quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

The OP isn't questioning no limits play with your partner whom you trust and know well. Diminants who put 'no limits will be honored' in a profile are looking for instant domination, instant trust, and sorry, that just doesn't work in the long term.

While I can't be sure about the dude who the OP quoted, that's not my experience at all.

I've had a 'no limits and safe words' arrangement with every dominant guy I've ever met and played through this site on the first date. However, that's never meant 'I want instance trust' and always merely meant 'If you want to be in my life, you do what I say. Period. If you don't want to do what I say leave.'

That doesn't mean I would instantly trust them, hell, it didn't even mean I'd instantly do anything for them, but what it meant was that we weren't going to get into a negotiation game about what was and wasn't 'allowed'.


He was free to try anything he could/would/wanted to from day one, and the price he paid for pushing it too far would be me leaving. On the other hand, I was expected to not hold out and let my head dictate what I would or wouldn't do, and instead just react to what he was capable of making me want to do, and the price I'd pay for letting my head, instead of my feelings rule my reactions to him would be to no longer be allowed near him.

No limits/no safe words really isn't as scary, dangerous, or insane as people here keep pretending it is... unless you're dealing with an actually pshycho who will non-consensually keep you chained up in the basement when you want to leave... but if that's the dude you're dealing with... how exactly is having a safe word and a list of hard limits going to protect you against that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

I understand criteria might be different in casual play. Of course you don't play with someone you think will harm you, I think everyone has that as criteria. But how do you know?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

Not everyone has the experience you do. Some people need to be told that saying "I won't honor limits' in a profile is a red flag that spells predator, fantasist, or both, at least to me.

quote:

People hide behind safe words and hard limits as if they're some sort of magic get-out-of-harm-free card, instead of seeing them as communication tools that only have a very limited scope of usefulness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: frunandsins

I think safety precautions should be followed, and I have told newbies to use safe-call buddies and secret phrases with their buddies to report safety, as well as leaving the address in written format in their room before they meet, insisting on meeting at a public venue first for non-sex interactions, etc. All the safety rules for online meetings. And safe word is one of them. Having seat belts on doesn't mean you don't need air bags and other safety features, but surely, having it on in addition to the other precautions can't hurt?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FeralFoxy
<snip>
In nearly four years together, Alpha and I have never used a safeword, never set limits, and (because we're both into it) cries of "no" or "stop" often do not mean no or stop. But in that time, he has never blown past a point that I was not willing to go past. For one, because I am not aware of any point I would not go past if he asked it of me. For two, because he knows me well enough to recognize genuine distress and act accordingly, as he decides is appropriate. Maybe that puts us on the extreme end of the spectrum, but it has worked very well for us. If I did not trust him that much, we would not be involved.

quote:

Unlike the other stuff you've listed, they do nothing to increase the safety of a first meet. They aren't a precaution to anything at all, because they do not make it harder for anybody to get away with fucking you over.

quote:

I think safe words increase miscommunications within the kink community. I think that unless people have specifically said otherwise things like 'stop' and 'no', 'I'm hurt' and 'I can't take anymore' should mean exactly what they mean, which makes safe words in those context obsolete.

quote:

And if you're not going to play around with changing the meaning of words, or roll playing that 'no means yes, and stop means go, and I can't take it anymore means go harder' then what a safe words does is put another layer of ambiguity into communication that should be kept as simple and clear as possible.

quote:

On top of that the common use of safe words has made some Tops think that 'no means yes' when there has been no negotiation about that being the case, but the Top has been confused about that because the bottom didn't safe word.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blueswordsman

frunandsins,

I agree, both parties should have an idea of what may happen during play before it begins. Exceeding agreed limits and/or the use of safewords runes the mood. My problem is when does No means No?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FightingChains

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blueswordsman

frunandsins,

I agree, both parties should have an idea of what may happen during play before it begins. Exceeding agreed limits and/or the use of safewords runes the mood. My problem is when does No means No?

That would have to be between two people to work out.

Some people like to assume the dom will just know, and often they will.
Some people like to use a safeword because their natural instinct is to try and end it, and they have to think about a safeword. Adds a sort of "helper" that allows them to be natural in play, but allow a way out.
Others don't want a no at all.

It all depends on the "players". But hasn't this always been the case anyway?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant

"You evil mother-fucker!" Is not a safe word, it is encouragement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blueswordsman
My problem is when does No means No?

quote:

ORIGINAL: frunandsins

quote:

Unlike the other stuff you've listed, they do nothing to increase the safety of a first meet. They aren't a precaution to anything at all, because they do not make it harder for anybody to get away with fucking you over.

But just as airbags and seat belts are meant to protect you against different forms of harms, the function of safe words is not to stop a psychotic murderer from dismembering you.

quote:

I think safe words increase miscommunications within the kink community. I think that unless people have specifically said otherwise things like 'stop' and 'no', 'I'm hurt' and 'I can't take anymore' should mean exactly what they mean, which makes safe words in those context obsolete.

I think this is a bit tautological. If "stop" and "no" can halt the play, then they *ARE* the safe words, no? Whether we agree that "bagel" or "stop" would lead the Dom to cease the session, they are both serving the same function.

So the argument is - why then make things complicated and define a separate word?

And the answer is not always about the role play scenario you mentioned, although that is a pretty damn good reason.

I see setting aside a specific word for the purpose of stopping play creates a much more jarring interruption in the flow of activities, and it actually reduces ambiguity because there is only one possibly reason why my sub is shouting "bagel" at this time. I enjoy slaves who beg during the session, so things like "Please sir, this hurts" are pretty common. So the safe word allows me to not have to worry about the layers of ambiguities in these types of phrases.

quote:

And if you're not going to play around with changing the meaning of words, or roll playing that 'no means yes, and stop means go, and I can't take it anymore means go harder' then what a safe words does is put another layer of ambiguity into communication that should be kept as simple and clear as possible.

Rape fantasy is pretty common in the community, both for Doms and subs. I think it will be pretty hard to play that out without either a long-standing synched nonverbal communication, or safe words.

quote:

On top of that the common use of safe words has made some Tops think that 'no means yes' when there has been no negotiation about that being the case, but the Top has been confused about that because the bottom didn't safe word.

I question the veracity of this statement. Do we know this? Are Doms who use safe words more likely to violate the consent of their subs when they start to not use safe words? I also question the relevance of your scenario to real life. You are assuming that (1) the Dom/me normally uses safe words so that they are inured to the effect of simple "no" and "stop" demands, AND (2) this Dom/me starts a session with a slave without prior discussion of the matter, AND (3) the Dom/me assumes that despite no discussion, "no" and "stop" are still not believable feedbacks from the sub, AND (4) all of this is a result of using safe words in the first place. As a scenario, this seems tenuous at best. I must also wonder if that's the low opinion you have for Dom/mes who use safe words?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

I did want to address how and why I find that predatory, because this world is full of new subs who just read 50 shades and thinks BDSM is all about the kind of romance you find in the typical bodice ripper. They appear not to understand the need to protect themselves. I think some of these subs are going to be those who find the edgier and more extreme players very enticing.

How *should* they go about protecting themselves?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
I think that the kink community puts to much emphasis on safe words and limits to newbies, and that it creates a false sense of security for those who are new to the scene.