Safe, Sane, and Consensual What Does It Really Mean? by Marc Esadrian

One of the more annoying side effects of a lifestyle or activity's entry into popular culture is the emergence of catchphrases and the kind of "sage wisdom" that's often parroted, but never really considered.  And unfortunately for us, domination and submission is no exception.

I'm talking, of course, about "Safe, Sane and Consensual", a phrase that sounds just grand on the surface, but at heart only confuses and weakens the tenets of the Master and slave relationship—another attempt to take the outward expression of our beliefs and turn it into nothing more than a fun little game that will still fit neatly into the everyday world. Don't believe me?  Let's take a moment to break down the terms and see what kind of meaning they really have.

Safe

This seems straightforward, but it's really not.  What's safe?  Not only will the answer to that vary greatly from person to person (for instance, some of us love asphyxiative sex and see nothing wrong with it), the more literal among us might argue that no one is ever "safe".  Just in the course of the average person's morning, injury or even death await at every turn.  You could trip getting out of bed and strike your head on the corner of the dresser.  You could slip in the shower.  You could get hit by a car.  Every day of your life, you're in danger, but if you're like most of us, you simply trust that none of those things are going to happen.

I realize these are extreme and perhaps absurd examples, but they're intended to provide an argument against a rather absurd idea.  It's true that there are some activities in D/s which are more dangerous than others, and which are, strictly speaking, unnecessary to everyday life.  But the same can be said of rock climbing, and thousands of people do it, enjoy it, and remain perfectly safe and well while doing so.  It's all a matter of taking what precautions you can so that you're as safe as possible while you're doing it—and that's something that can't be legislated or dictated by a peppy mantra.

Sane

Some of us would simply adore doing things that others would find horrifying.  But does that horror automatically mean that people who pursue those interests are mentally ill or somehow morally deficient?  Of course not.  We simply like different things.  And as you were probably taught in kindergarten, different doesn't necessarily mean wrong.  Right?

It comes down to a matter of taste and opinion, and I personally feel that the inclusion of "sane" into this triad shows a level of judgment that's quite disturbing, given the subject matter.  After all, dominance and submission has little to do with conforming to popular opinion.  If you'd like a small illustration of this, consider the fact that the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV) no longer considers BDSM as necessarily pathological!

Many in "the lifestyle" would no doubt take issue with that statement. So who are they to judge others within it?  Let's not be silly.

And so we come to the last and perhaps trickiest of our catchy watchwords:

Consensual

Some may argue that this is the most important theme in the practice of D/s, that nothing should ever happen to a slave unless she wants it to happen.  Others, however, feel that this idea weakens the entire point of her submission, and I agree.  Where is the obedience in always getting what you want?  What value lies in a "gift" which only serves its giver?  Placing limits of consent upon a Master's actions turns his dominance into a masquerade, lain aside as soon as his girl says the word.  There's no reality to his mastery of her; she is controlling him.

Whatever our roles, we all feel the instinct to try to escape things we find unpleasant; does that mean that no Master should ever push his female or cause her pain, simply because she doesn't like it?  That seems an awfully frivolous approach.  The relationship between Master and slave has the potential to be so incredibly intimate that the idea of putting such a wall between the two is dismaying, to say the least.  If a girl does not trust the male she serves, enough to give him free and unobstructed rule of her, then he's not her Master.  He's a play partner, nothing more.  And while that may be well and good for them, it's hardly the kind of relationship we idealize.  And it sends a message to the rest of the world that undermines the credibility of those of us seeking that level of reality, because we're painted with the same broad brush.

So we see that safe and sane are both open to interpretation, and that to some of us at least, consensual is not necessarily something to strive for.  Why, then, should we all be expected to accept and promptly regurgitate a phrase, simply because it's become the trendy thing to say?  Authentic dominance and submission offers a stratum for deeply intimate relationships.  For anyone to claim it can be summed up in three trite little words is, quite frankly, an insult to those of us who live it.