http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/19/sl-letter-of-the-day-all-the-red-flags Comments On: SL Letter of the Day: All the Red Flags by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Thu, 23 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Thu, 23 May 2013 05:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by watchout5]]> Wed, 23 Jan 2013 05:04:16 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mister G]]> Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:43:57 -0800 The Stranger Posted by avast2006]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:12:35 -0800 The Stranger Posted by EricaP]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:18:44 -0800 The Stranger
There are three basic levels of safeword:

1) In the absence of negotiations, all the standard words have the same function as a specific safeword, including anything along the lines of "No," "Stop," "I don't like that" or "Ouch, dammit, wtf?!" That's not "no safeword" it's "lots of safewords."
2) When a specific safeword is negotiated you are waiving the usual ones so that you can use them dramatically during playtime; but there is one specific word that means everything comes to a screeching halt.
3) When you negotiate for there to be officially no safeword, there are still a few that simply can't be ignored, like "Fire!" Also, there MUST be some sort of signal along the lines of "The ropes have slipped and I'm strangling for real" whereupon all action stops instantly lest you suffer severe injury or death. There is no situation where it would be appropriate to forgo (or ignore) either of those.

And again there is a presumed level of restraint on the part of the top. There is an implicit trust that he isn't going to take things beyond where you can handle it, or you don't get involved in the first place. I honestly don't believe that you have ever gotten into a scene fully expecting that he just might cut off your arms and legs with a chainsaw, and that's okay with you, you promise not to prosecute.

None of the above genuinely equates to No Safeword. It is at most a dramatic convention.

Finally, all of the above has no bearing on the situation of the letter writer, where one person explicitly wants to set personal safety boundaries and the other person explicitly wants to ignore them. There is absolutely no situation where _that_ behavior would be appropriate.

So, all things considered, in my opinion #33 has the right of it.

(I hope Letter Writer dumped him hard and fast, and told their social circle the reason why. He sounds like a sociopath.)
Posted by avast2006]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:47:42 -0800 The Stranger It's still fun to comment, even if the original LW is long gone for our expert advice.
Posted by OutInBumF]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:55:35 -0800 The Stranger >>There is literally no situation where it is acceptable for there to be "no safe word".>>

Since I was, at the very instant I read those words, in a situation with no safeword, and I thought every other reader probably was too, I just couldn't stand to let the "literally no situation" go without comment. Chalk it up to my frustration with people misusing the word "literally" if you like.

Re your comment @51, if you haven't negotiated about safewords, then your "no" operates the same way as a safeword. The only change a safeword brings is the ability to scream "NO!" in lusty delight.

"No safeword" scenes are different because you specifically promise not to blame them for ignoring your requests -- "no matter what I say, you don't have to stop. Stop when you want to, not when I want you to." That said, common sense still applies. If you scream 'Fire!' during a no-safeword scene, I would expect the dom to stop and check for smoke or flames.
Posted by EricaP]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:07:14 -0800 The Stranger Posted by avast2006]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:32:10 -0800 The Stranger " It's silly to suggest a sub asking politely for a no-safeword scene is like a dom pushing a no-safeword scene on a reluctant sub."

I entirely agree. It is silly. As far as I can see, they are so different, I don't understand why you even bring up the former when discussing the current letter, which is an instance of the latter.

Asking for your top to ignore the idea of a safeword scene is basically fictional. You are still aware that the person has a responsibility to not go too far, lest they face consequences afterwards. If he accidentally drowns you during a waterboarding game, he WILL be talking to the police. At a lesser degree, if he genuinely abuses you far beyond your actual tolerances, the consequence is that you may freak out and exact revenge in kind, or at very least refuse to ever play again. Even in the specific absence of a safeword, you are placing trust in -- and responsibility on -- that person to only create the illusion of going too far, but in actuality pay very close attention to your tolerances and not exceed them.


Posted by avast2006]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:19:35 -0800 The Stranger
One curious thing about manipulators is that, although one may think they are so clever to have found out about how to effectively guilt-trip others into doing their every wishes, they really are not very adaptative creatures.

If one of their previous victims gets educated about what manipulation is, and trains to un-earth it right away, they can't adapt to the idea that it's not working anymore. They try and try and push the same behaviour, even once it's stopped being effective.

Case in point : the ex-husband (I'm divorced at last !). His tricks don't work on me anymore, but he seems to be unable to change how he's dealing with me (we have children).

Some manipulative people have had to learn, from their disfunctional family, an alternative way of behaving, to ensure their basic needs were met through childhood. They use this narrow set of tricks on everybody in sight. The ones that fall for them, they use and abuse.

But they are not superior creatures able to find anyone's frailties and to turn anybody into jelly. They're pretty rigid in how they work, actually. Charm. Learn a tremendous lot about victim. Try pushing one single button. If backlash, retreat without apologizing, but start again later if not dumped right away. Escalate. Add entitlement, and grandiose descriptions of their own selves, and projecting their own behavior onto their partners (you're manipulating me !) - and that's all they're able of, really. That and violence.
Posted by sissoucat]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 02:13:26 -0800 The Stranger
But safewords aren't magic. Assholes sometimes ignore a safeword, or pretend not to hear it. Yelling "you better kill me now or I'll be calling the police as soon as I get out of here" is an even better safeword in that case. Unless you happen to have stumbled on a psychopath, who does kill you.

Or, if your dom collapses while you're tied up, you can't safeword out of that. Or, if you have a heart attack, you may not be able to safeword. Safewords are a useful tool, but they're not the only way to communicate. And they are never a substitute for common sense.


Posted by EricaP]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:57:20 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:37:56 -0800 The Stranger
Now, perhaps @33 failed to consider what an experienced couple like you and your partner came up with. Your situation is a valid exception to an otherwise very necessary rule. But childbirth isn't sex, nor is skydiving, nor is surgery.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:36:38 -0800 The Stranger
@44 -- It's silly to suggest a sub asking politely for a no-safeword scene is like a dom pushing a no-safeword scene on a reluctant sub.

That's like saying that someone who wants to try sky-diving (and understands that there's no safeword, and they can't end the jump halfway through) is contributing to plane hijackers tossing random victims out of the plane without parachutes.


Posted by EricaP]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:54:28 -0800 The Stranger
Regarding your experience @ 42... keep in mind that Indy @ 33 was reacting to the letter, in which it was apparent that the LW's level of trust in her boyfriend wasn't anywhere close to such a level of trust as you probably enjoyed with your partner. Personally, I can't shake the feeling that you would have been better off with it, regardless of how exhilarating you found it. But hey, it's your sex life, so that shouldn't matter. Just be careful about advising others that they should try it for themselves. It's possible that such talk contributed to the LW's feelings of confusion regarding her boyfriend's demands.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:37:50 -0800 The Stranger Posted by uncreative]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:55:25 -0800 The Stranger Posted by EricaP]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:54:27 -0800 The Stranger Posted by EricaP]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:51:17 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:40:30 -0800 The Stranger
No, I can't imagine that kind of trust. Because I have never felt the need nor the urge to give up my physical autonomy to that extent, and I can't imagine ever feeling that need.
Posted by migrationist]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:13:07 -0800 The Stranger
There are millions of situations with no safeword. Sky-diving. Giving birth. Surgery. Any kind of scene that is incredibly emotionally powerful for both people.

And more to your point, it is totally acceptable for a person bottoming to say, "I need a no-safeword scene. I want to have an experience beyond what I can tolerate in the moment. Tie me up, gag me, and trust me that I will accept whatever happens and not blame you." If that trust isn't there yet, then the top shouldn't agree, but are you telling me you can't even imagine a situation where that trust does exist and will not be betrayed?


Posted by EricaP]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 11:47:02 -0800 The Stranger "I cannot imagine a man writing an equivalent letter."

Imagine it. I had a girlfriend who did the same thing. Though it wasn't about rape scenarios, it was still definitely about using sophistry to get me to acquiesce to a situation that made me very uncomfortable and unhappy (she basically called herself poly while I was mono -- though it turned out she was really just a user taking out her issues over her husband leaving her on a succession of naive younger men), and making me the bad guy for daring to have boundaries.

Narcissistic, selfish assholes who indulge in sophistry as a way of trying to get their own way come in all stripes; and wanting to please your partner and preserve the relationship if possible is not a matter of patriarchal conditioning, it's what decent human beings do for each other. We even try to please people we meet on the street, let alone trying to accommodate our partners -- hell, it's the basis of being GGG.

Unfortunately, sociopaths know this about basic human decency -- that your fundamental reluctance to be seen as the bad guy is their ticket to push for unreasonable things, and they manipulate that reluctance to get you to agree in defiance of sanity. The term is "gaslighting." While female social conditioning is a valid concern in general, there is plenty of evidence of this guy arguing rings around his partner (his victim), more than sufficient to explain her reaction in this case. The fact that she herself "flat-out refused to even try" and she's the one who brought up leaving him indicates she isn't simply deferring to him in all things. But he used crazy arguments to counter that, to the point where she is asking Dan, "Am I crazy, or is he?"
Posted by avast2006]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:52:31 -0800 The Stranger
She is writing to ask if she's "out of line" for not being willing to let herself be raped!

No doubt there are men out there that feel/behave this way, but from here it looks like yet another case of a woman who has been socialized to defer to her man in all ways, to put the "relationship" before her own needs, even, in this case, at the cost of her own emotional and physical well-being. I cannot imagine a man writing an equivalent letter.

Some of these SLLOTDs are old and some recent. While I wish Dan would do more to tip off readers (perhaps he could introduce the letter in some way), I think that a letter like this might reach a woman in an equally unhealthy relationship who didn't write in but recognizes something of herself and her relationship in it, so it is valuable to run.
Posted by nocutename]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:11:04 -0800 The Stranger "He's told me that by threatening to leave him, I'm manipulating him, "

The correct response to that tactic is, "Well, you are right; we certainly can't have me manipulating you with -threats- of leaving, because that means either way, ONE of us is going to be staying in the relationship while not getting what they need. If getting out of the relationship is what I need in order to feel safe, I guess I had better just do it and be done. So...there's the door. We are through."

Posted by avast2006]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 01:21:47 -0800 The Stranger
And by the way, it doesn't matter whether you were raped in the past or not. If he doesn't want to respect your safety boundaries, then he WILL find out what happens when shit gets real. Far better for all concerned that the way shit gets real is that he gets unceremoniously dumped for being a dick, than that things go further, quite possibly catastrophically for everyone.
Posted by avast2006]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 00:45:40 -0800 The Stranger