“Silence betokens consent ” — Proverb
This weekend I saw an interesting turn in the otherwise normal interactions of some people I know in the community — one of my friends has this toy that is essentially a modified electric fly swatter that he converted into a toy that has been dubbed ‘The Zappy’. It’s essentially the swatter with the entire handle portion removed and two bicycle spokes connected to the terminals with the tips sodered down to fine little nubs. After years of declining the opportunity to experience Zappy in all of its fine glory I finally broke down on New Years and let a guy I know give me a few zaps. I wouldn’t say that it was mild or I didn’t like it, but I didn’t really understand what all the hype was about. I’ve seen girls scream and wiggle to try and get away from this black and silver contraption and I didn’t really find it all that bad.
On Sunday night a friend was threatening to use the Z-thing on another girl, who was tugging her dress around to make sure her skin stayed covered and kept saying ‘no no no no’. Another girl walked into the room and told him to lay off of her, and my the friend replied “she can stop it by saying a safeword”. This was pretty much the wrong thing to say and ended up resulting in a rant on behalf of the girl …
“Safewords are for use in a consenting play relationship between two people. You two do not have that, so she shouldn’t have to safeword for her to get you to leave her alone. Sometimes no means no.”
This of course started a whole joking banter about if no really ever does mean no (concensus was surprisingly ‘no’) but I guess it got the point across because he left her alone from then on. Ironically I have said a similar thing to a few friends of mine over the last year or so about similar situations, being that my thoughts in seeing these things have always been that just because a person is a submissive/bottom/masochist and in the room does not mean you have a carte blanche to play with them or inflict pain. You shouldn’t have to use a safeword with someone that you know in a casual way just because you can. Safewords, at least for me, aren’t something to really joke about I guess.
I can’t claim to have much personal experience with being in that situation; generally if someone tries something with me and I don’t want it I tell them no while giving a serious look. Over the years this has resulted in my having an image of being untouchable, which I suppose works fine in that context. The one exception to this would probably have been new years when a girl happened along and thought it’d be a good idea to tickle me. After about 30 seconds of it I called red and she seemed surprised. I told her tickling is a no for me and to back off, so she left. Point being that I never invited her to touch me; she just assumed that since I was sprawled out with two other people that I must be open to others touching me. Assumptions like that are something I absolutely hate.
I just don’t understand where the whole concept of ‘communal property’ came into being so common. Why is it that just because you’re unattached it’s assume you’re willing to play with anyone/everyone? If you were in a D/s/M/s/T/b/any relationship people wouldn’t just walk right up to you and start trying to smack you without consulting with your partner first. So why is it that in the absence of you having a partner it’s just assumed that consent to play, even lightly, is not required?
I remember an issue coming up on FL a few months back in which things got out of control at a munch under similar circumstances. The female was asked to assist in demonstrating something, and next thing she knew it was a full-on scene. She didn’t say anything at the time but the situation bothered her enough and had happened to a few others at well. The community was outraged and essentially blacklisted the person in question because “you don’t play without consent”. Now I understand there’s a difference between a few zaps and scening, but at the same time is there really that huge of a difference? Is one not just a milder form of the other?
To play devil’s advocate I know that said zapping friend would leave someone alone if they seriously told him not to do it anymore. So if using that example makes him look bad then understand it’s not my intent; it was just the freshest in my mind. But at the same time you have to acknowledge that the lady did have a point — you can’t make people use safewords if (a) you don’t have an agreed upon safeword, and (b) you’re not in an consented play relationship. It’s just not SSC.
Another twist to this whole situation is the fact of safewords being viewed as a tool, that forcing someone to use a safeword means essentially that you win. It’s not the point of safewords; they’re in place so that if the submissive/slave/bottom/whatever reaches the point that they physically or mentally cannot take any more they can call a scene to stop before irreparable damage occurs. Not as a means of victory over someone else. But I suppose that’s an entirely different blog topic of its own.
