Norsk
Dansk
English
Nederlands
Suomi
Deutsch
Français
ItalianoMusings of an Extraordinarily Ordinary Man… turned clinically asexual epileptic from breath play.
Del 2
| Journal Entry 6 - Why do Tops Stop? Of the thousands of people that reacted to my partner’s and my posts in October, only four reached-out to me directly — one of which has oddly become a trusted friend that I will likely never meet. He commiserated with me recently by explaining how he too had a terrible accident that left him physically broken and mentally suicidal. His accident was not from kink. But the pain, hopelessness and despair was the same. He actually went as far as to ask a Domme to help him end his constant suffering. But she wouldn’t do it. In fact, she ignored him completely and blocked him from future contact. That got me thinking. Why? Why wouldn’t she help him end his suffering? He was OK with it. He was asking for it. He gave his consent and was willing to put it in writing. Clearly, there are significant legal ramifications of taking a life, regardless of consent. However, remove those from this thought experiment and I bet the outcome would be the same for the vast majority of Dommes/Doms — They would not participate in ending his life regardless of his desire and consent. Why not? My partner and best friend, that I love so dearly, is an outspoken member in this community on proper negotiation, preparation, risk-mitigation, risk-awareness and consent. She’s been a Newbie Munch moderator and is a great teacher covering a multitude of subjects far beyond kink. She impresses me every day with her knowledge and desire to share it with people. I love her so much! I recently listened to her help two people that I’ve been friends with for over 35 years. They’ve been married a long time and have only recently decided to explore ethical non-monogamy as well as a bit of kink. They are total know-nothing newbies but their excitement was off the charts, as it was for all of us when we first dipped our toes in the world of kink. They asked my partner piles of really rudimentary questions. But, that didn’t lessen her enthusiasm one bit in her thorough responses. I was particularly interested in how she responded to their inquiries regarding how a Top knows how far they can go in a scene. The context was flogging/whipping as she was excitedly introducing our friends to some of her impact toys by demonstrating on them. But, their question was clearly more broad in its application. My partner obviously mentioned the importance of an agreed upon safety word. She also diligently covered the whole “negotiation” process and how that really just means that the Top and Bottom should talk about it, a lot, before they do it. She certainly made them feel at ease by explaining how it took her a long time to get used to that as well. But the piece that seemed to resonate with them the most was when she explained how, over time, you simply learn to trust the Bottom when they say more is OK. She emphasized that point and mentioned how it was the most helpful piece of advice that she had received when she was first learning to Top. Clearly, we have a reconciliation problem. How is it that the community accepts a Bottom asking for more, but doesn’t accept one asking for the most (assisted suicide)? Again, this is a thought experiment. Therefore, we’re removing legal ramifications from the discussion. Obviously, each person’s limits on what they’ll do to someone, or have done to themselves, varies. The Bottoms limits are dependent on things like their tolerance for pain, the point that it goes from fun to not fun or even dangerous, the possibility of something leaving marks they don’t want to explain, etcetera. Those are very easy for any of us to understand and relate to. It’s the Top’s role that’s confusing. They don’t have to worry about pain, or marks, or being sore for a few days, or death. And, in this thought experiment, they also don’t need to worry about legal ramifications. Nevertheless, I maintain that the vast majority of Dommes/Doms will have limits on how far they’re willing to go. Why? What is it that causes a Top to say “no” when the Bottom is emphatically saying “yes?” Long before the Top and Bottom get to the point of whether to go further, we need to accept some awfully basic realities. One, the Bottom is obviously OK with being hurt either physically and/or psychologically. In fact, they presumably get some form of enjoyment from being hurt. Two, the Top is obviously OK with harming someone physically and/or psychologically. In fact, they presumably get some form of enjoyment from hurting people. That’s not rocket science. It’s merely the basis of why Tops and Bottoms get together for scenes at all — They both get something of value from it. That’s also the basis of applied economics in a free market — Transactions never occur unless both parties believe that they win. So, we’re still stuck with a quandary — In this community, Tops are taught that they can go as far as the Bottom verbally allows. That works perfectly right up until something stops the Top from going further despite the Bottoms wishes. Therefore, the question still is - Why do Tops stop? Let’s explore a few possibilities. Maybe the Bottom is the Top’s life-partner and they’re ok fucking-up someone’s life that they don’t live with but not someone they do live with. If so, that’s pretty selfish. You’re willing to fuck-up someone’s life as long as you don’t need to deal with the ramifications of it. Remember, it’s clearly consensual either way and let’s assume it’s the exact same degree of consent. Regardless of whether it’s your life-partner or just a casual play partner, the same level of consent applies to both. So remove it from the equation as to why the Top would stop. Maybe this is a question that Bottoms should ask Tops during the negotiation. As a former Bottom, knowing that someone is willing to go further with me than they are with a life-partner would be a hard pass!!!!! That would clearly mean that they don’t respect my life as much as they do their life-partner’s. I sure as hell don’t want to Bottom for someone that doesn’t value my life at the absolute highest level during a scene. After the scene, clearly a Top’s life-partner means more. But not during it! If the consent is for the exact same degree of play, I hope there are no Tops that are willing to go further with a casual play partner than they are with a life-partner because that would mean that the Top is a horrible human being that’s valuing a persons life less at the very moment that they’re expected to value it the most. Maybe it’s because the Top thinks the risk is higher than the Bottom does. That would be awfully arrogant. Why would the Top presume they know more about the risk than the Bottom does when neither one of them have any idea what the true risk is or the ramifications of that risk? I’ll talk about that more later. Perhaps it’s because the Top would feel guilty if something went badly and they’re not confident enough in their skills to ensure that it will go well. The host of the podcast covering our accident proposed this as a reason why he sometimes says “no” when his Bottom is saying “yes.” Ok. But, why feel guilty? Presumably the Top told the Bottom during the negotiation that they’ve never done it before or aren’t very good at it and the Bottom still consented. Remember, the Bottom wants to be hurt and the Top wants to hurt them and there are no legal ramifications in this thought experiment. So, why would a Top say no when the Bottom is consenting to exactly what the Top in theory wants? Let’s work this from a crazy angle to see if we can make more sense of it. Scenario #1 What if I really want a cupcake and you really want to bake me a cupcake. I fully consent to eating your cupcake. You bake me one, I eat it and love everything about it. Would you feel badly or guilty about that? No, right? Scenario #2 Same scenario, but instead I eat it and get horribly sick from it for two days. Would you feel badly or guilty then? Probably, right? Why? I feel like common sense answers this one. Your actions, albeit well-intentioned, created an unexpected and harmful outcome for someone. Scenarios #3 You tell me that you get a cheap thrill out of under-baking cupcakes with eggs that have salmonella and then watching people get sick for a couple days from eating them. You know that salmonella is only food poisoning. It’s not going to actually hurt anybody in a material way. I tell you that nothing thrills me more than eating salmonella cupcakes and then violently barfing and shitting for a couple days. I consent to eating your diseased cupcakes, you make them, I eat them, get sick as fuck for two days, and feel like that was the best experience I’ve ever had after the sickness passes. Would you feel guilty about that? I’m guessing most Tops in this community would not. And there’s nothing wrong with that. That was well-negotiated. Everybody got exactly what they wanted. No harm done. Scenario #4 Same as #3 for you, the Top. You like baking cupcakes with salmonella and watching people struggle with the sickness for a few days. I say, “Great, but can we turn it up a bit? My preference is salmonella cupcakes with pseudomonas and trichinosis frosting.” You’ve never done that before but you know that too much of either one and it could turn deadly. You let me know that you’ve never made pseudomonas and trichinosis frosting and are a bit worried about doing that given the risks. I tell you that your lack of experience doesn’t bother me one bit and I’ll gladly accept the risk and I fully consent. So, you do it, I eat it and get sick for a full week, not two days. Do you feel guilty? This is getting harder isn’t it? I bet this outcome would generate the full spectrum of reactions. Some of you would get a thrill from it. Ultra high-risk and it worked. What a rush! Some would be be somewhere between excited and relieved. Some would just be relieved and promise themselves they’ll never do something that risky again. And some would be upset with themselves for letting their thrill-brain take charge versus their sensible, rational brain that never would have agreed to that. Scenario #5 Exactly the same as #4, but I die after spending a month in severe agony. Would you feel guilty? Some would probably still be OK with it. But I bet that most Tops would very much feel guilty. In fact, devastated!!! Scenario #6 Last one. Back to Scenario #3. You want to make and serve salmonella cookies and watch someone struggle with a little food poisoning. I’ve never done that before but it sounds exciting as hell. I consent, you bake, I eat the cupcakes and die four hours later. Unbeknownst to anybody, I had a genetic condition that exacerbated the severity of the salmonella. Do you feel guilty? Obviously, yes. If I’m right in my assessments of how the average Top would react in these situations, it forces me to conclude two things: Most of us have a basic morality that inherently values life and feels compassion for people chronically suffering. Suffering for a scene is fine. But anything that extends the suffering beyond the implicit timeframe of the scene is unacceptable. Permanent, or even semi-permanent damage is what we’re worried about inflicting on someone, even if they themselves are cavalier about the risk, which they will have a propensity to be given that they’re thinking with their libido, not their sensible, rational mind, and their confirmation bias has already convinced them that the risk is far less than it actually is. I believe this is why Tops stop despite the bottoms wish to go further. In #3 everybody was happy. By every measurement of the Kink community, it was a perfectly negotiated and perfectly executed scene. But wait a second… The negotiation and the execution were absolutely identical in #6 but it had a horrible outcome for everybody! If perfect negotiation and perfect execution can result in both great and atrocious outcomes, logic dictates that the negotiation and the execution aren’t relevant variables in determining the absolute outcome — the likeliness of a good outcome versus a poor outcome, certainly. But not the absolute outcome. You can negotiate (plan) terribly and still have a good outcome. Just like you can negotiate (plan) perfectly and have a bad outcome. The same is true for the execution — Good can result in bad and bad can result in good. In fact, there is only one primary difference in determining the outcome of #6 relative to #3… luck How comfortable are you allowing luck to decide your fate on something as important as life and death? It doesn’t even need to be as severe as life or death. What about a lifetime of physical agony, a lifetime of not being able to do anything you want to do, a lifetime without sex, and a lifetime of being an epileptic? Are you willing to let luck decide that? My libido sure was! My asexual, sensible, rational mind realizes how incredibly stupid that was, and not because of the outcome, but because putting the outcome of my life in the hands of luck is fucking retarded, regardless of the outcome itself! Journal Entry 7 — Risk Awareness? Are you Kidding Me? As I mentioned before, my indoctrination into the world of kink was incredibly brief — a mere six months. However, given the “Fetlebrity” status of my partner, it was surprisingly eclectic and include one “high-protocol” party. Nearly everyone I spoke to at the party agreed that the host is a very respected leader in the community. He and his long-term sub live a high-protocol D/S relationship. I admit, I was very impressed with both of them — Not because of the stories people told of their awesome parties and impressive BDSM accomplishments. But rather, because they were both very kind and gracious hosts. Despite the party being filled with piles of their closest friends, the Dom spent roughly 45 minutes talking to me alone. Besides being a very nice man, he struck me as the kind of guy that gets fulfillment from teaching others about something that he’s very passionate about and I was fresh meat and eager to learn what made my new partner tick given that she too had been in a long-term D/S relationship. Of particular interest to me was his steadfast alignment with the concept of Risk-Aware Consensual Kink. I was several weeks into the community at that point. Therefore, I had heard the phrase plenty of times before. My partner had explained it by essentially deconstructing the popular acronym, RACK. I mean, Risk-Aware Consensual Kink… That’s pretty self-explanatory. But this was the first time that someone invested such a large amount of time in explaining its applicable meaning from the perspective of a highly-acclaimed practitioner of it. I remember him talking about how RACK came about because of dissatisfaction in the BDSM community regarding the breadth of meaning of RACKs predecessor, Safe, Sane, & Consensual (SSC). RACK, in relative terms, emphasized each participants commitment to the potential risks during the negotiation phase. The focus is on the individual’s legal capacity to choose versus SSC that addressed the desired outcomes over the long term. About halfway through his explanation of what RACK actually means, I distinctly remember thinking to myself, “What kind of crazy-ass nonsense is this incredibly nice, delusional whack job talking about?” SpaceX is offering you a free ticket on their first commercial flight to space. Clearly, there is a chance of injury, dismemberment and/or death. Do you accept the ticket, no questions asked? Might you make a different decision if you knew that the rocket you’d be taking has never failed in 100 launches versus exploded half of them? Anyone who works in the world of risk, as I do, realizes that simply knowing OF a risk has very little relevance when it comes to making decisions. If important decisions are going to be made in the presence of inherent risks, the goal is always to quantify the risks. Do you think NASA has ever put anything into space that included parts where they hadn’t quantified the exact likeliness of the part failing? If you do, you’re naive to how the biggest decisions in this world are made. Heck, companies that manufacture clothing measure the likeliness of their products being returned due to product failure. And clothing doesn’t impact life or death or billion-dollar missions to space. The higher the stakes, the more important it is to quantify the risks. I can’t think of anything more important to an individual than their future health. Can you? When was the last time you actually knew the quantitative chances of a bad outcome from a kinky scene? If you say anything more than “never,” I might be forced to call you either a liar or incredibly ignorant. You don’t know if the chances of a bad outcome are 1-in-1,000,000, 1-in-1,000, or 1-in-10. You’re merely aware OF the risk. But, you’re not truly risk-aware. You have no idea what the likeliness of a bad outcome is, and how could you? The data you’re working from is either (a) non-existent, (b) insufficiently credible, and/or (c) misleading. Let’s probe some of the many ways that true risk-awareness is functionally unachievable: Risk Fallacy #1: There is piles of data on what it means to be “safe” Original methods of torture, emulated by the kink community, are not designed to be safe. They’re literally designed to be unsafe. The absolute intent is to harm someone physically, albeit not permanently, and/or psychologically, which is by definition semi-permeant at the very least. Torture has existed throughout all of human history — You know, nothing beats hurting another human being. Such a rush! — If torture has been intended to harm, and it has been, then why would anyone expect there to be data on how to perform torture safely? As it turns out, we also don’t have much historical data on the efficacy of using wheelbarrow’s as a mode of transportation — not really what they’re intended for. If you don’t have the data, you’re merely aware OF the risk. But, you’re not truly risk-aware. Risk Fallacy #2: There is piles of data on what it means to be “unsafe" Interestingly, because it’s torture, you also don’t have any data on how to do it harmfully (permanent damage) so-as-to learn how to avoid a bad outcome. There’s no historical data on bad outcomes of torture. It’s fucking torture! Historically, nobody gives a shit about a bad outcome. Fuck the person! They’re being tortured. If it’s a bad outcome, so be it. They shouldn’t have stolen the loaf of bread to feed their family. Besides there being no historical quantifiable data on how to torture harmfully, I’d be stunned if current data existed from the community because the kind of data we’re talking about would require a strict scientific approach and I’d be more than a little amazed to learn that someone was willing to fund that kind of scientific analysis. Once again, you’re merely aware OF the risk. But, you’re not truly risk-aware. Risk Fallacy #3: The scene will unequivocally be performed in the exact same manner that created a known risk measurement? Just for the fun of it, let’s presume that the above two examples don’t apply. You actually do know, with absolute certainty, that the chances of hypoxia from a water-boarding is 1-in-100. You’ve been to plenty of parties where you’ve watched water-boarding performed on flat tables with good outcomes. Every data point you’re working from tells you the odds are acceptable. You do a water-boarding scene and get a hypoxic brain injury. You find out later, from your Neurologist that the 1-in-100 was only if you did the Trendelenburg position (head down, feet up). Horizontally, you have a 1-in-20 chance. This one is kind of fun because (a) it’s exactly what happened to my partner and I, and (b) it illustrates that, even if my first two points are wrong, you’re still unaware of the risks simply because you wrongly presumed that you would mimic every relevant variable that led to the statistic that you knew. What are the chances of that happening? I’ll answer that for you — slim to none! Again, completely unaware of the true risk. Risk Fallacy #4: You know all of the risks You don’t know what you don’t know. You know that water-boarding can cause death, obviously. You’d have to be a fucking idiot to not know that. Did you know it can cause Dupuytren's Contracture? I didn’t. Neither did my partner. Despite hours and hours and hours of homework, we were not risk-aware of risks unbeknownst to us, obviously. Risk Fallacy #5: The Tops success-rate performing a scene with one person hundreds of times is a fair measurement of the next victim’s risk How can anyone be aware of a genetic or physical predisposition towards an unfavorable outcome? Riggers, you might think you know the odds of a bad outcome because you’ve rigged the same person 500 times and only had one small nerve issue. Fortunately, it healed after a few days. You’re a rockstar rigger, right? You’re about to hoist-up a new play partner for the first time. They’ve never done it before. You’ve only done it with one partner. Are the odds 1-in-500 for your new victim? If you believe so, you badly need to take my college statistics course! Hell, you badly need to take a 6th grade statistics course. What you don’t know is that the person you’re about to hoist is genetically predisposed to nerve damage. You don’t know it. They don’t know it. Neither one of you are risk-aware. Yet, curiously, what did you probably use during the negotiation to ease the concerns of both you and your next victim…. ? If you’re a good human being you told the truth — that you’ve done it 500 times with only one small issue. The moment you tell them that, you’ve inadvertently deceived them, and yourself, into a false sense of security that is going to severely hurt them! Risk Fallacy #6: The Tops success-rate performing a scene hundreds of times with hundreds of different partners is a fair measurement of the next victim’s risk Similar to #5, but you’ve performed 500 riggings on 500 different people and only had one small issue. That same person with the genetic predisposition to nerve damage is your 501st. Do they have a 1-in-500 chance of a bad outcome, as your experience suggests? Or, is your experience inadvertently misleading for them? You would literally be doing the victim a disservice by even telling them your success-rate because your previous successes have absolutely nothing to do with the new victim’s chances of success. Explaining your success-rate to a non-statistically minded person would falsely ease their concerns and might predispose them to a bad outcome. #5 recognizes that one person’s outcome over many occurrences is a poor reflection of true risk and #6 illustrates that many people’s outcomes with few occurrences each is also a bad reflection of what any individual person’s true risk is. In both cases, neither the Top or the Bottom are risk-aware. They believe they are due to the numbers. But no statistician on the planet would grant them that. The numbers are not credible and, more importantly, are completely irrelevant for that person — Any individual person’s odds are NOT 1-in-500. For one person, maybe it’s 1-in-5. For someone else, maybe it’s 1-in-5,000. Every individual is different. Therefore, one dataset will not be indicative of the expected results for any one person in that dataset. Risk Fallacy #7: What “should” be done is the right thing to do Admittedly, that description is a bit ambiguous. Allow me to explain this one as it applies to the water-boarding scene that ended my life. My partner is a medical professional. Given her proximity to piles of edge play over the years, she graciously took it upon herself to be very polished on what to do if something went very wrong. She wanted to be able to help, not just her partner, but anybody at an event she was at if something went south. In basic life support there is a position called “The Rescue Position” or “Recovery Position.” After our scene, my partner was repeatedly putting me into that position. It wasn’t until months later, with my first neurologist that we learned that the Rescue Position most likely had something to do with causing my hypoxia. I specifically should NOT have been held in the rescue position. She actually created a risk by deliberately trying to mitigate one. How’s that for a slap in the face? More importantly, how’s that for a slap to the face of risk-awareness? Risk Fallacy #8: Serious kink injuries are rare None of my doctors know anything about the true nature of how I developed my anoxic brain injury. We made up a plausible story to mitigate the possibility of litigation against my partner. Nevertheless, my first neurologist was clearly suspicious that it was from kink. He actually described my symptoms as being very similar to those seen from “waterboarding accidents.” One of his descriptions has been burned into the memory of my partner and I. He flattened his hand and held it diagonally and said, “In waterboarding, this is torture.” Then he leveled his flattened hand to a perfectly horizontal position and followed with, “This is murder.” His reference was to the position of the victim. Head down, feet up, known as the Trendelenburg position, keeps the water out of the lungs. Whereas, completely flat, allows water to enter the lungs and for hypoxia to take effect. He then referenced that he sees “piles of accidents from the kink community every year.” Again, he didn’t know for certain that my problem was from kink. It felt like he was merely inviting me to admit that it was from kink given that he sees kink accidents all the time. Therefore, I should feel like I’m in good company. I never admitted it. Again, I was worried about legal ramifications for my partner. But isn’t it interesting that he volunteered something opposite of what nearly everyone in the community believes — that serious kink injuries are common, not rare. Let’s make this even more sobering. He’s just one neurologist. A quick Google search suggests that there are approximately 17,000 neurologists in the United States. I’m not sure what quantity “piles” equates to. But, let’s assume that “piles of accidents from the kink community” equals only ONE victim struggling with something severe enough to actually seek medical care from a neurologist. If every neurologist saw only one, that would be 17,000 cases per year in the U.S. alone!. If “piles” equates to two victims, double it. But, what about the number of known kink accidents that sought medical care from someone other than a neurologist? Add them. What about the victims of kink that didn’t need medical care but sought psychotherapeutic care because of the unexpected impact some kind of mental torture had on them. Add those victims. Lastly, what about people just like me. The ones that, either because of shame or concerns of litigation, didn’t even admit that their problems were from kink. I would bet that’s the biggest group, by far. Add all of those. Holy crap we’re up to a HUGE number at this point. Admittedly, an unknown number. But a huge one nonetheless. This doesn’t come as a surprise to me. I have voluntarily identified myself as someone struggling with the ramifications of kink gone wrong. In an effort to comfort me, several of you have shared your experiences of kink gone wrong as well— to let me know that I’m not the only one suffering from it. I’ve only met a very small number of long-time practitioners of kink in my local community. Nearly every one of them knows of at least one example of kink gone horribly wrong — I’m only friends with 23 people on FetLife, most of them local. Yet, five of them have voluntarily shared experiences of kink having gone horribly wrong, including two deaths. One of those deaths was a suicide. He took his life last December after two years of struggling with a brain injury received from kink. He never told anybody. Not his doctors. Not his family. He was too ashamed to admit it to anyone besides his Top, who shared it with me a few days ago. That same Top knows of another terrible injury from rope play that was also never reported as being from kink. How is it that I know so few people but know of so many terrible outcomes? Before I go any further... I’m so sorry for your loss, BB!!! I can’t even begin to imagine what you’re going through. And thank you for allowing me to use your story. You said it perfectly in your message to me, “…kink quietly destroys lives.” Yours, mine, my partner’s, your two friends, and thousands more every year. Perhaps the saddest part of my experiences struggling with my new agonizing reality comes from all of you as well as my medical and psychotherapeutic professionals — The truth that terrible outcomes happen in the kink community all the time, not rarely. However, due to people’s shame and the fear of legal ramifications, the vast majority of them go either (a) miscategorized as non-kink injuries, or (b) unreported entirely. Victims merely leave the community, struggle with their pain and hide their shame for as long as they’re able to. Sadly, some of those turn into suicides — an outcome I entertain daily. If I decide to walk down that road, I’ll be yet another miscategorized statistic that cloaks the truth of the devastating impact kink has on real people. In my next journal entry, I’m going to try to make the case that this entire section on risk-awareness should be considered completely irrelevant. But the community places utmost relevance on it. And, as I’ve pointed out above, the results of that focus can create the very disasters that the community claims they wish to avoid — Ironic and sad. Bottom line, true risk-awareness is inherently unachievable and a fucking joke that worsens the outcomes for people like me, my partner, and plenty of others from the silent minority that are inadvertently misled into believing the risk is less for them than it actually is. Journal Entry 8 — Fuck Risk Awareness! Risk Ramifications are What’s Relevant. I can’t write this section any better than I already have. Here’s a snippet from my writing last October that I’ve modified slightly to include more current information: __________________ I hope you and your top research, research, research. I hope you and your top attend classes and try to learn from others. But, most of all, I hope you and your top realize that perfect preparation does not guarantee a perfect outcome. And, when everything fails, including luck, are you and your top truly prepared to deal with the ramifications? Tops, what would you do if I was your sub and this happened to us? But, instead of a committed, lifetime partner that you love and live with, I’m merely a play partner. I’m not supposed to drive myself anywhere. Would you be my permanent chauffeur, getting me to and from my countless doctors appointments and work and the grocery store, and, and, and? I live far outside town. Would you help pay for me to move closer to public transit? I can’t live alone given that I frequently can’t walk without someone walking behind me with a support-strap. Would you move in with me and help me with that? I theoretically shouldn’t be cooking for myself. As it turns out, cooking and losing consciousness is strongly correlated with fires and death. But it’s ok. I’m sure you’d be there to help me with that. When I’m having a seizure, I’m completely unaware of anything. But, I need to take a medication when that occurs. Will you be there to force me to take my medication? Speaking of medications, I need to take several of them several times a day now. But, because of my focal seizures, I often don’t remember to take them, which is catastrophically bad when it comes to seizure meds. Will you be there to help remind me to take them? I can’t remember large chunks of time. Will you help me remember who I saw and what I did to avoid confusion and mistakes? What about my $250,000 in medical bills, and growing? Fortunately, my insurance has an annual maximum-out-of-pocket of only $8,000. Will you help me with that? Bottoms, you know the risks. I did too. But now I realize the stark contrast between (1) knowing the risks and, (2) fundamentally comprehending the magnitude of the ramifications of the risk. Knowing that you could die or end up with a brain injury is “knowing the risks.” Whereas the paragraph above mildly describes some of the “ramifications of the risk.” I would argue, the ramifications are what’s relevant, not the risks themselves. ___________________ I’ve listened to so many conversations about risk on FetLife. Eventually, you always hear someone say something like, “Yeah, my partner and I did that and it was so worth the risk.” To all of you that have the propensity to say something like that, do the rest of us a favor and SHUT THE FUCK UP! You don’t have any right to talk about the value of the risk until you’ve paid the check. I’ve paid the check! It’s not worth the risk. All of the people that have left the community because of their injuries have paid the check. Their exodus from the community speaks novels about their position regarding the risk — It’s not worth it. My partner, and love of my life, has paid the check. Here are her words on the subject: “I thought I was risk-aware. I thought I knew what we were taking on. I’ve been trained to look for signs of hypoxia and distress... and I failed. I now watch the person that I love suffering every day, and I have to live knowing that I did that to him. It’s been almost 4 months now (she wrote this last October). I have nightmares about it, every cough, every stumble I panic. Every unknown number that calls when I’m not with him, I panic (what if it’s a hospital or something?). I never considered the depth of living with such guilt. I’ve been forced to redefine how I judge myself, by my actions not my outcomes, for better and for worse. Since we can’t predict the outcomes in kink, maybe we need to stop judging ourselves by them. If everything turned out ok, would my actions have been ok? I can't justify them, NONE OF IT WAS WORTH THIS.” Read those last three sentence again, folks. I capitalized the subtle part — the part where she says that something she used to be OK with is no longer worth the risk. What changed? She’s been practicing BDSM for a long time. She’s had some very intense scenes. She was fine with the risk, or so she thought, all throughout that timeframe. It was only when she had to pay the check that she realized that nothing is worth the risk. All of you that praise each other on your BDSM accomplishments, talking about how awesome you all are at BDSM because you haven’t have anything bad happen. You are all talking out of your asses. Virtually none of you have paid the check — So, shut the fuck up! You’re luring people into a trap. How about learning what risk truly means from people that have paid the check. Oh wait… you can’t because most of us have left the community. BB, you nailed it when you said, “It’s the blind leading the blind.” I can’t speak for everyone, but I can certainly speak for my partner and I when I promise you that our position towards whether it’s worth it or not has absolutely nothing to do with the risks themselves. Just listen to how we both explain the problems we’re living with. Neither one of us say that the problem is that I got an anoxic brain injury. That’s completely and utterly irrelevant. What we’re talking about exclusively is the ramifications of the anoxic brain injury. Those are the problem! They also happen to be something that we never addressed during any negotiation. Nor are they part of any discussion I’ve ever heard of on FetLife or the in-person community. I hope the two of you reading this are listening to this part very carefully. The only thing that any of you are ever talking about when it comes to risk is the only thing that those of us that have paid the check say is completely irrelevant — the risks themselves. Said from the opposite direction, the only thing of relevance according to those that have paid the price, are the ramifications of the risks that none of you are talking about. Bottoms, when, not if, something goes badly for some of you, you WILL HAVE medical bills. Ask your top if they’re willing to share in the tens-of-thousands of dollars in expense and watch the Tops run for the hills. Don’t worry, you’ll be running for the hills too. Get your top to agree ahead of time that they’ll wipe your ass for the rest of your life and cook all of your food. Again, you’ll both be running away from something you previously, ignorantly (not negatively ignorant) embraced as acceptable risk. Please, all of you, start talking about the ramifications of the risk. One, it will save piles of lives as you’ll both realize, long before the accident occurs, that it’s just not worth it. And two, you’ll be better prepared for what to expect of each other when, not if, some of you end up like my partner and I. Journal Entry 9 — The Objectively Preposterous Notion of SSC, RACK, PRICK & Every Other Inane Variant of Risk & Consent Recognize that all variants of the approved tenets of the community (SSC, RACK, PRICK, etc) share two things in common. One, some element of risk awareness. RACK, it’s in the name. PRICK, it’s in the “Informed.” And SSC, it’s in the…. Well… SSC was clearly a poorly thought-out first draft. Now that I’ve discussed the objectively ridiculous notion of risk-awareness, it’s time to put the final nail in the coffin of SSC, RACK and PRICK. There’s only one component left to go after and it’s clearly stated in all three — the slightly less ridiculous notion of consent. Fortunately, this one is far less complicated. Therefore, I’ll be able to cover it quickly. I remember the highly-acclaimed Dom, at the high-protocol party I was at, talking to me about SSC. According to him, it was originally intended to be the minimum standard for morally defensible play — Defensible! It was more of a marketing campaign to calm the nerves of the non BDSM community that would otherwise look at the communities definition of “play” as legally abusive behavior — Legally abusive! As more edge players moved into the community, there was more need for something that protected the community, and its practitioners, from the legal fallout of simple “play.” — Legal fallout! Safe, Sane & Consensual (SSC) wasn’t going to cut it because, clearly, edge play is not safe, and “sane” has a legal definition that set the stage poorly in courts if/when edge-players were at risk of going to prison — Prison (aka non-consensual butt-sex)! Notice the growing importance of legal ramifications. According to most variations of State laws governing consent, the ability to give it depends on the person’s ability to make informed decisions free from pressure, coercion, and incapacitation. Kink doesn’t even pass the first test as there is absolutely no way to be truly “informed” about the risks. It’s utterly impossibly. However, even if it passed the “informed” criteria, consent is still a remarkably ambiguous thing because the legal ability to give it is based entirely on eliminating the influence of all three qualitative variables — pressure, coercion, and incapacitation. If any one of those are compromised, qualitatively, not quantitatively, a person cannot give legal consent. I’m not an attorney and I’m not a judge. I’m just an extraordinarily ordinary man, turned clinically asexual epileptic from breath play. But, I do have the legal capacity to be a juror. And, I can easily see an environment where someone far more eloquent than me could make the case that an individual’s libido and confirmation bias apply heavy amounts of pressure and coercion when it comes to sexual desires. And, if a wise prosecuting attorney was to put a few of those scientists, doctors, and psychologists on the stand… You know, the ones that performed the studies that likened sexually-motivated minds to being on drugs…. That sounds vaguely of incapacitation. Remember, if any one of the trifecta is compromised, no consent can be given. And I can easily see a situation where a jury could be convinced that all three were compromised as well as the preposterous notion of actually being “informed.” Journal Entry 10 — Thank You! Question for anyone... If I develop cancer, who should be responsible for covering my very expensive treatment? Let’s think idealistically in this thought-experiment. Insurance, right? Ideally, we would all have some kind of insurance. Remember, this is a thought experiment. Therefore, it doesn’t really matter if we’re talking employer-sponsored, individual coverage, Medicare, Medicaid, tri-care, or some type of universal coverage. The point is, I think we all except that’s what insurance is for and that’s why it’s so frustrating that we have so many million people currently uninsured in this country. Some type of insurance SHOULD cover my cancer. I think few would disagree with that. But, what if I was offered the choice to self-administer one of two, randomly chosen injectables. One of the injectables is high-grade ecstasy that promises a helluva good time for a few hours and the other is cancer. I do loves me some ecstasy. So, I take the risk, randomly select one, inject myself and find out it’s the cancer? Who should be responsible for paying the cost of my treatment? Insurance? Me? You? It’s a little trickier to answer that one, isn’t it? There’s a philosophical component. Thought experiments are great in my world, of macro behavioral science. They allow us to explore philosophical conundrums from the perspective of the preposterous. So, let’s take this thought experiment one more level. What if the entire U.S. population was given the same choice and they all took it. That would mean, half the U.S. population would be injecting themselves with cancer. The treatment for all that cancer would cost roughly $40 trillion. There is no payor on the planet that could absorb that cost. Such an event would literally bankrupt the country, putting the entire world into a financial crisis that historically changes governments, borders and results in millions of deaths. But, that’s what insurance is for, right? Paying for sickness, regardless of how the person became sick. Personal agency, responsibility and accountability be damned. It doesn’t matter that I did it to myself. It’s someone else’s responsibility to pay for my poor choices. I don’t subscribe to that philosophy. I do believe in personal agency, responsibility and accountability. It doesn’t matter if it’s an individual, a business or an entire government. Whoever takes the risk is entitled to all of the benefits of a good outcome specifically because they’re fully accountable for the negative ramifications of a bad outcome. It was their choice to take the risk. Not mine. Not yours. Theirs and only theirs. It was their money, or their business, or their life that they chose to put at risk. Therefore, I’m not entitled to the good outcome or responsible for the bad outcome. The moment we make it one-sided by allowing for upside potential but not downside risk, we have a real catastrophe in the making... individually, economically, societally, and globally. I’ve read countless posts on FetLife about the importance of the “emergency plan.” It always includes a mechanism to quickly engage the healthcare system — In the U.S. 911. Why? Why do you feel entitled to push the negative financial ramifications of your libido’s bad decision-making on to everyone else? They didn’t make the stupid-ass decision to voluntarily hurt yourself in a manner that has the very real potential to cause major, and costly, physical or psychological harm. You made that decision. That was your risk. You’re getting 100% of the better orgasm. Therefore, you should get 100% of the downside risk. Healthcare is actually my expertise. Throwing modesty aside, I’m considered a thought-leader in the industry and have reported to Congress on many occasions. Allow me to give a very brief tutorial of how healthcare is funded in this country. The answer is, it’s funded by you and me. Government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, TriCare, and etcetera are funded by tax dollars. That’s you and me. Individual products such as those sold by BlueCross, United Healthcare, Aetna, CIGNA and etcetera are paid for by the “pool” that is funded by premiums paid by the enrollees (you and me) and subsidized by either state taxes (you and me), and/or the National government (you and me) through programs such as the ACA subsidies for low-income individuals and families. Let’s say you’re in the majority and get your coverage through your employer. Employer-sponsored health plans are paid by the participants (you and me) in the form of contributions, a small amount of statutory taxation (you and me) for plans that don’t have ERISA preemption and the remainder by the employer. But the employers expenditure is part of their overall cost-structure and thereby built into the price of the goods and services they provide which is paid for by... you and me. If it’s not pushed into the price of goods and services, it simply remains a cost that reduces shareholder value. Who are the shareholders of publicly-traded companies? Answer, you and me. Who holds the residual equity of private companies? Answer, the owners. Who are the owners of private companies? You and me. There is no way around it. Effectively, 100% of the cost of healthcare in this country is paid for by all of us. Just like every other form of insurance, it’s also true that a very large number of people subsidize a very small number of high claimants. I was a $250,000 high-claimant in 2020. I paid $8,000 of that, which is my maximum-out-of-pocket. That means that I reached into all of your pockets and forced you to pay $242,000 for my piss-poor decision-making. Whether it was from taxes, premiums, contributions, elevated prices or reduced value of your 401(k)s, make no mistake about it, you paid it. Not me. Thank you! Sincerely! I mean that. I am so sorry that I have forced the financial burden of my shitty decision-making on all of you. You didn’t deserve that. It wasn’t your risk. It was mine and my loving partner’s risk. We made the bad choices. Not you. And it’s not morally right of us to force all of you to pay for our dumbshit decisions. I truly apologize! The only disharmonious aspect of my year of aftercare with my gorgeous and loving partner is this one. From the moment she first reached for the phone to call 911, to right now, I fight her to not do more because it absolutely sickens me to the core that every MRI, every ECG, every EEG, every sleep study, every lab, every ultrasound, every hormone test, and every god damn drug I take is a giant reflection of my own hypocrisy. Fuck you, Death! Why didn’t you just take me? |
Tillagd 30 jun 2021 Kultur- och faktaartiklar #Breath control
Du kan inte se eller skriva kommentarer eftersom du inte är inloggad.