Someone in this group used the acronyms SSC (Safe, Sane and Consensual) and RACK (Risk-Aware Consensual Kink) in opposition to each other. I'm not saying it was wrong to do so, but I have always been under the impression that these two concepts were, if not two ways to express the same concern, at least complementary to each other.
What are your views on this?
OH&S, duty of care, liability, tort all spring to mind.
Halcyon: I believe they embody the spirit of the same concern and both encompass risk, just from slightly different perspectives. In my opinion, they are not at all polar opposites.
Desmond: Agree with halcyon_days ... Ultimately SSC and RACK are different ways of expressing the same question: Does everyone know what they are getting themselves into?
I like to boil things down to the word-concept ahimsa -- avoiding harm in action and malice in thought. Even when our actions cause momentary pain, there is always the restraint to minimize the level of physical and/or emotional injury as much as possible, all rooted in respect and compassion for all concerned, including oneself.
Zetsu: My understanding of the two philosophies is that SSC tends to treat (or is seen as treating) kink as having clear boundaries. Either something is safe or unsafe, sane or insane, consensual or nonconsensual. RACK deals with the same issues, but in a less binary form, treating risk as something that has degrees and rather than saying something is safe or unsafe, things can be more or less risky. So instead of setting clear boundaries, RACK is more about being aware of the risks (hence the name).
My guess is that SSC emerged as a reaction to what other people think of BDSM. It responds to the classic objections to BDSM play: That doesn't seem safe! You people are crazy! S/he can't possibly LIKE that!
RACK seems more like something aimed at the community itself, making sure people are educated about the things they do and understand what is at stake.
Bight: I know that, for example, I used those terms in opposition to each other, recently and on this forum.
In that case the point I tried to make is that limits set under a RACK mentality originate internally with the involved parties, while limits set under an SSC mentality are much more tied to community standards for "safety" and "sanity" and "consent." Those are, in my view, approaches as different as are Libertarianism and Socialism.
The view, though, is solely mine. Others use the terms as they will.
Safe Sane and Consensual is a jingo that emerged from the meeting in Dallas of the National Leather Association. (I believe the date was 1982 but I maybe off by a couple of years.) It was a jingo that came up as a strategy to deal with the political objections within a liberation movement. Short version = among gay rights activist there's always been (and still is) a sector that objects to leather / SM (this is before the use of BDSM being common) presence in the liberation movements. They felt that Leathermen and Leather Women made the gay liberation movement look unsavory. So as the March on Washington was about to happen, certain organisers in NLA (back then far more active and organized) got together and came up with something that worked really well as a banner. And since it concisely expressed (after all there were many writers present) so much of how people approached Leather Sex - it stuck.
Which ever bit of short hand term you use, I think it's a useful word-tool to begin discussion on where one's values are and where one draws boundaries. It's a good tool for teaching some basic common sense and good practice to folks who are new to this sort of affection.
Of course sociopaths and jerks of all ilks can always twist words around to suit them and still claim to stick to the "word of law."
No comments:
Post a Comment