Risking Death

Introduction

There are a group of high-risk activities within the scene that carry with them a risk of death for the submissive. Whether this is an acceptable form of play or not is one of the hotly debated areas of the scene. This piece looks at the arguments for and a compelling argument against.

Argument For

BDSM is never going to be "safe". That is part of the point. Playing with danger is exciting. Almost every BDSM activity carries with it a degree of risk but, having considered the risks, if everyone consents, no one has the right to say the activity is invalid, right?

People indulge in high-risk activities for pleasure all of the time. Motor-sports, rock climbing, boxing, they all carry with them the risk of serious injury or death yet it is generally accepted that those who wish to know the risks and, so long as they are sensible, should be allowed to make their own decisions.

If it is OK for vanilla people to risk death, surely it is unfair to criticize consenting kinky folk for doing the same?

Argument Against

When you risk your life in a high-risk sport, you risk your life.

As a Dom/me, when you risk you indulge in high-risk play, you risk your submissive's life. As a submissive, for all you have consented to the risk, you risk your Dom/me's life, or at least a sizeable portion of it as they will still have committed manslaughter.

It is the old notion that you have the right to risk your own life yet you do not have the right to risk the lives of other people. While both parties may be prepared to consent to the risks to themselves, can either one be said to be truly living up to their responsibilities to the other if they put them in that position?

Splitting Hairs

Yes, there are cases where the distinction falls down.

What about auto-erotic asphyxiation? If you are only risking yourself once again, is it OK? Arguably such "self" play falls in to the same category of other high-risk sports.

Speaking of high-risk sports, what about those who participate and would have a family that would suffer from their death? Is that not wrong too?

Certainly there are those in the vanilla world who continue to participate regardless of the risks to others, though many would argue it is wrong to do so. But then that is part of the point of the scene - we hold ourselves to higher standards. As a subculture, we are already often judged negatively for what we are. Part of our responsibility to others within the scene is to not fuel those notions.

The Letter Of The BDSM Law

The single, simple notion of the scene is that so long as everyone involved consents, then what you do is up to you. So long as the Dominant consents to risking their freedom and the sub consents to risking their life, technically, that is all that matters. No one has the right to tell you any differently.

Yet there is the larger notion of "SSC". I have described "Safe, Sane And Consensual" before as, "If you can explain an act to an unbiased third person in such a way that they can accept that it is [within reason] safe, it is sane and it is consensual, then it is OK." While you may both give your consent, most other unbiased people will not accept that it is [even reasonably] safe or even that such consent is sane.

Conclusion

Risking yourself is generally accepted to be reasonable. Risking others is not. Due to the Dominant/submissive nature of BDSM, high-risk play almost always involves risking the safety of another and so can legitimately be termed unacceptable within the roles expected of Dom/mes and subs.

Yes, within other communities such behavior is often carried out regardless of the suffering it inflicts on others but part of the point of the scene is that we hold ourselves to higher standards.

Soulthief