Tolerance I   (01/23/03)
	Kevan wrote: No disrespect intended but I thought I would throw some fuel on the fire as it were. if you had read my post as it was intended. It referred to a groping Dom of the so called Old Leather type that felt he had the right to molest and grope newbies that showed up at munches and playparties. That's not an issue of SSC. That's a boundary issue. If the people did not consent to be groped, then he broke a boundary. Breaking boundaries without consent is reason for ejection from an event where I come from. Kevan wrote: I did not talk about playing or the like. Lets compare apples to apples shall we :o) I believe that the community as a whole is responsible for protecting newbies from predators such as I mentioned in the post that you happened to pick out the parts that you wanted and apply as you saw fit. I believe that reasonable standards should be created and held to. It is not "the community's" responsibility to protecting anyone. While a person may be a newbie to the scene, they've had *some* type of outside life experience that still applies to interactions with strangers. Unless they just fell off the turnip truck. Which *is* how some newbies behave. I am responsible for myself and those that I associate with. If I see someone breaking boundaries that are not meant to be broken, I'll say something, or point out to the person involved with that boundary breaker (regardless of whether they're a newbie or not...it's not just the newbies that "don't know better") that if their boundaries are crossed, they have the right to say stop, no, leave, or scream for help if nothing else. As for picking out parts, your post was a jumping off point for my own thoughts. I'm sorry if that offends you. I merely think that SSC is far to simplistic for most of WIITWD. Kevan wrote: Many newbies that come to the munches have little or no real time experience. many have online experience and we all know how good that is. They've got experience in life, don't they? Just because you (generic you) walk into a dungeon, social, or munch doesn't mean that your previous life experience goes shooting out the window. I don't care *how* rank a newbie is. Or how experienced someone is either. If the warning bells go off in their head about someone they need to *listen*. Similarly, just because you may be at an event where there *may* be sexually oriented or kink oriented activity going on does *NOT* mean that any Tom, Dick, or Harry has the right to grope you because you may be flagging as a sub. They don't have the right to throw themselves at your feet and start slobbering on your shoes either, just because you may be flagging dom. That's just plain common sense. Kevan wrote: Examples are Sir Fuzzy Nuts that likes to spank his victims with a running chain saw and let us not forget super subbie that can kneel in broken glass that has been pissed on for 19 hours. This is from the land of online and not real time. Many newbies do not know what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. I would hope that most newbies could see that using a chainsaw or kneeling on broken glass might be a bit advanced for what they're ready to cope with. Let alone be able to tell that there would need to be safety measures taken if they *did* choose to do it. They may not know what those measures are....but again, common sense should start chiming in at some point in the whole process. Kevan wrote: As the older more experienced members I believe that we are obligated to protect the newbies from such predators. If we do not then they will be blown out and the lifestyle will die through natural mortality rates. You show me a predator that will ever come out as blatantly as using a chain saw, I'll line up and help you oust them. Most of the predators in the scene that I've had the unpleasant fortune to run into are much more subtle about it than that. And are much harder to pick out. Idiots are idiots. Predators are predators. Confusing the two won't help anyone, experienced or newbie. Kevan wrote: I wonder in you message about not believing in SSC you believe I just mouth the rules rather than follow them??? Speak up, I hear a possible slander suit coming :o) If you're referring to my comment about not believing in SSC, I was referring to myself. I think it's nigh unto useless as anything but a sound byte. Safe and sane are subjective standards unique to the couple in question and there is no objective standard to hold an act up to in order to say "This is safe" or "that is not sane". It was not referring to you in any way, shape or form. If you are referring to my comment about mouthing SSC in order to pass, again, it was not directed at you. It was a comment on the fact that everyone in the scene knows that "people should play in a SSC manner". Even the predators, who generally have enough sense of self preservation to mouth SSC even though they intend to disregard it in practice. Kevan wrote: I have not seen you play, so I cannot judge on what I haven't seen. Also as long as it is consensual why would I judge it?? But if you were to molest a newbie unconsentually [sic] please believe me I would indeed judge you, just as I stated in my earlier post. I would talk to you discretely and if you did not mend your ways I would do whatever necessary to protect your victim. That would be to include getting the victim to press charges, report such actions to the community leaders and physical intervention if necessary. But I am sure you are not that kind of person so that wouldn't be necessary :o) Consent is the only criteria in SSC that I agree with. It is the only one that is an objective standard. I have no problem with the idea of consent. My issue is with what safe and sane are defined as. Again, this is why I am not a believer in SSC. It's, essentially, meaningless. Kevan wrote: As far as experience goes I was trained as a sub under the Old Leather system. Congratulations. I've been in the lifestyle for going on 14 years myself, though not within the Old Leather system. Neither your nor my credentials really have any bearing on the discussion at hand, however. I'm actually amused that you brought them into it. Kevan wrote: But you seem to have passed judgment on my so called limited experience. I commented on my beliefs. You are entitled to your own beliefs. I may or may not agree with them. Of course I'm making a judgment about what was written. You have to in order to decide if you agree or not with a given position. You've made several judgments about me in this particular post yourself. So...are judgments bad? Or are they just the way humans process incoming data?