means, whether or not what you think is right or not or has any basis in reality) . . . et, voilà! you’re a top who deserves respect and even kudos for “playing by the rules.”

Have I ever claimed to be SSC? Have I claimed any sort of instant expertise? I've argued that RACK is what works for me, and that rabid SSC folks generally lack the capacity or willingness towards critical thought and introspection--but no where have I stated they "should" do anything other than not be morons and criticize me under the banner of SSC for my love of sux injections and rapey play.

Quote from Dimitri The blog undoubtedly states that RACK and SSC carry the same message but favours the use of the abbreviation "RACK" as being a more suitable descriptor that hasn't been tainted (yet) by people's own subjective interpretation.

The very act of changing what SSC was originally--1980s, "untainted" etc.--to its current connotation means the message is not the same. (This might be another English language barrier issue: perhaps you meant to say "RACK and SSC used to carry the same message? As in past tense, rather than how SSC is currently perceived?) The only thing I agree with in your above statement is that people favor RACK as a more suitable descriptor because it doesn't have the "taint" SSC has--but, let me be clear: that doesn't mean they have the same message.

If SSC and RACK had the same message, there would not be a need for RACK. There would not be such decisiveness between SSC vs RACK crowds. Subcultures within subcultures - this happens, and people are just normal people about it, with their drama and their egotism and everything else encountered in the vanilla world.

I will give you an example that you can hopefully grasp: an SSC "expert" might step in when an experienced rigger places a knot over the brachial plexus or constricts the radial nerve and tell him that's not safe and should not be done, lest he potentially harm his rope slut. The SSC "expert" would never do that because to him it falls outside the boundaries of SSC: it is not safe. The RACK types would access the risk and determine what to do based on their comfort level and desires--not because some blanket SSC statement/concept means it shouldn't be done. There are people in the kink community staunchly against certain practices (e.g., rope bondage involving the neck). They can be SSC or RACK. There are people who are okay with bondage involving the neck. They are not SSC. The "risk aware" part is essential and lacking in SSC, so they do not have the same message.

I am not sure how else to convey this. I've used my own words and when that didn't work, I used others' words. I guess at this point you either get it or don't get it.

#39

io Sep 1 '14

Quote from Khandnalie You heavily implied that you care little for consent. Even right up there - you mock the concept of consent as a requirement. If you call yourself a sub, you're a stupid one. If you call yourself a Dom, you're a rape waiting to happen.

I don't honestly care what you call yourself, you're no sub, youre no switch, and you're certainly not a Dom. In the context of BDSM atleast, you are nothing.

Says the 22-year-old SSC expert.

BTW, I was mocking you and your "ever critical" qualifier.

#40

Satanic International Network

Please sign in

BDSM | Forum

Join Now

Donate - PayPal