My partner would have been seriously annoyed if I had really done this. He always had the attitude that since I am an intelligent, self-actualized, person that I am fully capable of acting as I need to on most of my needs. He actively did not care to be involved in an hourly negotiation about what I needed to wear, whether I needed to pee or wipe myself, etc. While some people like this style of interaction, I personally do not believe it is well suited to any long-term relationship. Heck, I don't personally believe it would work well after the first few hours, unless the couple was into micromanagement. In many cases, including those detailed by Jon Jacobs, who is often used as an extreme example of TPE, the Owner/Master/Top/Whatever reserves the right to micromanage the slave/bottom/pet/sub/whatever, but does not actually do so at all times. This level of dependency strikes me as being likely to correlate with being codependent and having psychological problems, although some people might find it perfect for themselves.

As TyMeDwn1st (another SSB poster) said, I'd love to explain that to my dentist.

My partner and I both think this is not the best way to handle things (for us). He liked to see the look in my eyes, at all times. He never considered it inappropriate that I be looking at him, and we both found it much easier for me to actually obey hand signs if I saw them. Watching one's owner at all times is extremely appropriate, at least in the relationship we had, just as a faithful dog looks to his or her master for direction. Looking at my partner & meeting his eyes were considered signs of appropriate attention. It also makes me wonder why it is OK, in a later rule, to offer up body parts, since that strikes me as being much pushier. While some people may prefer to play this way, I believe that the idea of avoiding looking at one's partner is much more likely to decrease the opportunities of clear communication and foster difficulties in more couples than will benefit from the acting-out of the concept that it's rude to look at one's "superior." Of course, our relationship always included the fact that I am extremely worthwhile, and that my submission is a gift not because I am in any way inferior to him, but because he is worth my trust.

My MD would have a few choice things to say about my hip dysplasia were I foolish enough to try to follow that one. High heels are OK for short term wear. They are not a healthy thing to wear long term, partly because of their effect on the Achilles tendon (which will shorten), and partly because of the increased medical risk of foot problems (stress fractures, bunions, etc.) and back problems (due to the needed lordosis). The risk factors will vary with individual anatomy (my lordosis puts me at greater risk for back trouble) and with fit (the majority of high heels have narrow toe-boxes, adding additional stress) and the height of the heels (higher is worse). My own highest heels are four inchers. Wearing them for more than a few events where I am mostly sitting would be a serious error in judgment, for me. Very few women can remain comfortable in high heels indefinitely, especially when they are her highest-heeled pair.

My partner's attitude about shaved cunts is that they make adult women look like preadolescent children, and he has no interest in kids. While being attracted to bald cunts is an OK kink, it is far from universal. My last partner did not even approve of the heavy trimming needed so I can wear a bathing suit without showing visible pubic hair. This is only one of many examples of something which is JK's personal rule, but is certainly not a universal one. One might say the same things about shaving underarms & legs; some men prefer an unshaven look. So do some women.

Health warning: a healthy, clean vagina has a certain unique odor, but should not be offensive. In fact, most healthy normal males will prefer it au natural. A cunt with a bacterial infection is a different matter, of course. The vagina is designed to be a self-cleaning body part, and washing it is medically contraindicated for most women. Using douches, even "medicated" ones has been correlated with an increased risk of infection, increased uterine problems, etc. Perfumed washes are even worse, and may irritate the tender mucosa. Gynecologists recommend (as they have for years) that douching be avoided, and that washing be limited to exterior soap (mild, sparingly used) & water (in large quantities)

Another poster to soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm questioned this, based on her interpretation of this as referring to the vulva (the outer wabbly bits) as being the portion that should be washed. Washing the outer bits is good hygiene, and I have no medical grounds for an objection to people doing so, whether with a bidet or in some other manner. Likewise, there is no problem with perfumes that are applied to external, non-mucosal skin. Applying them internally is usually a Bad Idea. As with everything, some women will be far more sensitive and others will be far less sensitive, so go with what works for the woman's body if you do want perfumed naughty bits... but I strongly recommend against using any sort of perfume or perfumed product inside of a vagina.

JK's response included the idea that the nasty smells come from inside and that one should therefore wash the inside of both the vagina and the ass thoroughly. But he also said in other parts of the same post (e-mail me if you want a copy or check it out with DejaNews) that he didn't say anything about douching and so on.

This smacks to me of putting a blow-up doll back in the closet. In my case, and probably that of many other women, being "put away" when "not in use" would be psychologically contraindicated, as it would lead to a feeling that my partner did not truly care about me, but only about my utility. This is a problem that many couples would be likely to share, IMO. Not all of them, of course, and each couple would have to negotiate this individually.

(Laughing Out Loud) Yeah, right. So I can walk around 40th & Imperial at night [this is a particularly bad area in San Diego, with a lot of crimes] alone, because when the rapists & muggers come by, I can say: "My Master is Here." Yeah, I can just see it scaring them off. Personally, I'll continue packing my pepper spray, staying alert to avoid being in a problem situation, and knowing enough self-defense to disable a perp and scram.

I certainly will, any time that I have any doubt as to whether he really knows the risks of something he suggests. I have been in my body for over 35 years, and so I know my limits. Perhaps this is not true of every single person -- but my limits are all based on damage, not on physical or emotional pain. For example, I will not do scat play or golden showers. Other people may be equally aware of the risks and decide that for them, the physical and emotional potential damage is minimal compared to the benefits. Not me. My partner was honorable enough to know that I would only pause and voice a doubt in those cases where I believed his orders indicated that he was unaware of a potential risk that would not be a factor in another relationship. For example, if he told me I should go and get my nipples pierced, you can bet I would hesitate until I had some prophylactic antibiotics, since my cardiologist told me to use them if I ever do get pierced. And if he tried to order me to do something that would violate a limit (as mentioned in more detail below) I'd hesitate until he was lost. We won't even start on what would happen if he tried to order me to do something outright unsafe, like an extensive bloodletting scene, or fucking like bunnies on the golf course in broad daylight, or breath control with nooses while he left the room, or lots of other things that could permanently damage one or get one arrested.

I believe we have already covered the fact that "legal" is a relative term? I have broken sodomy laws (outside California... and to prosecute, you'd need more details). If I ever get the chance, I'll also break those against battery (you know, like the ones in the Spanner case?). As to "safe" -- well, it's a good thing that I have my own conception of what safe is; my partner, as rank a novice as I was, didn't have any idea that a grip over the carotids is potentially dangerous. Besides, this contradicts the earlier rules, which all insisted that the slave has utter faith in the owner's abilities to do things in her best interest only, and harm her not.

This contradicts earlier rules, which talked about never hesitating, always obeying, trusting the owner, etc. etc. With all that, it would obviously be an impossible thing to safe word, as that implies that one's owner has made an error of judgment as to what one can actually take. Further, I think safe words are a bad idea in many long term relationships; unless you are deeply into role-playing where "no" means "this is great," it is my opinion that safe words are unnecessary, and may be unsafe as some people will have a great deal of psychological resistance to using a code word. I certainly do have such a barrier, and I had no safe word with Rick, partly for that reason. He trusted me to say that we needed to stop, when I needed to stop. Not having this ability (to stop the action, not necessarily to use a safe word) in a punishment case, as is suggested in a subsequent rule, strikes me as an even worse idea; if there is any need for it at all, the context should not matter, IMO; if a flogging is too heavy, it is too heavy, whether it is given in fun or not.

Please note that one need not only ask to stop because of physical pain. I have never ever done so in my life, and am unlikely to ever do so... partly because I don't do much SM, and partly because I have an abnormally high pain threshold. I have had three breast biopsies, two wisdom teeth extracted, a broken leg, and an appendectomy all without pain. The broken wrist did hurt, for almost half an hour. This can cause problems, as I have damaged myself & not noticed (well, until I slipped in my own blood). However, I have asked to stop when a particular activity was psychologically unsafe for me, as when a particular action began a rape-flashback and full body shutdown.

There are many types of limits, and I am very clear on what mine are, although sometimes only after I hit one. Violating these limits can have major, long-term effects, as I would have seen it as a breach of trust, as mentioned above, were my Owner to have not respected that I had limits. I am not saying that there is necessarily anything evil about a couple where the dominant routinely pushes limits, but doing so is a common scenario in abuse cases, where the logic of "If you really love me, you will X" or "if you really trust me, you'd let me Y" can be psychological manipulation. IME, this usually ends up with either a submissive who is psychologically damaged (e.g. battered woman's syndrome), or who breaks up with the dominant, ending the relationship because of permanently damaged trust (and the two situations are not mutually exclusive). I have a list of touchstones for abusive relationships, which might be a relevant place to look for more information.

Utterly stupid. A partner can ask one to perform sexually with men, women, or German Shepherd Dogs, but cannot control one's actual orientation.

Any so-called Top/Master/Dom/Whatever who decides to flout MY limits will find that he is looking for a new partner. My limits are there for reasons, and unless I explicitly negotiate them away, they are LIMITS. I would consider anyone who ignored the fact that I have limits unilaterally, by not respecting my limits, to be an abuser, and would not only never play with such a person again, but I would make it quite clear to all & sundry WHY I would not. One also looks at this and wonders about the utility of the safe word described above -- why have one if it will not be respected?

Of course, in my last relationship, this would never have happened; my Owner was quite clear as to what the limits were (both mine & his -- yes, Tops can have limits, too!), and had no craving to go outside them. And vice versa. And this never detracted in the least bit from my feelings of being owned, nor of his feelings of owning me. It merely reflected the fact that we were well matched.

Like most other intelligent organisms, I respond faster and more accurately to positive reinforcement. It is bad psychology to try to change behavior only though punishments and corporal discipline, and will work on far fewer folks than positive reinforcements will, as well as being more slow. I suggest people read anything by Karen Pryor for some examples of how humans can be taught through positive reinforcement.

My opinion about tears is that they are far more likely to be either a sign that something is seriously wrong or (in some cases) seriously manipulative. If something is seriously wrong, and I am in tears, the fact that I am crying will not lead to a resolution. My partner will have to understand why I am crying, and something will need to change. As I am unlikely to change my responses due to discussion, it is more likely that his actions would need to be altered. As to the other sort of tears, well, let's just say that my last partner has had previous partners who were into that sort of thing, and his initial response to a woman crying was therefore one of suspicion.

Of course, one can also cry for reasons unrelated to one's partner. I sometimes cry at soppy movies, and I know women who can also cry from happiness, or from exhaustion, or after especially great sex. IMO, most such crying, when unrelated to one's partner, is unlikely to bring one closer to him. I sometimes cry when I re-read a particular book... that is not a symptom of any softening in my will nor in bringing me any closer to anyone. Now, if I were to cry after especially good sex, that would be different, or if I was crying because my partner had exhausted me. But I'm one of those people who rarely has had tears flow around my partner unless there is a major serious problem. Others mileage may, of course, vary -- but, for me, crying because I am reading about a favorite character being damaged nigh unto death is not going to affect my relationship.

Given that some of the people I work with are 15 year old boys, that would be a great way to get a written warning from my boss. And, then too, I wonder how the people in the aforementioned bad neighborhood would respond, or the cop who took the rape report, or the judge and jury? Some things are simply not appropriate for all people in all situations, and this is one of them.

Can you say "ruined clothing?" How about "ruined furniture"? How about "ruined rugs"? Or even just "trail of blood drips?" Any person who would refuse to let a woman use pads or tampons during her period is going to have to be able to both support her (how many months do you think it would be before her boss told her to make a choice?) and buy a heck of a lot of clean, soft, absorbent cloths for her to sit on while menstruating, and have a standing monthly appointment with a carpet & upholstery cleaning firm. Especially for when she's in a dress without panties, since she's then supposed to sit down on bare skin (anyone but me remember the story of Leah & Rachel & their dad's idols?). This isn't just a strange rule, indicating a kink that is less common but still an OK kink, this rule indicates that property damage is not a concern. If it's not my property, I would feel sort of gross & messy, but not really upset. I'm not sure how sexy I would look with large bloody blotches on my inner thighs, or why someone would want a slave to leave a blood trail as she walked about the house, but if JK likes that sort of thing, it's not for me to say that there's anything wrong with it. Just don't expect me to adopt a rule like that or my partner to decide that it's OK for me to leave bloodstains on his carpet.

My, my, my. First off, we have the silliness of counting this as a meal. Menstruation is messy, but it's not a source of very much tissue, only a few tablespoons. While it can sure destroy clothing & bedding and so on, it's not really a meal in the caloric sense, nor is it nutritionally balanced. And just ordinary juices are even less nutritious. Great way to end up malnourished and infected.

Then, we have the disease risk factor. Even if one tests the other women for HIV, unless she has been avoiding all unsafe activities for a minimum of 6-9 months, there is a chance that if she has been exposed to HIV, she could serum convert between the test and this activity. And, of course, HIV is only one of many diseases you can catch through oral sex with a woman, whether she is menstruating or not.

Which brings up another fact, one which has been demonstrated numerous times in sex research literature -- people have been known to actually tell untruths about which risky activities they have previously engaged in. The undersell is a common factor in people seeking to enter a new relationship -- they don't want to reveal too much, and be turned down as a result. The more partners one is involved with, the greater the odds are that one will eventually meet a dishonest partner. Given the difficulty in being sure that someone has not been exposed to HIV, Hepatitis C, etc. I'm not willing to consider that to be an acceptable risk for myself. YMMV, of course. But you may want to keep in mind that every study done has shown that a percentage of people who know they have STDs lie. Since you cannot tell most people are infected -- more and more diseases include symptomless forms, so even the infected person is unaware of it -- precautions are an excellent idea. Need some numbers? Go look at Stein's recent (1998) study. Between 22 & 48% of people who KNOW they are HIV positive don't tell new partners. And, the more partners one has had in the past six months, the less likely you are to tell;; more than half of the people in his study who had more than one lover in the previous six months didn't admit their serostatus.

Such "legal" drugs are available only by prescription. And their safety is in question; tinkering with the hormonal balance of a non-lactating woman can certainly be done, but some experts believe that there is likely to be an increased risk of breast cancer down the road as a result. While others disagree, this is not something I would monkey with just for kink. The hormones involved have far-reaching consequences to other systems in the body which are not involved in lactation, and the process of producing milk requires alterations in diet and other life patterns in order to remain safe. And, of course, there are a huge number of diseases that can be transmitted through breast milk. While this makes some sense in the mothers who adopt a child, or who are rejoined with their own flesh and blood after a separation, those cases have a psychological and physical risk-benefit equation for the mothers and children which makes it a reasonable (IMO) risk. Were there some other reason for lactation induction, it would be a good idea to read up on the matter, examine the possible short and long-term risks, and make an informed choice about whether or not to risk it. Such a choice should not be, IMO, a unilateral one, any more than a tattoo should be.

It's a damned good thing that we have that perfect trust thing going, then, because there are no details given about what makes these safe activities. Edge Play, by its very nature, is not a skill for novices. A number of the activities detailed here could cause long-term damage or even death. IMO, it is criminally stupid to enter into breath control or similar activities without a full-scale risk assessment. Sure, most of the time, nothing lethal occurs, but there are enough exceptions to ensure that informed consent should be more than a self-proclaimed top/dominant/whatever saying that he knows how to do something. Oh, but wait, an earlier rule (cited above) said that the woman didn't have to cooperate if something was unsafe. But then, she also had a safe word. Oh, but wait, she also knows that her safe word can be ignored when the "master" feels like it. What worries me most (even more than the numerous internal contradictions these "Rules" seem to contain) is that this list is supposed to be for beginners, and how would one of them know what is and is not safe?? Too often they think they have taken adequate precautions, and find out otherwise only when something goes wrong.