What's your safeword?

[ErosWired]

17 hours ago, BBArchangel said:

I removed the training wheels some time ago. I don’t use safe words. 

Safewords are not “training wheels”, and every experienced submissive in the BDSM lifestyle has one, and incorporates it as a matter of course in every scene negotiated with a Dominant. Every Dominant worthy of the name asks for, expects, and respects the safeword. Both parties expect that it will never be uttered, because of the trust they are placing in one another. The word is a safety precaution to avoid real harm, not a cop-out feature or signal of weakness. No submissive who takes his submission seriously will use his safeword unless at the end of need; its use will cause a sense of failure in both parties - in the Dominant, a sense of failure at mastery of his power, and a failure of due care, and in the submissive a failure to endure, and to serve. No scene is ever a contest to see what it takes for the Dominant to force the submissive to say his safeword. Such a thing would be abhorrent to anyone in the lifestyle.

Those who say they don’t have one or refuse to use one a) are inexperienced, b) never engage in play that rises to the level in which a safeword would be remotely necessary, or c) are foolish. There is no ‘bragging right’ to be had in claiming that you have or use no safeword; it only says that you do not clearly communicate with your sex partners, and a discerning Dominant might well decline to interact with you if you say you don’t use one.

My safeword is simply ‘Red’, because it’s more or less universally understood throughout the BDSM community even if it were not explicitly discussed in scene negotiation. I also use ‘Yellow’ as a ‘slow-down’ word in the way @hntnhole mentions above, though I am far from a novice; I use it (exceedingly sparingly) to allow a Dominant to fine-tune the subtleties of his technique as we spend time exploring and expanding the boundaries of my endurance. I have always made my safewords clear; I have never said ‘Red’ because I have used ‘Yellow’ to make sure I never needed to.

Note: I do not employ my red word in vanilla sex, as most men outside the BDSM lifestyle do not understand the concept or its significance, and because if the kind of action that would prompt its use in BDSM occurs in a vanilla context, you’re most likely dealing with a sexual assault or rape, and no safeword is going to help you.

Edited November 16, 2023 by ErosWired

[cockfun69]

A good Dom in early meetings could suggest a 'traffic light' system of comfort/safety.
Less likely to be needed as limits and body language/responses are shown/learned.

[cityjock]

I like the idea of the "traffic light" system. I've never used it, but it is direct and universal. 

When meeting with a new sub, we always establish a safe word. We're new to one another and it takes time to develop a kind of non-verbal, bodily fluency with one another. 

I've found in my experience that partners who are genuinely into kink exploration are better communicators than those who are fixated on a distinct fantasy. The distinct fantasy bunch rarely turn into long-term playmates. 

 

edit: oh, and my go-to safeword is "pineapple," but I'm gonna try out the "traffic light" system the next time I meet a new sub.

Edited November 16, 2023 by cityjock

[DaWhore]

I had no idea about “red”, thanks for the info.

You should tackle the fiction section, you can write.

[hntnhole]

The "traffic light" construct have been the default "safewords" forever, and the fact that it encompasses three stages of activity (stop, caution, go) can be useful.  That said, I prefer to ask the prospective bottom to come up with his own word, which implies he also consider acts he might prefer to postpone in the proposed initial scene.  It encourages him to reflect - however momentarily - on associations wherein he might need to use it.  I've actually taped a little note somewhere in the slingroom with his choice of word, just to be sure I'll remember it (especially if the scene is to take place in a number of days).  

Also, as part of the "warm-up", I ask him to repeat his safeword, to make sure he remembers it, and have him explain his understanding of what calling out the safeword will do.  The choreography of a Bd/Sm scene is important for two reasons:  it demonstrates the capability of the Top to the bottom, and helps the bottom feel confident that he'll receive what he's interested in, and nothing he isn't.  I also look for ways to praise, congratulate, encourage (not too much, of course) a newbie, which only builds his own confidence.  I know that some Bd/Sm Tops would never let one vowel of praise pass their lips during a scene, for a variety of suspect reasons, but an innocuous word of encouragement almost always helps put a novice at ease, which is one of my goals.  

There is an old adage among Bd/Sm Tops that states "a boy must be broken down first, and then re-built to the Dom's specifications".  That has never made one iota of sense to me. 

Competency really counts in these kinds of scenes. 

[ErosWired]

1 hour ago, hntnhole said:

I've actually taped a little note somewhere in the slingroom with his choice of word, just to be sure I'll remember it (especially if the scene is to take place in a number of days).  

Also, as part of the "warm-up", I ask him to repeat his safeword, to make sure he remembers it,

This is sort of the reason I default to ‘Red’ - for me to use my safeword, a Dom would have to take me to an extremity of physical or mental distress at which I might have difficulty recalling that I had chosen ‘Rutabaga’. Red means ‘stop’ in mosts contexts, which is what you want the Dom to do at that point.

Now, as I have always been taught and practiced, the use of a safeword isn’t for a momentary pause - use of a safeword ends the scene, to allow for recovery, and communication.

 I’m not sure if the general readership here is able to entirely appreciate the complexities of this topic, as safewords aren’t usually a feature of vanilla sexual activity, even among certain non-BDSM kink circles. There are plenty of kinky things people do that don’t involve the kind of power exchange that allows Dominants to subject submissives to discomfort, distress and/or pain. Someone might say, “I never use a safeword, I let a Top fuck me as hard as he wants”, but he doesn’t realize that in many cases hard fucking would be gentle treatment compared to what a BDSM submissive might be subjected to. One could hardly blame them for not understanding; by any common measure, people would consider most submissives crazy to allow themselves to be used so. The waters of power exchange run deep, with strong currents, and not many choose to swim in them.

[hntnhole]

13 hours ago, ErosWired said:

 I’m not sure if the general readership here is able to entirely appreciate the complexities of this topic

Great reply.  I am sure that a large percentage of our BZ members have not a clue about the complexities of Bd/Sm, the "power-exchange", the Leather Ethic, or anything else about that magnificent method of ordering one's life.  And, that's ok.  No one knows everything about every other thing right out of the box; learning, open-minded-ness (that was awkward, but ...) is one of the important things about being alive and productive.  I think that relatively few have the courage to confront any urges to this kind of sexual connection, but for those that might, all they have to do is ask.  That's ok too. 

It's easy to forgive uninformed lack of awareness.  Aggressive ignorance, not so much. 

[BootmanLA]

17 hours ago, hntnhole said:

There is an old adage among Bd/Sm Tops that states "a boy must be broken down first, and then re-built to the Dom's specifications".  That has never made one iota of sense to me. 

About the only way I can see this possibly making sense is in the context of a long-term relationship with a significant BDSM and power exchange component, particularly if the two are moving from a more conventional relationship of equals into a Dom/sub power exchange one. The sub, no matter how much he may desire that sort of arrangement, is going to find it conflicts with much of the way he lived his life before, and a lot of those kinds of things may need to be stripped away.

Now, I will say that presumably the Dom's expectations will have been outlined before that process begins. For instance, the parties may pursue this kind of arrangement because the prospective sub recognizes he needs the discipline and rigor of deferring to someone else; that might be to help him save and become financially stable (so the Dom controls his spending and forces saving and investment). Or it might be to have the sub live a more healthy lifestyle, so the Dom controls the meal choices and ensures his sub exercises and eats well. (Or, alternatively, if the Dom appreciates a belly on a sub and the sub is willing to become a gainer, the Dom might force him to eat higher volumes of food designed for him to become, well, more rounded.)

But for a scene? Absolutely not.

[ErosWired]

5 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

About the only way I can see this possibly making sense is in the context of a long-term relationship with a significant BDSM and power exchange component, particularly if the two are moving from a more conventional relationship of equals into a Dom/sub power exchange one. The sub, no matter how much he may desire that sort of arrangement, is going to find it conflicts with much of the way he lived his life before, and a lot of those kinds of things may need to be stripped away.

A more realistic read might be  "a boy must be broken down first, and then re-built [stop there]." Any relationship predicated on one person changing another into what he wants is on unstable footing from the start. The submissive may be, and likely is, searching for a new internal paradigm, and may be trying to work through a kind of internal power struggle within his own psyche through the vehicle of power exchange. He may benefit from, or even need the assistance of, the Dominant to reach a state in which he can have those epiphanies - that is to say, some resistance within him may well need to be broken down.

While the Dominant may have a vision of what represents a desirable level of submission, meeting the Dom’s criteria should not be the purpose, for either of them. That’s not to say that the Dominant’s desire and satisfaction count for nothing - he is an equal partner in the exchange with his own value to gain from it, and the submissive has an equal duty to see it met - but there has to be balance. It can be deeply fulfilling when it works.

[BootmanLA]

Just now, ErosWired said:

A more realistic read might be  "a boy must be broken down first, and then re-built [stop there]." Any relationship predicated on one person changing another into what he wants is on unstable footing from the start. The submissive may be, and likely is, searching for a new internal paradigm, and may be trying to work through a kind of internal power struggle within his own psyche through the vehicle of power exchange. He may benefit from, or even need the assistance of, the Dominant to reach a state in which he can have those epiphanies - that is to say, some resistance within him may well need to be broken down.

While the Dominant may have a vision of what represents a desirable level of submission, meeting the Dom’s criteria should not be the purpose, for either of them. That’s not to say that the Dominant’s desire and satisfaction count for nothing - he is an equal partner in the exchange with his own value to gain from it, and the submissive has an equal duty to see it met - but there has to be balance. It can be deeply fulfilling when it works.

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I'm not saying the Dom, in such a situation, would determine the criteria; I'm saying that if the sub wants to be more fiscally responsible but has spending/saving problems; or wants to be healthier and more fit but has limited willpower to resist fatty foods and sweets; or whatever, the key being that the sub WANTS a different outcome for himself, but has trouble actualizing it, then having this kind of relationship may (or may not) be helpful in attaining those goals.

The Dom can help determine what's feasible - say, jointly calculating the split of expenses, how much is reasonable to put away for retirement/savings, etc., and then having the sub hand over his earnings to be apportioned per the agreement. And the sub gets either the remainder, or a fixed allowance, or whatever, to spend as desired for pocket money. But it's their joint goal for the sub to clean up his finances; it's just the Dom's job to see that it gets done.

Is that a clearer expression of what I mean?

[ErosWired]

7 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

Is that a clearer expression of what I mean?

We’re basically in agreement; you just went into more detail. I was more addressing @hntnhole’s observation that there are Doms who have a skewed perception of what the whole thing’s about.

[DaWhore]

Well…

I found a great use for “green, yellow, red”. The girl zapping my face with laser loves it, so do I. It even reduced the time required to complete the job.

I didn’t tell her where the idea came from, she’s happy as a clam about using it with everyone. Lol

[hntnhole]

On 11/17/2023 at 1:45 PM, BootmanLA said:

But for a scene? Absolutely not.

I didn't imply that.  It would be not only idiotic, it would be impossible.  Most of these kinds of "partnerships", for lack time to explain the complexities here, are inevitably much longer in duration - often a matter of years, and fairly often, for many years.  My apologies if you assumed it was for something else.  

I'll just leave it with this:  The act of "taking" a sub, a boy (of whatever age) for one's own is - within the parameters of the Leather Ethic as I learned it years ago - at the very least a semi-permanent act.  The use of a safe-word in the thread was merely that for introductory or casual scenes, which was the subject of the thread,  I mentioned that old-fashioned idea of "tear down, rebuild up" as an example of what is far from a mere hook-up, for which a negotiation is required.  

I don't know your experience in this arena, and I'm not asking.  I only know what I've learned over the years, and I mentioned that old adage for context.  As I did mention, that "tear-down/build up" construct never made any sense to me years ago, and still doesn't today.  Any guy on BZ that's considering such a partnership should investigate closely before he enters into that kind of a relationship.  

On 11/17/2023 at 1:45 PM, BootmanLA said:

Now, I will say that presumably the Dom's expectations will have been outlined before that process begins.

Of course, at the initial negotiation.  Or, say they initially meet each other by happenstance at some bar, get to chatting, agree to meet again, and eventually and sense something drawing them to each other.  In any event, I call that getting acquainted.  It would take quite a bit more substantial conversation to get to the point of exploring the possibilities of the Dom "taking" the sub as his own, and the sub realizing that this particular man is something special.  That's when the serious discussions would begin, culminating in the initial negotiation.  

Since I'm at it, the references to household issues like income, etc are ancillary to establishing the basic level of trust required as we're discussing here.  If a Bd/Sm relationship develops, grows, comes to fruition, sure - the sub may move in with the Dom, and then the house-hold issues would rise to the surface and that would be great for both men. Those issues however, would not be germane to an initial scene.  

Thanks for your always-worthwhile response.  I very much hope I've been clear.  

On 11/17/2023 at 7:44 PM, ErosWired said:

Doms who have a skewed perception of what the whole thing’s about.

I would go so far as to say that there are "wannabe" Doms that have not one tiny clue what the whole thing is about.  This kind of interaction is a very serious, deep and potentially harmful (both physically and certainly emotionally) relationship that must be founded on well-earned Trust between the two (or sometimes more) men.  A mere negotiation is for a one-time scene, and sometimes blossoms into a full-on relationship.  I can guarantee you that there are some wannabe Bd/Sm Tops that have not one iota's worth of a clue what they're about. Calling them "skewed" in their perceptions is gentle indeed.  

That's not to belittle the importance of a negotiation for an initial scene; establishing the limits is crucial in this kind of exchange; the negotiation is merely a Bd/Sm version of meeting, shaking hands, and saying something innocuous like I'm this - what are you?  The first step in becoming familiar, and perhaps trusting of the other.  

If there are subs that don't understand it all, and there definitely are, there are just as many Doms that don't either.  This is why the Leather Community can be so helpful.  I'm referencing established "big-city" Leather communities here.  There are also online sites which I don't use anymore, sites like ReCon used to be, where a sub interested in putting a toe in the water can find help.  There are Bd/Sm organizations like CHC where a potential sub can find the real deal about another man.  Not that there are many anymore, but the *real* Leatherbars used to be at least some place to start investigating too.  

I'm still in touch regularly with subboys from years ago, one calls every Sunday.   It's one of those truly life-changing experiences for the serious ones.  

 

[hntnhole]

On 11/15/2023 at 11:26 PM, Ieatcumholes said:

his safe word was "Limeade."

eeeewwwwww .... that's disgusting .... but, we work with what we have, eh?  

[Ieatcumholes]

2 hours ago, hntnhole said:

eeeewwwwww .... that's disgusting .... but, we work with what we have, eh?  

Exactly! 🤮 He dropped off the face of the earth, so we never got to use his safe word. If I ever hear "Limeade" while having sex, I will definitely know, "Do NOT pass Go! Do NOT collect $200!" 🤪😂🤣