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?
January 26 2008, 18:46:54 UTC 4 years ago
Just my two or three cents. :)
Betty
January 26 2008, 18:58:25 UTC 4 years ago
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.
January 26 2008, 22:48:04 UTC 4 years ago
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.
4 years ago
January 26 2008, 19:19:38 UTC 4 years ago
Is the situation that bad? Mostly I hope it isn't.
January 26 2008, 20:15:04 UTC 4 years ago
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.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
January 26 2008, 19:41:32 UTC 4 years ago
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.
January 26 2008, 19:46:20 UTC 4 years ago
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...
January 26 2008, 22:24:18 UTC 4 years ago
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.
January 26 2008, 20:38:40 UTC 4 years ago
Came here via linkage.
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.
January 27 2008, 09:28:48 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Came here via linkage.
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.)
January 26 2008, 20:54:30 UTC 4 years ago
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.
January 27 2008, 05:55:52 UTC 4 years ago
Violating *clearly stated* boundaries of ANY kind is NOT just part of the territory. Not in my territory anyway.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
January 26 2008, 21:21:35 UTC 4 years ago
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
January 26 2008, 21:27:08 UTC 4 years ago
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.
January 26 2008, 22:58:39 UTC 4 years ago
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.
January 27 2008, 01:19:21 UTC 4 years ago
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.
January 27 2008, 01:38:39 UTC 4 years ago
well, I have to live with myself
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.
January 27 2008, 04:03:38 UTC 4 years ago
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.
January 27 2008, 04:50:00 UTC 4 years ago
No one approach fits all
(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
January 28 2008, 00:25:33 UTC 4 years ago
Re: No one approach fits all
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.
4 years ago
January 27 2008, 15:55:23 UTC 4 years ago
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.
January 27 2008, 22:10:25 UTC 4 years ago
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.
January 30 2008, 01:57:45 UTC 4 years ago
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.
4 years ago
4 years ago
January 27 2008, 23:45:25 UTC 4 years ago
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.
April 28 2008, 22:37:23 UTC 4 years ago
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.
4 years ago
January 29 2008, 23:19:25 UTC 4 years ago
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.
January 30 2008, 01:58:12 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
February 14 2008, 17:10:01 UTC 4 years ago
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.
June 13 2008, 17:41:49 UTC 3 years ago
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