Jay Wiseman ([info]jay_wiseman) wrote,
@ 2008-01-26 10:32:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Are we men a bunch of lying pricks?


Some years ago, I was at a private play party being held in a large house that had a number of private rooms.  A woman I knew somewhat approached me for a scene.  She really liked being tied up with rope so that she couldn't get loose but had a hard time finding men whose skills were good enough to prevent that.  She had heard about my special interest in rope bondage.  We talked beforehand about what the scene would and wouldn't involve.  (Me and my negotiation fetish, don'tcha know?)  One of the things she *wasn't* interested in was that the play be sexual.  Given that "sexual" is a somewhat vague term, I proceeded to ask her if several different acts would or would not be OK.  All of them were not.  OK.  Candidly, I don't much like doing nonsexual scenes but I figured what the hey.  I find her attractive, we seem to have a certain rapport, the scene will probably be "adequately" fun anyway, and who knows what the future might bring, right?  So we do the scene, and it's actually not half bad.  (For a non-sexual scene, anyway.)  Oh, and no, she couldn't get loose. <G>

So the scene is finished and she's getting dressed when I hear her quietly say, almost more to herself than me, "You actually kept the agreement to not be sexual.  That was interesting."

Huh?

I turn to look at her, my jaw hanging open.

"What do you mean?" I ask her.

"You're the first one who ever did that," she replies.

HUH???

"Yeah," she continues, "All of the other men have just gone ahead and had sex with me anyway."

I cannot believe what I'm hearing.

"What do they say afterwards?"

"Usually something like, Oh, it just happened."

I just stare at her, stunned into speechlessness.  Then it dawns on me that she was likely thinking that I would break the agreement as well.  She went into the scene anticipating that that would happen.  All throughout the scene a part of her brain was waiting for that to "just happen."  She was expecting that I would break my word.  A part of me starts to become really angry at her that she would think that of me, but I decide to not say anything.  After all, I had kept my agreements.  We finish up and rejoin the party.

I get to thinking about her prior experiences.  That's not OK.  It didn't "just happen."  A blue car driving by on the street outside the house "just happened."  A cloud drifting overhead "just happened."  A man intentionally engaging in sexual behavior after he has explicitly promised to not do that is *not* something that "just happened."  No, that assertion just plain doesn't fly.

Over the next several months, we go on to have several more private play dates of a similar nature, although as she gets to know me better certain things that were previously not OK now become OK.  I love happy endings.

So a short while ago, at a small dinner with some local kinksters, I tell this story and one woman at the table replies, "What's your point?"  When she sees that I'm kind of staring at her she continues, "That's more the norm than the exception."  The other woman at the table looks at me and ruefully nods agreement. 

It gets me to thinking, when Greenery Press was considering publishing "The Kinky Girl's Guide to Dating" I was one of the pre-publication manuscript readers.  After I had read the manuscript, I called the publisher and said, "Are you sure you want to publish this?  It's basically one long catalog of horror stories about what jerks the local male doms are.  An awful lot of these stories are about men lying to get sex, lying about their other relationships, and lying about other important things.  If I was a local submissive woman I'd feel like running screaming in the opposite direction. No way I'd want to get involved with these guys." 

What particularly bothered me about the manuscript was that the author wasn't talking about newbie men.  She was talking about established, well-known guys.  Guys seen at places like local munches with some frequency.  Guys (supposedly!) well educated about basic SM principles such as consent, respecting limits, and so forth.  Guys who *knew better* than to pull crap like that.  This bothered me, rather a lot, particularly the implications.

So what I basically have here is at least three women, all of whom seem fairly rational and emotionally stable with no anti-male axe to grind, and all of whom are separately affirming that being lied to by men -- in particular, being lied to by local, known, supposedly educated men -- in order to get sex/play/etc. is a *common* experience for them.  In particular, incidents involving men lying or breaking agreements in order to "get" sex and/or to avoid using condoms seem to be extremely common.  (In "The Kinky Girl's Guide" manuscript the author recounts an incident in which she wakes up to find her dom fucking her.  She's not too drowsy to discover that he's not wearing a condom, which is a direct violation of their safer sex agreements.  He was apparently hoping that she'd be too sleepy to notice.  When she angrily asks him why he did this, his only reply is a hangdog facial expression.  Their relationship ends soon thereafter.)

In my travels across the country, women in other locales have affirmed the basic truth of this.  We men are notorious for outright lying (about really important things) to women in order to get play, to get sex, and/or to avoid using condoms.

My God, is the situation really *that* bad?

 


(Post a new comment)


[info]bettyboop1975
2008-01-26 06:46 pm UTC (link)
Sadly, I do think it can be and is that bad. But, I am not speaking from experience. I have been a member of the Twin Cities kink community for two years now, and I can say very assuredly that that particular type of situation has never happened to me. Nothing has happened that was not pre-negotiated. Am I just lucky? Who knows. I have heard things about similar situations within our local community, but I also know that in most cases, there were things brought to light and dealt with accordingly. It's sad to know it is not like that everywhere. The woman's book may be true, but I do feel it is very one sided. For instance, if I was to write a book about my experiences in BDSM, it would not contain a situation like that, because I have had a much better and different experience than the author. It's a shame that this book will get published and scare the daylights out of some women. It's not how things always happen. It does, and that sucks too, but that is not all there is to a woman's experience in the BDSM lifestyle.

Just my two or three cents. :)

Betty

(Reply to this)


[info]margoeve
2008-01-26 06:58 pm UTC (link)
Yes, yes it is.

I find myself really lucky to have found a man who doesn't do this. But yeah, very often, once juices get flowing and inhibitions come down previous agreed upon limits go out the window.

I try to tell people that "sub space" is similar to being drunk - It's Inhibition lowering and judgment impairing. This is why we have PRE negotiations to begin with. I don't think educators in recent years have done a good enough job of getting this across. I think it's glossed over. MOREOVER, I don't think this is an issue JUST for the Kink scene. It goes for the dating scene too.

Really, if men wanted to actually avoid drama from women, they would stop themselves from going too far too fast. It's always better leaving them wanting more.

Yeah, this has been an issue for a while - not just in BDSM... I just find it more frustrating there.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]catrinaz
2008-01-26 10:48 pm UTC (link)
I try to tell people that "sub space" is similar to being drunk - It's Inhibition lowering and judgment impairing. This is why we have PRE negotiations to begin with.

i agree. of course, many people, kinky and vanilla, seem to think that having sex or scening (or negotiating those things, if they bother) while drunk or otherwise impaired is okay.

MOREOVER, I don't think this is an issue JUST for the Kink scene. It goes for the dating scene too.

yes, yes, YES! i agree completely.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]teachme2nyt
2008-04-21 09:10 pm UTC (link)
I think the "intoxication" goes both ways. Top space can impair judgement as well. This is not an excuse, but a recognition that both parties are impared by BDSM play to some degree, some more than others.

I do have to say that the one time this did happen to me, it did not "just happen" I was totally aware that I could have said a safe word and sex would not occur. I actively chose not to. If the man in question had never tried that would have worked to, and I have to say it would have been the basis of increased respect if he had basically denied me of what we both wanted because of our prior agreement. As it is, things still worked out but I think that is because of my own awareness of my role in choosing to go farther.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]grail76
2008-01-26 07:19 pm UTC (link)
It varies a lot I suspect. My corner of the Washington DC scene would have the same reaction you had, but I've heard my own stories about women who have found themselves dealing with men who behave poorly (or at least in ways I'd term behaving poorly). I also hear stories and hear the victims defending the man, almost as if they have to assume it's part of the package or something is wrong with them.

Is the situation that bad? Mostly I hope it isn't.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]kyri_v
2008-01-26 08:15 pm UTC (link)

I'd second that about corners of the DC scene, though I don't pretend to have huge knowledge of everyone in it. I've never had anyone attempt liberties with me that have been explicitly disallowed,* but my private play is with folk who are already close friends.

I'm wondering about "sex just happened." Could she really mean "He put his bits in mine and said it 'just happened'"??? I'm just as gobsmacked about that as you or Jay if that's what she meant, but I could certainly see "something sexual just happened" - I've been surprised by someone spanking my thong-clad vulva amidst an otherwise nonsexual birthday spanking (nobody else seemed to need a memo), and I know a lot of folk for whom "no sex" doesn't preclude touching of genitalia, and nonsexual doesn't preclude touching of nipples.

Re victims defending the man - well, I said I'd never had liberties attempted that were explicitly disallowed. That doesn't mean that there haven't been times (as aforementioned) that things have happened I'd have disallowed had the act been queried, but neither of us knew to ask**. Even if the scene were to go really bad in that case, I wouldn't blame the top for breaking boundaries not expressed. But that's very different from breaking expressed boundaries, and if you hear a lot of that I find that very scary.

(And I wonder what's going on with someone who's willing to negotiate "no sex" whilst expecting there probably shall be sex - in that case isn't she leaving everything about the sex completely unnegotiated?)


* (ad-hoc group scenes include a 'do not touch the thong' component, as it's too confusing to have different permitted levels)

** example: A negotiated "non sexual" scene - sensation, impact . . . where the top kisses my neck, shoulders. For /me/ kisses turned it toward sexual, and I requested he not do so. Before the request, he couldn't have known.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]catrinaz
2008-01-26 10:45 pm UTC (link)
(And I wonder what's going on with someone who's willing to negotiate "no sex" whilst expecting there probably shall be sex - in that case isn't she leaving everything about the sex completely unnegotiated?)

but what's her other option? saying, "i do not consent to have sex with you. but if you do have sex with me without my consent, here's what i'd like you to do...."?

when people experience repeated violations of their consent, they often begin to become resigned to it and stop even trying to stop it from happening, because what's the point? saying no doesn't stop it.

i'd love to hear some suggestions on what would work better than saying "NO SEX".

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]violet_tigress1
2008-01-27 03:08 am UTC (link)
when people experience repeated violations of their consent, they often begin to become resigned to it and stop even trying to stop it from happening, because what's the point?

Bingo.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]kyri_v
2008-01-27 05:33 pm UTC (link)
:nod:
I guess I totally see this with one person. Still having problems understanding it quite as described above. I kind of elaborated here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]kyri_v
2008-01-27 05:29 pm UTC (link)
Hey, I wrote a long response to [info]violet_tigress, here. It's sorta to both of you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]violet_tigress1
2008-01-26 10:51 pm UTC (link)
(And I wonder what's going on with someone who's willing to negotiate "no sex" whilst expecting there probably shall be sex - in that case isn't she leaving everything about the sex completely unnegotiated?)

No. She's negotiating what she doesn't want, even while knowing that most men she's dealt with before don't respect her pre-negotiated limits.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]kyri_v
2008-01-27 05:28 pm UTC (link)
Hm... I suppose my question is more, "If something you don't like keeps happening, and yet you change nothing, you need to expect it's going to happen again. She's chosen to expect it's going to happen again, rather than to try to change something to prevent it."

It's entirely possible that Jay was the first honorable man she'd played with, or it's also possible that his negotiations were the first to cover everything she considered sex.*

Long before she meets Jay she could conceivably decide "all the men are scum, so I'll play only with the ones I know well" or "perhaps I need to expand negotiations" or "I need an escort" but instead it sounds like she changed nothing, except to expect that her negotiations would be violated.

Perhaps it's not conscious - I certainly go nonverbal, and I certainly stay in some bad situations. But one way or another she told Jay she goes into the scene expecting that her expressed wishes will be violated. She goes into the scene expecting that someone will just go ahead and have sex with her. If that's not acceptable, then there's something here that doesn't compute. If that is acceptable, then (to me) it seems a pretty dangerous choice**.

*If she really was repeatedly having men put their boybits in her girlbits and then try to pretend it wasn't rape I'm coming up empty, so this response is going to assume more acts are covered by the word.

** i.e. by saying it's all off the table but then accepting whatever is done, there's no way to make sure that at least whatever's done doesn't include fluid exchange or specific subsets of 'not wanted even were I allowing sex.' (No, I don't see a way to negotiate "don't have sex with me, but if you do then do it this way") And speaking as someone who took a long time to be okay with things sexual, and for whom bondage (pretend at the time) brought a fantasy deniability I do know how complicated headspace can get.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]free_of_whip
2008-01-26 07:41 pm UTC (link)
I'm of two minds about this one. On the one hand, I've never experienced more than a momentary and truly accidental violation of my limits in a scene. And the one time a guy tried to avoid using a condom in a nonscene sexual encounter, my reaction was so immediate and violent that he basically ended up unable to perform once the condom was on. Heck, the one guy who tried to play with my toes after I told him no got literally thrown out of bed--he was on the floor a moment later.

At the same time, that record has been achieved in part because I tend not to trust men (or women, in sexual situations). I cannot, for example, imagine playing privately with a guy I had just met, if I did not want to have sex. The one time in my life I allowed someone to tie me up privately when we had just met, it was because it was totally obvious that he really just wanted to be tied up, and was offering to tie me up out of a sense of reciprocity. Once incurable STDs became an issue, I never again had sex without a condom except with my then husband.

All of this is not to "blame the victim." I have the advantages of being relatively physically fit, of remaining quite verbal even in a scene, and I suspect just of being lucky. My own daughter was date raped, so I am quite conscious of the fact that it can happen. And I have dealt with some highly inappropriate conduct (grabbing my nipple as I was walking past him, fully clothed) from at least one "scene leader" with whom I was not engaged in a scene.

I suppose my overall view is that a) you don't trust someone just because he is a "scene leader," and b) this is not a problem confined to the scene, but also affects vanilla relationships. It is an unfortunate fact of life that some people will try to get sex however they can, including dishonesty and even force. And the process of becoming a "scene leader" does not weed out those people.

(Reply to this)


[info]much_ado
2008-01-26 07:46 pm UTC (link)
it's certainly not *common* in the south-western ontario scene (and i've been embedded within it for 20+ years now), but that's largely because a lot of the events are modeled on XCorrigia and EhBC party models, both of which expressly forbid sexual contact. now that the scene is more established and (as much as i hestitate to use the term) more mature, we have a few events that are sexually-explicitly, and i still don't hear of men pushing those no-sex boundaries. i'm sure it has happened, but it gets dealt with quickly and quietly more often than not.

or maybe there's just an over-riding Canadian Politeness factor that trumps a lot of the more nefarious intentions? *nah*, nothing is ever that simple...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]redhotlips
2008-01-26 10:24 pm UTC (link)
It'd be lovely to claim that it's a Canadian politeness thing... but I think it exists, just possibly more hidden... most of the Canadian clubs I've been to restrict or eliminate the sexual contact thing.

Personal observation is that this kind of behaviour often comes fom those with more of a start, grounging or beginning in the..umm... fictional (Gor), cyber and/ or fantasy parts of 'all this'. These people tend towards this total disregard for sexual limits, and seem to have not been taught that sexual limits are just as valid as specific play related limits. I've lost count of how many of the 'established' 'well respected' or 'well known' doms who have pulled this exact same thing.

Honestly, I'll take the 'just happened excuse' over the 'you owe me' excuse any day. Neither or right, or just, but 'you owe me' for just topping you is just so .... it makes my skin crawl.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Came here via linkage.
[info]ivymcallister
2008-01-26 08:38 pm UTC (link)
For what it's worth--and I know I'm not terribly PC about things--this just pisses me off.

If I found myself in a situation wherein I believed that my in-scene limits were more than likely going to be ignored, I would remove myself from that situation with all haste. (And my owner would be batshit pissed if I *didn't*.) For the record, every time a Dom has tried to step outside the scene boundaries we'd agreed on, I'm very loudly vocal in my condemnation of that action, regardless of the consequences. (In my experience, women who "out" Doms for boundary violations are treated not unlike a woman who "cries rape". And frankly, if someone tried to have sex with me in a scene wherein we had agreed that NO sex would take place... Well, if that's not attempted rape, I don't know what is. To be *resigned* to that is... It's horrible. Fantastically, mind-blowingly wrong.)

If I go on, I'll probably venture into territory that verges on blaming-the-victim, and I don't want to go there. Suffice it to say that there are safer-scene practices that any bottom, regardless of gender, should consider when they're selecting a partner or negotiating a scene. Gags, IMO, are for play with trusted partners only. Any non-consensual sex is wrong, and running the risk of non-con sex without a condom...? Completely unacceptable. If you're playing in an environment where you think your safewording (or yelling at the top of your lungs for the other party to STOP IT RIGHT FUCKING NOW THIS IS NOT PART OF THE SCENE) is going to be ignored... Please, please, just don't play there. This is your sanity, your self-respect, your life, your health, and the health of your partners.

Have enough respect for yourself--and everyone you'll ever be intimate with--to keep yourself safe.

(For what it's worth, after several negative go-rounds in environments where I did not feel safe or comfortable and with Doms with whom I regretted interacting, I am currently involved with two informal, vaguely interconnected groups of BDSM folks who would never tolerate the behaviors your post describes. It sickens me that anyone would.)

In short, I don't blame the men, specifically, nor do I blame the women--it seems like this norm has been permitted to evolve in some communities, and that's the real evil. No man should think that behavior is acceptable, and no woman should accept it. The precedents being set in this dynamic are deeply damaging and horribly wrong. Change needs to come from both sides, but I do fear that the overly-passive role the women are playing is certainly contributory. Being a sub doesn't mean being resigned to passive acceptance of every Dom's whim--particularly where sex and safety are concerned. I prescribe massive reality checks and clue-by-fours, all around.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Came here via linkage.
[info]catrinaz
2008-01-27 09:28 am UTC (link)
i agree with you that women in these situations (myself included, when they happened to me) are overly passive.

i was discussing this post with some friends tonight, and (along with the outrage all of us here are expressing) it occurred to me that the reason i am so cautious about thorough pre-scene negotiations is because there is a possibility (depending on the environment, who i'm scening with, my attitude, etc.) that i'll go deep enough into sub-space not to be able to say anything. of course, i try not to go that deep with someone i haven't established good trust with. but i do think that's another contributor here...breaking role, breaking out of the altered state, essentially having to yank yourself out of the submissive state and thrust yourself into an assertive, possibly aggressive state, is very difficult to do, and it's very difficult to realize you need to do it.

(it's late and i'm really tired...that last sentence was ridiculously long and rambly. sorry.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mladypain
2008-01-26 08:54 pm UTC (link)
Short answer? yup.
People wonder why I prefer to play at events and clubs. Its for this very reason that I avoid private play parties and 1-on-1 scenes. Its really annoying to have to stop my scene, pull myself out of headspace, so I can stop my play partner from breaking our agreed upon boundaries. I've never had anyone push me or try to force anything on me but nearly every dom/top/master has attempted to cross some very clearly stated no-sexual contact boundaries while we're in scene.
Just part of the territory.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]sirkeithd
2008-01-27 05:55 am UTC (link)
You've " ... never had anyone push [you] or try to force anything on you " but you immediately follow that with nearly EVERYONE has "attempted to cross some very clearly stated no-sexual contact boundaries while [you're] in scene." ???? What the hell then IS pushing? or forcing? This doesn't make sense. Unless you truly are sending mixed signals or have no idea how to either communicate or interpret what is happening.

Violating *clearly stated* boundaries of ANY kind is NOT just part of the territory. Not in my territory anyway.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mladypain
2008-01-27 07:21 am UTC (link)
Ok, I've probably worded that wrong. One of those "sounded right in my head" situations LOL

What I was trying to convey was that I've been in scenes where the person I was playing with touched me in areas, or touched me in a manner, that I clearly stated was not negotiable. Its one thing to push negotiated boundaries with a partner you've discussed that with. Its another to have someone try to slip a finger under your panties after being told you don't play sexually and being touched there is off limits.

To their credit, everyone has stopped when I've called them on. Its just frustrating when I have to pull myself out of headspace and communicate that what they are doing is not only not ok but going against what we negotiated.

It is absolutely possible that when I'm headspace I'm giving mixed messages. It certainly isn't my intention but it is always a possibility that someone is perceiving a more permissive vibe. Hence I stick to events and clubs where certain activities are not allowed and carefully monitored.

Hopefully this makes more sense or explains the situation better :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]blushing_grace
2008-01-29 09:13 pm UTC (link)
Would this be what I refer to unwelcomingly as the 'dipstick check'? I've seen and had this happen to me (once). It felt/seemed to me as just 'checking' to see if I was enjoying myself - which I was until then.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mladypain
2008-01-29 11:13 pm UTC (link)
Yes! like none of the other physical & verbal indicators of my enjoyment were "enough", it doesn't really matter unless the dip gets to stick ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]breakring
2008-01-26 09:21 pm UTC (link)
Hey Jay:

In my experience, most people are lying jerks.

In the 2500 Domestic battery prosecutions I handled, over 80% of the listed victims recanted, which means they lied at some point in the process.

In the overwhelming majority of divorces I have handled, both parties lie fluently to the court.

And in many criminal cases the police officers lie as well (though it is typically on small matters concerning recall of details or a suspects free consent to search or such).

The most honest I have ever seen people is in the leather world, which is, frankly, as a rule not that honest either.

Conrad

(Reply to this)


[info]xale_d
2008-01-26 09:27 pm UTC (link)
As another member of the private Washington DC scene, I have seen and heard of it happening. Tops (both male and female) have "gotten caught up in the scene" and crossed lines. Some bottoms later had problems, others felt it was the right thing for that scene and gave the tops praise for being willing to push things when the energy lead in that direction.

It's not a common thing anywhere, I don't think, but it does happen, and it's a minority that gets talked about because groups always talk about what's wrong more than they talk about what's right.

(Reply to this)


[info]catrinaz
2008-01-26 10:58 pm UTC (link)
i have experienced this sort of thing more than once.

i even had a really well-known and respected dom (with whom i was in an ongoing relationship) not use a condom for anal sex with me while i was bound (the sex was consensual, but condoms were a well-discussed and negotiated issue). i didn't realize he didn't use a condom until afterward.

the thing that's scariest for me is that i live in an area where it's pretty tough to find lifestyle-oriented folks, which means i am most likely going to meet people online first. it's hard enough to get some idea of creepiness level, and maybe some sense of compatibility. i see absolutely no way to effectively foresee this sort of behavior, though.

(Reply to this)


[info]wordweaverlynn
2008-01-27 01:19 am UTC (link)
I've certainly heard plenty of stories of this happening. It is genuinely horrible, and it sickens me.

However, it's not just a guy thing. I know at least one guysub who spelled out his limitations (no PiV sex) to the Domme he was playing with. She tied him up as agreed. Then she raped him.

(Reply to this)

well, I have to live with myself
[info]rigker
2008-01-27 01:38 am UTC (link)
Yes Jay, there are lying pricks.
Well, I have to live with myself, and when I proclaim that there is not going to be fluid sharing, there won't.
I'm a bondage lover, and have been for a long time. I have not "morphed" other things into the play, as seems to have happened slowly since about years ago in my area.
I'm not an exhibitionist either, and by not making rope bondage an external accessory to sexual intercourse has made me a sort of outcast really, but that's okay.
Who knows, perhaps bondage play from a decade ago will re-surface here. It's a very different world right now.

(Reply to this)


[info]lionessindc
2008-01-27 04:03 am UTC (link)
Yes I have had the bad luck of having/seeing this happen both in the DC community and when I was in the NC community. Lots of times it seems to be folks hunting newbies and fucking them over, other times its known folks who think they are above it all.

But as others have said I don't think this is a kink based thing but a larger problem that happens on dates, dance clubs etc. Some guys will go as far as they possibly can then push a bit farther.

(Reply to this)

No one approach fits all
[info]jay_wiseman
2008-01-27 04:50 am UTC (link)

(I posted this same initial message on another blog of mine, and there received a reply from someone who said, "This is why I keep telling newbie women subs not to play with guys who won't play in public the first time. At least in public there is the opportunity for the sub to get the DM's attention.")

My "on blog" reply was as follows:

Hi B,

While we certainly seem to be fundamentally on the same page here, let me respectfully, and I do mean respectfully, say that I do NOT make the same recommendation.

Further, given that I almost never play at play parties (I'm actually a rather private person regarding my play), I would *outright refuse* to play in public, in either the dom or sub role, in order to demonstrate something like my skill or trustworthiness to a potential partner. This guy does *not* freakin' audition, especially in front of a bunch of people that I don't know well.

If female subs (or doms, or switches) were to follow your advice regarding me then I would essentially end up playing with virtually nobody that I didn't already know. Candidly, I'm just egotistical enough to feel that that could result in a tragic loss for all concerned. I'm also just egotistical enough to believe that I'm a very trustworthy person.

And I am sincere about that word "tragic" -- some of the deepest relationships I know, including some marriages, started out as play relationships. And the people involved would not have been, and are not now, comfortable playing at a party. Had they been held to the "play at a party" standard then they likely would not have played and the relationships in question would never have come into being. Their lives would have taken different, and less happy, courses. These are not small issues.

Further, there is a distinct perniciousness to the idea that everybody *should* be OK with playing at a party. I think that we can and do lose sight of the fact that for a fairly large portion of people BDSM play is a highly personal, highly intimate aspect of our lives that we only want to share with, or display to, people we have developed some sort of relationship with.

Display one of the most intimate and personal aspects of my life (not to mention my body) to a bunch of strangers? I'm thinking...fucking A hell no.

Still, the problem of untrustworthy, emotionally unstable, and even predatory, people -- be they male, female, dom, sub, switch, whatever -- is a very real.

So what do I suggest as an alternative approach?

I'm "old school" enough to have come into the scene when the frequency of play parties was a small fraction of what it is today. What did we do "back in the day" when the play at a party option was simply not a practical one? In one short sentence: we took our time. Character always emerges over time, and often in a fairly short period of time. There is tremendous safety in simply taking one's time in getting to know another person before playing (and/or having sex) with them.

We took our time getting to know each other. We took our time before playing together. With the understanding that doing so can be a highly flawed process, we checked references, *particularly* references provided by the potential partner themselves. ("Asking around" is notorious for its false negatives and false positives.) If the person was a newbie with no references, then we simply took things even more slowly. We made fairly limited agreements regarding what would and what would not happen, especially in the first few playdates. This approach actually worked pretty darn well back then. In fact, it also works pretty darn well today.

So, while there is some merit with the "play with them at a party before you play with them in private" approach, it's not the only rational, workable approach. Further, it's completely OK for a person to *not* feel comfortable playing at a party, no matter what their role, gender, kink, or whatever.

Taking one's time also works pretty darn well in keeping one safe.

Respectfully,

Jay Wiseman








(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: No one approach fits all
[info]whipartist
2008-01-28 12:25 am UTC (link)
It's a reasonable point of view. However, it's easy to turn that around. I basically will not play with someone in private the first time we play.

I've known you for what... 15 years? And if we were to play (which seems unlikely, given philosophical mismatches in a bunch of other areas), I would still insist that it be in public, or at least in a small group setting. And I'm just egotistical enough to think...

The first time I play with someone, I'm almost certainly not going to do something so intimate and intense that I'd be unwilling to do it in a public dungeon. For me, playing in public can be a part of the process of checking someone out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: No one approach fits all
[info]kyri_v
2008-01-28 05:07 am UTC (link)
Taking one's time also works pretty darn well in keeping one safe.

Very much so. I think what worried me most about your story is that this lady is a) used to her limits being passed, and b) came up to you and asked you to play in private, the first time she'd met you. (Granted, your books do serve as a bit of an introduction.)

But still, she's playing in private with folk she's not gotten to know.

:shrug:
One thing I've been curious about as I've watched this thread unfold - Did she seem surprised by your clarification questions? Is it possible that other partners hadn't gone into nearly as much detail?

(BTW, I got here via Grail; back in early December I was knitting a green scarf, and you offered me a Cheez-it.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]pamayla
2008-01-27 03:55 pm UTC (link)
I, too, am a member of the Twin Cities BDSM community, and have been for about 12 years. I have never had anyone cross the "no-sex" line with me. I don't very easily have sex with many play partners, and I don't have very many play partners, either. I do attend lots of parties, get involved in the community, and consider the local community pretty much my only social circle, and the members therein like "family."

Perhaps chalk it up to "Minnesota Nice." I believe that if any line, sex or other, are crossed in this community, it wouldn't go over very well. The use of safewords is taken seriously, and everyone respects them, as far as I am aware. The consequences are costly for disrespecting the negotiations of a scene, and can include expulsion from the community.

The only time anything happened in a scene that I did not want, was only because someone who was not expected at this party came to it while I was blindfolded, and I heard his voice. I was surprised and glad to have him there. He became part of my scene, but was not aware of my rule of "no penetration of me with any body parts (including fingers/hands) and no sex of any kind (including oral)." Toys would be okay.

Well, this particular Dom who came unannounced was a good friend, and was there to make sure I was physically safe, because it was a "kidnap" scene, and I suffer from serious neck and back injuries. One thing that he likes to do is fisting, and he is a person I would play with like this, although hadn't up to this point.

During the scene, someone began doing just that. Because I had laid out the rules to the original participants, I thought it was my "acceptable" friend, so I decided to let it play out.

But, it didn't take long to realize there was a problem. The person who was attempting this feat did not know what they were doing, and I put a stop to it soon after it started. No one attempted any other kind of penetration after that, not even with a toy. I was pretty certain that my friend could not have been so blundering, but I had to ask him later anyway.

Upon learning for absolutely certain that it was NOT my trusted friend, I felt violated. I will never again scene with any of the others, and too bad....it was the first time I had scened with any of them. And my friend said that if he had known my rules, he would not have allowed it to happen. I believe that.

I'm extremely careful who I play with, and how. Even in a community known for its SSC adherences. Most of the community members know me enough to know that while I can enjoy a lot of "surface play" at the parties, and less frequently, in private, I rarely allow my scenes to turn into an act of sex.

(Reply to this)


[info]psychowitch1321
2008-01-27 10:10 pm UTC (link)
Everyone is so careful to avoid blaming the victim when (on occasion) the victim deserves a bit of the blame. My very first question, rather than, "What do they say afterwards?" would have been, "What did you say during?" Considering the stated fact that it happened more often than not, I'll bet you my favorite boob she said little or nothing. At most she made weak, feeble protests that sounded more encouraging than discouraging. Most likely because she either a) thinks it wouldn't be very submissive or b)thinks it wouldn't do any good anyway. Either answer is annoying all crap to me.

Truth of the matter is, the "situation" in the kink world is only as bad as folks allow it to be. Did you know random T and A groping is sexual assault? Go ask every woman you know if they've been randomly groped by strangers. The vast majority will say yes. Ask them if they said or did anything about it when it happened. The vast majority will say no.

For every woman that let that groper go and did nothing about it? They just encouraged that person to assault another woman. Yes, it's a relatively minor assault, but it does speak to the heart of the entire problem and how women, in general, play a part in the makin of the problem.

Yes, people are that trusting. Yes, people are that dumb. Yes, all people lie. But submissive women are the worst about such things because they get this B.S. Pollyanna crap lodged in their head about the way things "should be" and how they "should" act. Women as old as sixty and as young as 18 seem to think that because they're "submissive" it means they must lobotomize themselves.

"He's dominant and he said all submissives do this and I'm submissive so that means I have to listen to him and do what he says, right? No, we've only met for coffee once. No, I don't know that much about him. But he's dominant." Two weeks later, "I can't believe he'd do this, and that, and the other... No I didn't say anything. I didn't think I was allowed to..." It's absolute crap.

"I was in subspace and I couldn't say anything..." Again. Absolute crap. You wouldn't get falling down drunk and let some guy beat on you so why on earth would you allow yourself to get so spacey during a beating you were incoherent? "He took advantage..." No, you allowed him to take advantage. Unless a vehement "no" crosses your lips, you allowed it. "But I was gagged..." Moron.

Women sometimes make the damnedest decisions. Particularly when it comes to sex. Especially when it comes to kinky sex. For example, why on earth would you let some strange dude tie you up to the point where you couldn't escape? Why on earth would you allow yourself to be bound AND gagged by some strange dude you had coffee with ten minutes ago? Why on earth would you ride in his car to his apartment - thereby rendering yourself damn near in his mercy and at his disposal? And why, oh why, is struggling or resistence the very last thing that occurs to you?

Because you're submissive and a true submissive doesn't do that? Because you're a woman and men can always overpower a woman?

Bah. Absolute crap.

No. The situation is not that bad for the vast majority of folks who haven't decided to lobotomize themselves. The situation isn't that bad for folks who are self aware of their own power. I have never been assaulted or even randomly groped in the kink world. I have, however, been assaulted at WalMart. More than once. And yes, each time I did something about it and odds are very, very good that the groper will at least think twice before doing it again. At very least he'll think twice before he does it to anybody that even vaguely resembles me.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]catrinaz
2008-01-30 01:57 am UTC (link)
Unless a vehement "no" crosses your lips, you allowed it.

actually, no. what makes it rape or sexual assault isn't the presence of "no". it's the absence of "yes". rape is SEX WITHOUT CONSENT. loud screaming NOs are not required.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]psychowitch1321
2008-01-30 03:46 am UTC (link)
First off I didn't say "loud screaming NO", I said vehement. I'm capable of being vehement without screaming, aren't you?

Furthermore, if this were an entry about and for man-doms? If this were a thread about what is legally rape? If you'd even put the above quote into context, I might have agreed with you. Maybe. This is a thread abotu "ooooooooh all those poor pitiful submittives, how hard it is for them, let's all talk about the bad men, and how the dominants can further protect them". Pish. Tosh. Pfft, even. This "how can man-doms protect the submissives" and the "oh poor pitiful taken advantage of thing" thing tends to masquerade as "enpowering" women when, in fact, it makes them more vulnerable and less empowered.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]catrinaz
2008-01-30 03:59 am UTC (link)
hmmm. well, i'm a submissive and i'm not looking for pity and i'm not looking for protection from doms. i'm looking for direct consent, every time i have intimate contact with somebody - vanilla, D/s, whatever.

i'm also a rape survivor; i was raped six months ago, brutally and violently, by two complete strangers.

and i simply fail to understand how insisting that someone get actual consent prior to a sexual act has anything to do with pity or protection. getting consent prior to a sexual act is necessary for consensual sex to take place. nonconsensual sex is rape. and sexual contact that was specifically stated as nonconsensual? that is absolutely, positively, NOTHING BUT RAPE. and i simply fail to understand why, if this is happening to as many of us as it seems to be, the community allows it to continue...except that we all think it only happened to us. until discussions like this take place. and then, of course, we also start to see why it is allowed to continue...because a lot of people obviously have differing opinions on this issue. which, again, i just can't understand, honestly.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]whipartist
2008-01-27 11:45 pm UTC (link)
In thinking about it more, my question would be "didn't this woman have a safeword? What happened when she used it?"

If she had a safeword and didn't use it, then she has to own a nontrivial chunk of the blame here. In the end, you are the person solely responsible for defending your own boundaries.

Sometimes boundaries will get crossed for a variety of reasons-- they weren't clearly articulated, they intentionally weren't respected, or their partner made an error. I've certainly had things happen when ambiguous language was used during negotiation, though those have been easy enough to just stop and clear up on the spot. ("Hey, I said no X." "Oh! I don't usually think of that as X. Sorry!") I've also had it happen through a lapse of memory ("Hey! I said no X." "Oh, sorry, I completely forgot you said that.")

If handled well, these can be very low-drama events that don't significantly affect the flow of the scene.

I've never had a partner intentionally and willfully cross my boundaries.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]annafdd
2008-04-28 10:37 pm UTC (link)
Coming very late to this, but...

I was raped in a vanilla situation, long before I discovered the scene. After having told the (very drunk) guy in question to please back off in every possible polite way, I realized that I had the choice to scream, kick and claw, or I could pretend, with myself first of all, that I was consenting. The problem was, if I screamed, kicked and clawed, AND HE DID NOT STOP, I would know with no ambiguity that I was being raped.

So I convinced myself that, after all, I didn't mind so very much having sex with him.

On the one hand, arguably, I am guilty of colluding in rape. On the other hand, I wasn't beaten black and blue and I managed to convince him to use a condom.

All in all, I have no regrets.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]kyri_v
2008-04-28 10:46 pm UTC (link)
;shudder:
I can totally see that. I don't know that I would have made the conscious decision, but I can see myself doing so without having the self awareness you describe.
I think the self awareness, though, makes it all the harder.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]xiphias
2008-01-29 11:19 pm UTC (link)
Wow.

I haven't been active in the scene for, I dunno, close on ten years now. But I remember that when I DID discover the scene, when I was eighteen, around 1992, we had a word for that.

We called it "rape". And we meant it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]catrinaz
2008-01-30 01:58 am UTC (link)
thank you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]thesideshow
2008-05-02 05:08 pm UTC (link)
Yes, that's what I was thinking.

I've had it happen in a totally vanilla situation, but it's the same idea - someone knows you are trusting him not to take advantage of you, and he does it anyway. It can be such a shock that it's all over before you've had time to assimilate the fact that he really did that!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mystrangedelite
2008-02-14 05:10 pm UTC (link)
Coming in a bit late on this one, as I've been offline for several months now. My life partner and spouse of 20+ years passed on all too recently, and I've been rather busy dealing with the suckier parts of life. Sigh....

While I have no doubt that some women experience this sort of boundary violation, it's not something I can personally relate to, either in the so-called BDSM 'community' or plain ol' vanilla circles.

The only women I'm acquainted with who have had these sort of experiences have later acknowledged that they did not communicate their sexual boundaries clearly.

I've been active in the public BDSM scene for a bit over 10 years now, and I must say that everyone with whom I've played has been more than considerate in this area. In fact, they've erred on the side of caution, often at times when I would have liked our play to go further in a sexual direction.

And since I have a kink for playing with folks whom I don't know very well, that's saying a lot about my radar for picking suitable partners, as well as my good (dumb?) luck.

Throughout all of those years, I've only experienced one major incident of boundary violation with respect to play. However, the boundaries involved were not of a sexual nature.

(Reply to this)


[info]strega42
2008-06-13 05:41 pm UTC (link)
Hi Jay,

Linked from your homepage and coming to this really late, obviously, but I wanted to add this:

It is that bad, and it's not. There's a lot of regional variance. The Midwest in general has a regional family culture of being self policing that isn't always seen in other places, for example. And that's not just the scene, that's pretty much any social club/clique/relation.

I haven't had an experience where someone deliberately violated a negotiated limit. I also do not play in public. Ever. If I don't know you well enough to invite you into my home to join my husband and I for dinner, I sure as fuck don't want you to tie me down and flog me. I've only been able to actively get into BDSM in the last year and a half or so, and I was thinking that it was *just me* that was being too paranoid or had some pretty bad psychological issues revolving around trust - I just don't play in front of or with or around people I don't know well enough to trust to, say... hold my purse while I run into the ladies' room.

It's just been in the last week or so I've been finding out that it's NOT just me. And it's not that I have this massive expectation that any guy I might scene with publicly would violate my negotiated boundaries. I think for me this is more related to feeling emotionally safe.

So (to bring this back to my first point) regional variance, and how outgoing the (usually) woman is, and if she's able to separate BDSM play from an at least casual emotional relationship (I'm not), will make an enormous difference.

The second thing I want to add is something I've noticed about people in general over the last few years. We're not trained to either say, or accept, "no". We're indoctrinated from early childhood that denying someone (especially an authority, or a loved one) something they desire is either selfish or dangerous. There's also a very broad social attitude that women control sex, or access to it (and we do). Going with that is the social expectation that it's the woman's job not to CONTROL the access, but to DENY it. And it's the man's job to find a way to bypass that denial.

"Oh, the usual... flowers, chocolates, promises you don't intend to keep..."

It's even in Disney movies, for cryin' out loud!

I think we need to learn how to say "no". And to go with that, we need to learn how to accept "no", as well.

It doesn't surprise me that these attitudes spring into greater relief in the BDSM scene. Frankly, I find non-consensual role-playing to be hot as hell - and I can see how this could only end in disaster if I was in any way less than clear with my Dom. I also can have a very difficult time being verbally *clear* to other people about very emotional issues I have, which further raises the risk of a serious misunderstanding. This is why my husband/Dom and I spent about a year talking that over. And over and over and over.

And I won't even get started on the issues that go along with feeling guilty and conflicted over admitting that you do like & want a particular activity - that's a whole different rant.

Anyway... Sorry. Didn't mean to get that long-winded.

Jay, thanks for posting this, and giving me a place to add my thoughts on it. In closing, I'll answer your question in a nutshell -

"Guys" are a bunch of lying pricks, yes. Thank you for being a *man*. :-D

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…