Acceptable or No?

[Flaming_Redhead]

I came across a thread on another BDSM site that presented this scenario:

1. Submissive enters into no holds barred/no limits M/s relationship.
2. Dominant gives command that submissive is very strongly against doing.
3. Dominant proceeds to issue corporal punishment.
4. Submissive safewords.
5. Dominant increases intensity of punishment.

In your opinion, is this acceptable? Elaborate on why or why not.

[CyberSleuth]

In my opinion this is not acceptable. First, a no limits relationship should have no need for safe words. If safe words are given and agreed upon, then they must be honored. Submissive is wrong for not completing command. Dominate is wrong for ignoring safe words. Both are wrong in entering a no holds barred/no limits relationship. Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

[Ragoczy]

In my opinion, not an acceptable course of events.

If safewords exist, they must be honored without consequences, else they're meaningless and an inherent trust has been violated.

Also, even in a "no limits" relationship, there are implied limits. I'd have to know the details of the command to determine if I thought the command itself violated those.

A caveat to this would be the type of safeword -- I use two: one that means "stop now, too far or something's wrong" and another that's a request to stop or lighten the intensity. I may accept the latter or not at my discretion.

[Flaming_Redhead]

First, a no limits relationship should have no need for safe words.

I was kind of thinking the same thing.

If safe words are given and agreed upon, then they must be honored.

This is true.

Submissive is wrong for not completing command.

I don't think there was enough information given to determine whether or not the submissive was wrong to refuse. Even a slave has the right to veto anything that might harm her.

Dominate is wrong for ignoring safe words.

Generally, I agree. However, I have to wonder what control a Master has if punishment is able to be controlled by the slave with the use of a safe word. Punishment isn't the same as play and isn't meant to be enjoyed.

Both are wrong in entering a no holds barred/no limits relationship.

Why? I would think that anyone entering into this type of relationship would know each other well enough to be sure of what they're getting into.

[Flaming_Redhead]

If safewords exist, they must be honored without consequences, else they're meaningless and an inherent trust has been violated.

I agree, but we don't know in what context the safe word existed. If this was a no limits relationship, the safe word may have only existed for the sake of new types of play in which they were both inexperienced.

Also, even in a "no limits" relationship, there are implied limits.

This is true. Usually, the reason for having no limits is that the couple know each other sufficiently well to trust that they have the same basic limits and, therefore, no limits will ever be breached.

I'd have to know the details of the command to determine if I thought the command itself violated those.

Maybe she was commanded to get him something to drink, and she had just painted her toenails.

A caveat to this would be the type of safeword -- I use two: one that means "stop now, too far or something's wrong" and another that's a request to stop or lighten the intensity. I may accept the latter or not at my discretion.

Do you allow them to be used to get out of punishment? You brought up a good point, though. Maybe after 2 swats, she used the "yellow" safe word, and he determined that she could take some more without any permanent damage.

[subserviant]

I think it depends entirerly on the relation ship

[alpha_Straye]

I came across a thread on another BDSM site that presented this scenario:

1. Submissive enters into no holds barred/no limits M/s relationship.
2. Dominant gives command that submissive is very strongly against doing.
3. Dominant proceeds to issue corporal punishment.
4. Submissive safewords.
5. Dominant increases intensity of punishment.

In your opinion, is this acceptable? Elaborate on why or why not.

Punishment for simply not feeling the same about some command? Sounds like a Wanker to me. i would have thought she could feel however she feels and i hope even express such in the appropriate format at the appropriate time.

Punishment for her subsequent actions however, if there were any.. that might or might not be reasonable. Depends on what she did, if anything.

[Flaming_Redhead]

Punishment for simply not feeling the same about some command? Sounds like a Wanker to me. i would have thought she could feel however she feels and i hope even express such in the appropriate format at the appropriate time.

Punishment for her subsequent actions however, if there were any.. that might or might not be reasonable. Depends on what she did, if anything.

Good point! It doesn't say she actually refused, only that she felt strongly against doing it. I would hope that one is allowed to feel emotions. How she expressed herself may have been the cause for punishment rather than actual disobedience.

[Ragoczy]

I agree, but we don't know in what context the safe word existed. If this was a no limits relationship, the safe word may have only existed for the sake of new types of play in which they were both inexperienced.

That's true, and the problem with hypotheticals, the discussion has to be in generalities. So, in general, I assume safewords apply at all times.

This is true. Usually, the reason for having no limits is that the couple know each other sufficiently well to trust that they have the same basic limits and, therefore, no limits will ever be breached.

I guess one of the problems is that I view safewords as a communications tool that's valuable regardless of how well I think I know someone. It's not just about limits, it's about things going wrong.

Maybe she was commanded to get him something to drink, and she had just painted her toenails.

Well, the trust goes both ways -- that the safeword will be honored, but also that it won't be used frivolously. And that's something for the two to discuss after the safeword's been honored -- "I just painted my toenails and don't want to have to redo them", frivolous; "I just painted my toenails and it'll get on the new carpet", not so much.

Do you allow them to be used to get out of punishment? You brought up a good point, though. Maybe after 2 swats, she used the "yellow" safe word, and he determined that she could take some more without any permanent damage.

Not to "get out of", but to halt/delay/discuss if there's some serious problem, yes.

The second part of your question goes to the caveat I added. Obviously if it's within the dominant's agreed discretion to ignore a type of safeword, then it's an acceptable scenario.

[the xprt]

Firstly a sub does not belong in a M/s relationship. The mindset of a sub is different than that of a slave.
Those who enter into an M/s relationship usually do so after much discussion of hard and soft limits, setting boundaries, building trust and respect.
There should be no safe words in a M/s relationship, they are for D/s relationships.
The slave becomes the property of the Master, to be used or discarded as the Master sees fit. The slave is entirely dependant upon the Master and it is a function of that role to look after the well being of the slave.
The scenario put forth here does not work for it mixes dynamics from two different lifestyles, two different mindsets.
A sub can safeword and a Dom sould respect that, not so with a Master and slave..

[In2kink]

First, let me preface my remarks by saying;

1. M/s generally denotes a Master/slave relationship which is far different than a D/s (Dominant/submissive) relationship.
2. I do understand the attraction of M/s relationships for those who enjoy that level of power exchange, however it is not an attraction for me and I have no personal experience with it. I am however acquainted with several people who have that kind of relationship.

so in response...

1. Submissive enters into no holds barred/no limits M/s relationship.

This does seem to indicate that the relationship is in fact a Master/slave relationship. A bit more information would be needed because these relationships are generally contractual and the precise answer to many of these questions would depend on what the terms of said contract were. But in general, a M/s contract would be "no holds barred/no limits" as generally slaves are not permitted limits and therefore "safewords" is a moot point. There are none.

2. Dominant gives command that submissive is very strongly against doing.

Again, in this instance if she in a M/s relationship, she is a slave and has no opinion so she cannot be "strongly against" doing anything. No limits, no right of refusal.

3. Dominant proceeds to issue corporal punishment.

Superficially, no quarrel here. If she was a slave and contractually has no limits then she was disobedient if she refused a command and corporal punishment would be an appropriate response.

4. Submissive safewords.

In general, yes of course safewords are always protected and honored. But given the point where this falls in your scenario, I'd assume she was attempting to use a safe word to stop the punishment and that is a point I think is well worth discussing. Even in a D/s relationship as opposed to a M/s relationship, submissives are not commonly allowed to use safewords during actual punishment. If you think about it that is only logical. Otherwise if the submissive did not like the punishment chosen she could merely escape it by using the veto power of a safeword. Therefore punishment would not be very effective. A submissive must trust her dominant to use good judgement about when punishment is called for and how it is administered.

5. Dominant increases intensity of punishment.

Regardless of the character of the relationship, here I'd have a problem seeing justification for this under any circumstances. Before disciplining, a dominant should have already considered the matter carefully and decided on a punishment that fits the offense. A dominant should never punish capriciously or while angry. This sounds too much like someone who becomes gripped by emotion and then increases the intensity of the punishment beyond what he intially had decided on. That isn't good and would indicate a lack of self-control. He should merely complete the punishment as originally intended.

In summary, many people think they want to be a slave but they haven't clearly grasped exactly what that means. It is world away from being a submissive. The moral here I think is to be wise about what kind of relationship you agree to. I think it is always good in any type of BDSM relationship for the parties to have a written contract. Of course such a contact is not a legally enforceable document but it does spell out the expectations and so both parties know how the relationship will be conducted and what the rules are. I personally have no interest in relationships without limits because in my mind they violate the tenants of SSC and RACK. But everyone should be able to make up their own mind about what kind of relationship they find meaningful.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

1 & 4 are mutually exclusive.

[Flaming_Redhead]

That's true, and the problem with hypotheticals, the discussion has to be in generalities. So, in general, I assume safewords apply at all times.

You're absolutely right. We can presume all manner of things since there's not much information. I thought it would be interesting to suppose different things and see if people's opinions change. Obviously, yours didn't.

I guess one of the problems is that I view safewords as a communications tool that's valuable regardless of how well I think I know someone. It's not just about limits, it's about things going wrong.

That's a good point.

Well, the trust goes both ways -- that the safeword will be honored, but also that it won't be used frivolously. And that's something for the two to discuss after the safeword's been honored -- "I just painted my toenails and don't want to have to redo them", frivolous; "I just painted my toenails and it'll get on the new carpet", not so much.

Hmmm....I can't imagine using a safe word frivolously because that's akin to crying wolf, but then again, I've been known not to use mine out of sheer stubbornness.

Not to "get out of", but to halt/delay/discuss if there's some serious problem, yes.

The second part of your question goes to the caveat I added. Obviously if it's within the dominant's agreed discretion to ignore a type of safeword, then it's an acceptable scenario.

Really? I've never used a safe word during punishment. In fact, the thought never even crossed my mind. That's not to say I don't protest, whine, beg, plead, or try to squirm away. If it works, fine. If it doesn't....even better! *ggls*

I think the majority of people use the traffic light signal to denote varying degrees of "stop" with "yellow" usually meaning "slow down, proceed with caution" and not necessarily "STOP," so I can see where ignoring it might be acceptable.

[sisterhoney61 {RW}]

I used to be in a M/s relationship and now I am in a D/s relationship. As a slave I had no safeword because I had no rights. So even if I was given a command that I was opposed to, I could not voice this since I was a slave. I had to do what my Master commanded me to do. So even if I was to rebel and say no, and I received corporal punishment for that, I would have no safeword to use during then either. However, even if I could use a safeword, I would not have done so, since it was punishment.

In the D/s relationship that I am in now I do have the right to oppose Master's command if I am strongly against it. However, I have to explain to Him why I am opposing it. However, He can also insist that I do it, because He is the Master and it is His command. And He can also enforce corporal punishment. However, I have never used my safeword whenever I have been punished. I will beg, whine and plead at times, but I won't say the safeword, because it is punishment, not play.

[denuseri]

Well all sematics aside, terminology being open to interpetation and all, simply based on the information provided:

FRH i would have to say i think a dominant that pushes his slave to far or ignores his properties needs to the exclusion of acknowleging his girls hard limits (safe words or not) and esculates punishment instead of comunicating amlicably isnt a very wise person and isnt really serving even his own needs but giving in to brutality and isnt any better than a criminal.


To truely have an enjoyable fufiling relationship of any kind, all parties involved must have a dynamic that allows for them to mutually thrive.

A slave should be a dominants most prized possession. Only a fool damages unduely or even destroys his most valuable piece of property.

I know some of you may take exception to my terminology, i do consider myself my owners property in total, (D/s. M/s whatever you wish to call us lol) -we prefer owner and slave or Master and kajira, however you lable us; i trust he is wise enough to do what is right and i would never in a hundred years expect to see him treat me the way the so called dom treated his sub in the original post FRH described...period.

After all what could be better than owning a truely joyful and willing pleasure slave who freely devotes her life to yours?

Who lives by your command becuase instead of brutally crushing her will you instaed did as my owner likes to say so much better than i and :

"coax forth truely willing submission, like the sun a flower's petals with dawns embrace."
.

[Flaming_Redhead]

Firstly a sub does not belong in a M/s relationship.

Umm...firstly, while all subs are not slaves, all slaves are subs.

The mindset of a sub is different than that of a slave.

I don't disagree with you there, but it's possible for a sub to become a slave over time or with the right person.

Those who enter into an M/s relationship usually do so after much discussion of hard and soft limits, setting boundaries, building trust and respect.

Again, I'm not going to argue with that.

There should be no safe words in a M/s relationship, they are for D/s relationships.

Says who? They may not ever need them, but everyone has a right to utilize them in their dynamic if they choose to. For instance, the Master may purchase a new whip and tell the slave to say a certain word if it really hurts so he can gauge the effect the whip is having.

The slave becomes the property of the Master, to be used or discarded as the Master sees fit.

Right.

The slave is entirely dependant upon the Master and it is a function of that role to look after the well being of the slave.

The slave is only dependant if the Master wishes it. Some prefer their slave to bring in an income.

The scenario put forth here does not work for it mixes dynamics from two different lifestyles, two different mindsets.
A sub can safeword and a Dom sould respect that, not so with a Master and slave..

I kind of thought the same thing when I first read the scenario. It looked to me like a sub got in over her head and didn't really understand what she'd signed up for, and then, she tried to get out of it by using a safe word. However, again, it depends on the contract. If this was, indeed, a no holds barred/no limits relationship, I don't know that a safe word would exist. However, if the slave had negotiated the use of a safe word prior to accepting the collar, and unless the Master stipulated that it couldn't be used during punishment or that he could assess the situation and choose to ignore it, I think he should've stopped to see what was the matter.

[Flaming_Redhead]

First, let me preface my remarks by saying;

1. M/s generally denotes a Master/slave relationship which is far different than a D/s (Dominant/submissive) relationship.
2. I do understand the attraction of M/s relationships for those who enjoy that level of power exchange, however it is not an attraction for me and I have no personal experience with it. I am however acquainted with several people who have that kind of relationship.

so in response...



This does seem to indicate that the relationship is in fact a Master/slave relationship. A bit more information would be needed because these relationships are generally contractual and the precise answer to many of these questions would depend on what the terms of said contract were. But in general, a M/s contract would be "no holds barred/no limits" as generally slaves are not permitted limits and therefore "safewords" is a moot point. There are none.

I agree, except that limits and safe words can be negotiated into the contract. Even in a no limits relationship, I think the limits are implied rather than written because both parties either have the same limits or the Master isn't an extreme player. Hell, they might not even be into S&M.

Again, in this instance if she in a M/s relationship, she is a slave and has no opinion so she cannot be "strongly against" doing anything. No limits, no right of refusal.

A slave always has the right to withdraw consent, understanding that it will probably end the relationship.

Superficially, no quarrel here. If she was a slave and contractually has no limits then she was disobedient if she refused a command and corporal punishment would be an appropriate response.

On the surface, all is well. If he told her to bring him her sister or daughter, which she refused....I suppose the "FUCK YOU" and slamming door would negate any punishment.

In general, yes of course safewords are always protected and honored. But given the point where this falls in your scenario, I'd assume she was attempting to use a safe word to stop the punishment and that is a point I think is well worth discussing. Even in a D/s relationship as opposed to a M/s relationship, submissives are not commonly allowed to use safewords during actual punishment. If you think about it that is only logical. Otherwise if the submissive did not like the punishment chosen she could merely escape it by using the veto power of a safeword. Therefore punishment would not be very effective. A submissive must trust her dominant to use good judgement about when punishment is called for and how it is administered.

Uh-huh.

Regardless of the character of the relationship, here I'd have a problem seeing justification for this under any circumstances. Before disciplining, a dominant should have already considered the matter carefully and decided on a punishment that fits the offense. A dominant should never punish capriciously or while angry. This sounds too much like someone who becomes gripped by emotion and then increases the intensity of the punishment beyond what he intially had decided on. That isn't good and would indicate a lack of self-control. He should merely complete the punishment as originally intended.

I hadn't even thought about that, but I guess you're right.

In summary, many people think they want to be a slave but they haven't clearly grasped exactly what that means. It is world away from being a submissive. The moral here I think is to be wise about what kind of relationship you agree to. I think it is always good in any type of BDSM relationship for the parties to have a written contract. Of course such a contact is not a legally enforceable document but it does spell out the expectations and so both parties know how the relationship will be conducted and what the rules are. I personally have no interest in relationships without limits because in my mind they violate the tenants of SSC and RACK. But everyone should be able to make up their own mind about what kind of relationship they find meaningful.

*nods a lot*

[Ragoczy]

You're absolutely right. We can presume all manner of things since there's not much information. I thought it would be interesting to suppose different things and see if people's opinions change. Obviously, yours didn't.

That's because I'm stubborn and pig-headed.

Really? I've never used a safe word during punishment. In fact, the thought never even crossed my mind. That's not to say I don't protest, whine, beg, plead, or try to squirm away. If it works, fine. If it doesn't....even better! *ggls*

I think the majority of people use the traffic light signal to denote varying degrees of "stop" with "yellow" usually meaning "slow down, proceed with caution" and not necessarily "STOP," so I can see where ignoring it might be acceptable.

So let's paint a hypothetical. Punishment's assessed, let's say a good caning. Thing's progress and it was a serious infraction, so it's really painful. There's a lot of screaming and crying. Now something goes wrong; say there's some thrashing and pulling and a cuff gets just the right angle to damage something in the hand.

In all of this, I want a word. One word that isn't part of the screaming and crying that'll spring to the front of the girl's mind as the way to tell me something's seriously wrong and that will cut right through to me to let me know there's something wrong.

I won't react to "Ow, ow, ow!", I'm expecting that. I may not immediately hear "My hand hurts!", but a part of me is listening for that safeword all the time and tuned to immediately protect when I hear it.

[Flaming_Redhead]

I used to be in a M/s relationship and now I am in a D/s relationship. As a slave I had no safeword because I had no rights. So even if I was given a command that I was opposed to, I could not voice this since I was a slave. I had to do what my Master commanded me to do. So even if I was to rebel and say no, and I received corporal punishment for that, I would have no safeword to use during then either. However, even if I could use a safeword, I would not have done so, since it was punishment.

In the D/s relationship that I am in now I do have the right to oppose Master's command if I am strongly against it. However, I have to explain to Him why I am opposing it. However, He can also insist that I do it, because He is the Master and it is His command. And He can also enforce corporal punishment. However, I have never used my safeword whenever I have been punished. I will beg, whine and plead at times, but I won't say the safeword, because it is punishment, not play.

You go, girl!

FRH i would have to say i think a dominant that pushes his slave to far or ignores his properties needs to the exclusion of acknowleging his girls hard limits (safe words or not) and esculates punishment instead of comunicating amlicably isnt a very wise person and isnt really serving even his own needs but giving in to brutality and isnt any better than a criminal.

Amen, sista!

[Flaming_Redhead]

So let's paint a hypothetical. Punishment's assessed, let's say a good caning. Thing's progress and it was a serious infraction, so it's really painful. There's a lot of screaming and crying. Now something goes wrong; say there's some thrashing and pulling and a cuff gets just the right angle to damage something in the hand.

In all of this, I want a word. One word that isn't part of the screaming and crying that'll spring to the front of the girl's mind as the way to tell me something's seriously wrong and that will cut right through to me to let me know there's something wrong.

I won't react to "Ow, ow, ow!", I'm expecting that. I may not immediately hear "My hand hurts!", but a part of me is listening for that safeword all the time and tuned to immediately protect when I hear it.

Okie dokie, artichokie! I can honestly say nothing like that has ever happened to me, but there's a first time for everything. My punishments usually sound more like "But, Daddy, I forgot..." (please don't spank me) and "No, Daddy, PLEASE..." (ow ow ow). *ggls* I'm pretty sure if Daddy heard me scream "RED" instead of "DAMMIT," he'd stop.

[Mr.Quirt]

It is amazing to me that this discussion could have gone this far without resolution. Am I the only lawyer on this site?

Here is how to think about this topic. A safeword establishes a lack of consent. Anything that happens after a safeword has been uttered is no longer the activity of consenting adults. Nonconsensual touching is a battery, redressable through a civil action in damages. Continuation of actual punishment will be a criminal offense, quite possibly a felony.

There is no form of agreement as to the victim's status as a "slave", and no possible form of contract which would constitute an effective defense. Where I live, any such defense is ruled out by the 13th amendment.

We have our fantasy and our fun, but we should always remember we live in a larger, real world.

Mr. Quirt

[damyanti]

It is amazing to me that this discussion could have gone this far without resolution. Am I the only lawyer on this site?

ROTFLMAO, but you forget that a jury consists of people who decide who has the better lawyer, lol.


On topic:
The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his own creation.[C.S. Lewis]

You signed a contract. But much more important than that, you gave your word. And I intend to hold you to that word within the bounds of the law. If necessary, without the bounds of the law. [Josh Brand and John Falsey]

[Flaming_Redhead]

Here is how to think about this topic. A safeword establishes a lack of consent. Anything that happens after a safeword has been uttered is no longer the activity of consenting adults. Nonconsensual touching is a battery, redressable through a civil action in damages. Continuation of actual punishment will be a criminal offense, quite possibly a felony.

LOL You do realize that in most places there's no such thing as consensual battery in the eyes of the law? Therefore, everything we do is illegal. The dominant can be arrested for assault and battery, and the submissive can be arrested for aiding and abetting.

There is no form of agreement as to the victim's status as a "slave", and no possible form of contract which would constitute an effective defense. Where I live, any such defense is ruled out by the 13th amendment.

I think we all realize that there's no such thing as slavery since no one can actually buy or sell humans, at least not legally.

[caligirl{Rob}]

I can honestly say I can see no situation when ignoring a safeword is acceptable. There may be serious ramifications to the relationship if it is used, but it should be honored always!

[littlepet]

I think these two don't belong in this relationship because there is not enough trust to sustain it. I think a lot of people have a deep need to be truly owned and not just "play." Which doesn't mean I think there is anything wrong with "just playing" but for some of us, "just playing" is incredibly frustrating.

Imagine if you struggled over and over to achieve orgasm and you came right to the edge but never actually reached completion? To those of us who NEED to be really and truly OWNED by another human being, that is what fantasy play with limits and safewords is.

At the same time though, in order to live in a power exchange without those things takes a lot of time, and it's hard to get to that point. For both parties.

I don't necessarily agree that the submissive omg should have done what the dominant said no matter personal feelings on the issue. Though I do think enough trust needs to exist in the relationship so that if he/she does act out he/she accepts his/her punishment.

When I act out it isn't because I don't respect the control over me, it's because I'm expressing that I don't feel I'm being heard, and the issue is important enough to me to submit to a caning.

If this relationship is not a compatible match for these people, if the submissive hasn't reached the mental point of no return, then I would suggest either asking for release or "escaping."

And if the submissive is using a safeword as an information sharing exercise as opposed to "to try to control the relationship" and isn't abusing it but is truly unable to take anymore of what is being done, the dominant has crossed a line into abuse when he doesn't listen to that.

Sure the submissive belongs to that dominant, and sure it is his/her "right" to exert that control in a TPE. But having power and having the "right" to use it is not the same as it being wise to use it. And to damage one's sub/slave/pet in such a way, is not honorable. And I would seriously question the dominant if he/she engaged in such a behavior and said he cared about/loved his pet/slave/sub.

[littlepet]

As for rights, in an owned situation, a slave has any and all rights that his/her master gives him/her. To assert that no slave has rights, isn't in keeping with reality. You have whatever rights your master deems that you have. In some relationships you may have quite a few rights.

As for slaves historically, with the exception of the african slave trade, in situations such as ancient Greek and Roman slavery, slaves did have certain rights.

However, I think a discussion of "rights" is pretty pointless because I think all rights for all people are always theoretical. As a citizen of the United States, I have the right to be free. If I am locked in a cage, my right has no bearing on my reality.

All I consider valid are will, opportunity, and action. If I have the will to do something, and the opportunity to do something (and I understand and accept the risks), I will do it.

Owned property or not.

[littlepet]

To the lawyer, owning something means it is in your possession and under your control. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is "legal" to own such a thing.

I can assure you that I am really owned human property, in a similar way to how a cat might be owned. If I "escaped" or was released I would no longer be owned.

It is illegal to own marijuana in the united states, but many people own it anyway. Ownership and "legal ownership" are two different things.

And I agree with the person earlier who said there is no such thing in the eyes of the law as legal battery. When my ass is getting caned, I'm quite sure, consensual or not, that we're breaking about half a dozen laws.

Also, sorry everybody for multiple posts in a row like that.

[alpha_Straye]

owning something means it is in your possession and under your control. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is "legal" to own such a thing.

...It is illegal to own marijuana in the united states, but many people own it anyway. Ownership and "legal ownership" are two different things.

Yep. im glad i didnt have to write that response, yours was better *smile*.

[tessa]

So let's paint a hypothetical. Punishment's assessed, let's say a good caning. Thing's progress and it was a serious infraction, so it's really painful. There's a lot of screaming and crying. Now something goes wrong; say there's some thrashing and pulling and a cuff gets just the right angle to damage something in the hand.

In all of this, I want a word. One word that isn't part of the screaming and crying that'll spring to the front of the girl's mind as the way to tell me something's seriously wrong and that will cut right through to me to let me know there's something wrong.

I won't react to "Ow, ow, ow!", I'm expecting that. I may not immediately hear "My hand hurts!", but a part of me is listening for that safeword all the time and tuned to immediately protect when I hear it.

Very well said. Thank you.