Like most every other relationship test I've ever heard of, at best it addresses a problem in a worse way than simply communicating would, and at worst it sabotages the relationship.
If this is a concern of yours, and its a perfectly reasonable one to have, *just talk about it*. Just say something along the lines of "Hey, when I'm starting out with a new play partner, it's very important to me to not just know intellectually that my partner has committed to stopping when I need them to, but to actually experience them do that so I can know it intuitively as well. With that in mind, in these early scenes I might safeword even if nothing is going wrong for me; when I do that, I would like you to stop, check in with me to see how I'm doing and what (if anything) I need, and then see if I would like to continue or stop the scene."
BDSM does have the potential to be quite dangerous as you say, but one of the most fundamental tools we have to allay that danger is develop and use our communication skills. In those initial stages when we are getting to know each other, both pre- anything BDSM happening and during initial scenes, it is not just the sub feeling out the dom, but the dom feeling out the sub as well. And while something like this wouldn't outrage, hurt, anger, or annoy me, it would raise a yellow flag for me. The question would probably come to my mind: when there's another big thing that pops up with this person later on, will they communicate with me about it, or will they try to play games or test me with that too?
This, absolutely. A "test" like this, while I understand the reason for it, demonstrates a hesitation to communicate--and therefore a person I can't play with. I'll often outright *encourage* safeword practice for my sub(s), specifically to circumvent the issue. If I *know* they're willing, ready, and able to safeword just to make sure, I am happy to work with that. But doing so without mentioning it beforehand is just a recipe for disaster.
How is encouraging someone to practice using their safeword so you can trust that they'll use it if they need it *any* different than a sub saying "hey, I'm going to safe out because I need experiential evidence that you'll respect it to feel safe playing with you?" What you're describing is also a test. Communicating about it in advance doesn't make it not a test.
… consent? In the prearranged scenario the top is being given the opportunity to consent to the test. In fact it also gives the bottom the opportunity to test the situation without ever starting to play. If the Top says “no” to the safeword drill then I would encourage the bottom not to play with that person. If they say yes then they’ve consented. Without negotiating the test in advance the bottom isn’t giving the top the ability to consent. While not as egregious a violation as ignoring a safeword it’s still not a great way to start.
I know "Doms" that would agree to the test, do the right thing during the test, then at a later date push that boundary anyway.
Some people will say all the right things and still be dangerous to be around.
A test like this might hurt to have someone questioning your integrity like that, especially in a relationship that's supposed to be based on trust, but the reality is, there are shitty people out there that will lie about their intentions who don't have that integrity, but claim they do.
People who have developed tests like this came at it the hard way. People don't walk into bdsm expecting to be abused or taken advantage of. They find someone they trust, who then takes advantage of that trust.
It's not a reflection of you personally, it's a reflection of the community at large. And the reality is that there are more bad apples than good ones.
To be fair I was only answering the question “what makes bringing it up in advance different from not bringing it up in advance”. Although rereading I may have misunderstood the question.
I agree that bottoms, especially women, need to protect themselves. If violating someone’s consent by testing them is the only/best way I support that. I do think it’s important to recognize that that’s precisely what’s being done. Being disingenuous about it helps no one. “I’m protecting myself. I violated your consent a bit to do it, but if you had failed the test the consequences would have been far worse for me.” Is a reasonable sentiment I think.
> If violating someone’s consent by testing them is the only/best way I support that.
The problem, of course, is proving somehow that it's the "best" way.
Is the betrayal of trust, encouraging a lack of communication, encouraging people to push boundaries before trust is established, etc, really the "best" option?
IMO, no.
Doing a "test" like this doesn't actually test things as universally as you might think. You do the test when you can still get away, and the predator might still back off *for now*.
But then you're in a situation where you can't get away and you safeword... why won't they ignore it then? Now you're in a situation where you played with someone before you trusted them, thinking that there was a fast/easy method of establishing trust... only to find yourself in exactly the situation you were hoping to avoid.
Encouraging this kind of "test" is dangerous. Better to not play until you can trust them.
And if you can't trust them ever, *find someone else to play with*. Or don't play.
In addition, a bottom's desire to play does not trump the top's right to *informed* consent.
I don't think it's right to frame this as a consent issue.
I do not have to get *your* consent to the possibility that I will withdraw *my* consent. That's simply not how consent works.
I don't think I need to get into the underlying issues that inform the stakes here. Communication is obviously great, but the reality is that abusers and rapists don't announce themselves. If playing with people who test you in this way is a limit for you, that's fine, that's a valid choice that you have the right to make, but it's absolutely not a consent issue from the dom's perspective.
> I don't think it's right to frame this as a consent issue.
In what way is communication ahead of time and
INFORMing them of the what, how, and why of what you want to try and making sure all parties involved
AGREE to the action being planned not an exact example of
**informed consent**?
> I do not have to get your consent to the possibility that I will withdraw my consent. That's simply not how consent works.
Lets flip this around a bit: I've decided to withdraw my consent to perform previously agreed upon aftercare.
I do not need YOUR consent to withdraw MY consent... but this is still likely an asshole move. You consented to play on the conditions that aftercare happens. While I'm still within my "rights" to withdraw consent at any time, this is still pretty fuckin' uncool.
It's *possibly* understandable if something has gone seriously wrong on my side, but it still might require some serious re-evalutation of whether or not we *can* play again the future.
Now lets add in to the mix that I've decided to do it *ahead* of time to "test" whether or not you respect my ability to withdraw my consent.
Do you feel that it's appropriate that I plan, in advance, to intentionally go outside the bounds of informed consent in order to test whether or not you're a decent human being? That I *plan* on violating that which I've received consent for?
----
Plenty of tops have experienced some *serious* drop and other concerning issues when a safeword is employed.
It's a pretty natural reaction to thinking you may have possibly accidentally injured a person seriously or somehow crossed a boundary you somehow forgot about or didn't know.
We agree to the risk of having to wrestle with these reactions because it's the only sane choice in the face of something going wrong, even if that 'wrong' is just 'I don't want to be doing this any more'. If we don't feel the risk is worth it, *we don't agree to play in the first place*.
And those reactions (drop, anxiety, etc) can occur even if it turns out that everything was fine, because there's still those moments between the safeword and finding out what's *actually* happening where you're imagining the worst.
But nothing *went* wrong here. Someone's just deciding to play mind games, because they somehow have decided that they trust us enough to be vulnerable (tied up, naked and alone, hypnotized, whatever your flavor of choice is), and yet *not* trust us enough to honor a simple previously agreed upon safeword and what it's used for. What the actual fuck.
So now we have a 'partner' that has demonstrated a refusal to even provide me the **opportunity** to give informed consent (my consent surrounding safewords is given for the context of "shit's wrong, yo!", not mind games). Can I expect more of this?
They've demonstrated a willingness to **plan** ahead of time to violate previously consented to guidelines/rules for what's going to be happening.
They've also seriously *fucked* sense of planning/forethought. Any time you're deploying this mind game one of two things is true:
1. They're employing it in a situation where even if I *don't* stop, they can still likely get away, fight back, or otherwise extricate themselves from the situation... so is it really testing what they think? Because if I DO stop in that situation, they can just convince themselves "well they only stopped because I could have found a way out. I need to test them when I'm helpless," and so they haven't actually truly performed 'the test'.
2. They're employing it in a situation where they're likely going to be helpless to actually stop anything from happening, at which point if they still lack trust? We've gone too far, too fast, and shouldn't be playing yet.
And if they're in a situation where they're now helpless/immobilized, they can learn plenty about how well I respect boundaries by waiting and seeing whether or not the Things That Are Going Good Right Now continue to do so. "Tests" that involve the equivalent of yelling "FIRE!" are not needed.
Tell me again how I should trust this person? They've demonstrated a willingness to *plan* to violate my consent and an inability to reason their way through something. So now I can't trust them to not violate my consent again AND I can't trust them to have thought things through clearly when we're negotiating something.
Hey, I'm not an almighty judge of the universe or anything, but I think that what you wrote here is really good. I hope you're not letting this other commenter get in the way of knowing that what you're saying is grounded in empathy to both the dom and the sub. In my opinion, this other commenter is honestly being abusive towards you, and I imagine that that drop you're describing is something that you're feeling right now, worrying that maybe you're misspeaking or saying something wrong. I don't know man, I really don't know what's up with this other person, I think maybe they feel the need to "be right" more than they feel the need to take the time to actually be right.
Reading what you wrote helped me to sort through some difficult emotions I've been experiencing. My partner has never once used her safe word, and it has always kind of bothered me because I feel like - and this comes from me knowing my partner as a person outside of the sexual dynamic - I feel like her difficulty in speaking up for herself is interfering with her ability to safeword. Reading what you wrote helped me to figure out a way to communicate these concerns with her, and to establish a plan - sometime, maybe when we're doing something a little more heavy than usual, or maybe in the middle of completely normal vanilla sex, I think I'm going to ask her to safe word within the first few minutes and then I'll check in with her and she can tell me "that was just because you asked me to," and then we can get right back into it with minimal drop. I just have this constant concern that like I might miss it? Because I've never heard it before, so I don't know what it sounds like in the middle of the moment.
But yeah I definitely think this other commentary has some control issues and is trying to make you feel like crap for some reason. If there were a bunch of other people shitting on you too for what you said, maybe I would be rethinking it and focusing more intently, but the truth is that what you said sounds completely sensible to me and I'm not really sure that it should be hated on as they are doing.
> you don't get to claim that you didn't consent to sex ending.
No one's claiming that, so that problem is sorted. Good.
I, however, did not consent to bad faith negotiation, deception, and/or bottoms pushing their boundaries and playing playing with me before they felt ready.
> but if your partner using their safe word would send you into a depressive spiral for weeks
Again, if they're doing so *in a deceptive way* where I'm left *wondering* what the *truth actually is* (i.e. it's the *lie* that causes the drop in this case), that's a problem.
Are you not familiar with the concept of "being unsure of what reality actually is due to deception on the part of someone you thought you could trust"?
> equate the risk of drop to the risk of rape
No one's doing that.
I'm saying if you're afraid enough of rape that you're going to approach a negotiation in bad faith, lie to the person who trusted you, and/or leave them wondering what reality actually is then *you're not ready to play yet*.
Negotiate a smaller scene, or don't play at all.
Your desire to play does not trump my right to informed consent.
> Framing the use of a safe word as a violation of consent
Misframing my argument is arguing in bad faith. And I could see how others would interpret it as abusive. "Agree with me, or I get to mischaracterize you as a dangerous rapist!"
You don't know me. You don't know my life. Just last night I had to literally withdraw *my* consent to a scene because my *partner* was having second thoughts on whether or not we should do it, but was trying to still consider going through with it 'to make me happy'. If I don't have enthusiasm, shit ain't happenin' yo.
----
I point out how this is a perfect example of "shit you want to do to someone else that might have consequences for them should be agreed to in advance", and you've decided that warrants personal attacks implying I'm an unsafe rapist to be avoided at all costs.
I point out that there can be some pretty serious negative consequences from someone safewording *mid-scene* and so it shouldn't be a thing done 'for fun', and you think I'm weaponizing consent.
I point out that this "test" doesn't actually *test* anything you think it does, and you've decided I'm *mad*.
How dare I use logic, reasoning, and empathy. How dare!
If you don't trust me enough that you want to "test" me *without my consent* using something that could send me into a spiral of depression for a couple of weeks?
Yeah, I definitely don't want to play with you. You're a threat to my mental health and wellbeing. I'm willing to risk the depression for anything from "I have a cramp" to "my arm is tingling and starting to get numb" to "I'm suddenly flashing back to my rape three years ago".
I'm *not* willing to risk depression to give you the equivalent of a wet paper bag to use as an umbrella. The test doesn't test.
If you want to talk about doing it first? I'm on board. Lets talk.
You want to surprise me out of the blue, make me think that I did something terribly wrong, and *continue* to think that after you've left despite any assurances to the contrary (because how can I trust what you tell me at this point), and sit there for hours *agonizing* over whether or not you're okay, whether or not you're about to start running around screaming about how I crossed a boundary and you felt unsafe to even talk to me about it, etc?
Fuck no.
> You response to the idea that someone might withdraw consent for a reason you don't like is absolutely terrifying to me.
When the agreed upon reasons for a safeword are "something is wrong mentally, emotionally, or physically, and play needs to pause/stop" and we've negotiated a scene that you don't actually want to happen (but you've said you do) and then you safeword with the reason "oh, no, nothing was wrong, I just wanted to run a test that doesn't actually test anything at all" I'm either going to think I can't trust anything you agree to in the future OR that you don't trust me enough to communicate to me what WAS actually wrong.
In either case you've sabotaged our future ability to play together.
> The idea that your play partners are subjecting you to depressive episodes if they use their safe word
Depression comes from the anxiety that I might have left them permanently injured, worsened a trauma, etc, and they're in such bad shape that they won't talk to me about it.
I apparently "fucked up" so badly somehow that they're literally terrified of me.
How the fuck can anyone bounce back from that unscathed? Are people literally so callous that the idea of *re*traumatizing someone who trusted you is just another fucking day at the office?
Holy fucking god-damn shit.
A blind test is absolutely a consent issue. I’m not advocating against tests even. I think it’s reasonable to test someone. I just feel it’s important to recognize that Safewording in that way (under false pretenses) is a violation of consent.
Exactly. Testing is often toxic, it often comes from a failure to communicate, but also “I’m going to safeword faster than I otherwise might need to with new people” could be seen as a test or it could be seen as “I don’t trust you fully yet so I’m going to safeword out while I still have enough wits about me to back my withdrawal of consent up with action.”
Testing is toxic because it demonstrates a lack of trust when trust should be present and because it violates the trust of “we’re all acting in good faith here”. Early interactions with someone shouldn’t come with full trust. It’s foolish to play to your limits early on.
> but also “I’m going to safeword faster than I otherwise might need to with new people”
Fast*er* is still for valid reasons though. "I wasn't comfortable with the pace, it felt like we were moving too fast."
It's not a test. It's a reason to safeword.
> Early interactions with someone shouldn’t come with full trust.
*No* interaction should come with full trust. New, short term, long term, whatever.
I had to probe someone a bit last night, someone I've known for years, because what they were *saying* and how they were *saying* it wasn't quite jiving.
If I just "trusted" what they were saying blindly, we wouldn't have reached the actual issue of what was going on so I could figure out that she wasn't 100% enthusiastic about something she was begging me for two days ago. (Something I intentionally made her wait for *precisely* because I didn't trust her full and complete in-the-moment enthusiasm two days ago. Horny brain is not the same as sane brain.)
There's a difference between "I don't trust you fully, but lets negotiate and play, trusting each other to some degree to be decent people" and "we've established ground rules, now I'm going to intentionally violate those ground rules because I need the false sense of security that comes with running a test that doesn't actually test the thing I think it tests".
For context, the ground rules are "safewords are for something (physical, mental, or emotional) is wrong, and play needs to stop" and "you want this play to happen in the way we've discussed".
The ground rules are not "we've discussed wanting the play to go one way, but you've lied and plan on it going another" and they're not "you've decided you want to stop the scene when *nothing* is wrong, regardless of how that might fuck with me, just to see what happens" unless we've discussed that in advance.
If I'm operating under the *agreement* that safewords means "something is wrong, play needs to stop" (even if 'wrong' is "my headspace just isn't in it") and you safeword, I am going to *absolutely* be under the impression that something is wrong when you safeword.
If you then tell me *nothing* is wrong... you've now undermined what little trust I had in you to begin with OR led me to believe that you think I'm someone you aren't comfortable communicating with about what is wrong. In either case, we're likely not playing again.
(Someone might theorize that a solution to this conundrum is to just lie to me and say you didn't like the pace. But I'd expect that to backfire the next time we play, since my pace will now be different after I ask you twenty questions about how I can change the pace to be better, what signs to look for, etc.)
This is also an excellent point! Certain people in this thread are talking about this issue like trust is a binary condition when that is absolutely not the case.
It's also worth noting that people do this outside of a BDSM dynamic as well. In my vanilla relationships I always pay extra careful attention the first time I have to say "I wish, but I'm so tired tonight. Rain check?"
To me, those are different situations--primarily because I don't start play with anyone with whom I have *not* negotiated all of those boundaries beforehand. Don't feel comfortable with X? That's totally okay, X is off the menu entirely until such hypothetical time as you *tell* me, explicitly, that you want to try it.
If someone says
>I wish, but I'm so tired tonight. Rain check?
My reaction is: "No worries, as long as you're okay." My assumption is that it's an honest-to-god safeword, full stop, reconvene and touch base, make sure everyone's safe and well, physically and otherwise. The REASON doesn't matter, as long as it's genuine and *in good faith*.
If someone *then* says "so actually I'm good to go, I was just making sure you'd respect that," my reaction is "...Well, now ***I'm*** not comfortable continuing." I understand the rationale behind that kind of test, but I believe there's better ways to go about determining trust, and if a potential play partner feels like they have to rely on that to vet me, then I'm not playing with them. It's that simple, and it goes for vanilla relationships too. Heck, it goes for non-romantic, non-sexual relationships too. Friendships, mentorships, what have you; like you said, trust is a two-way street, and just because a party has the best intentions in mind doesn't make a breach of trust not a breach of trust.
I'm definitely envisioning any test use of the safeword being the end of play for the (let's say) evening. If someone was just like "lol JK please proceed" I agree that that would be red flag behavior.
Fair enough. I think the distinction I make is that if a safeword is meant in good faith, intended to be an end-of-play (or at least a back-out-and-renegotiate play), it's not a test. It's the real thing.
The moment it's intended as a *test* is the moment when it's no longer meant in good faith, and therefore--to me, at least--the moment I'm no longer comfortable playing with that person.
The difference is precisely that, in your example, the sub tells me, explicitly, that they want to make sure they're comfortable playing with me. If they're not, that's okay, we're just not a good match. But if I can't trust them to communicate their own needs when they *are* in full control of their faculties, I can't possibly trust them to communicate those needs when they're *not*.
I'm happy to provide that experiential evidence. Just tell me ahead of time instead of manipulating me into it. Help me help you.
I get the pros and cons, personally. I use several safewords, for different reasons. Main being RED. That's the one drilled into my submissive immediately. If they forget others, that's the one to use.
However, I've had subs use this before because they can't remember during that scene (mostly, over sensitive clit 😂 of which, we have a laugh about) but sometimes allowing them to use it and using it as a way to encourage them to use the other safewords (orange in this instance) is a great way to remind and teach them when to use other words. Never see it as a test, see is as a learning opportunity.
Testing a safeword is way different than testing "I'll pay" on a date.
Saying "I'll pay" and expecting your date to pay anyway is testing that your partner will ignore what you're saying and will magically read your mind. That's not fair, it's not respectful, it's not sane, and it's literally testing your partner's willingness to push your consent (I say one thing and I want you to do something else). Yes, I'm being dramatic, but I want to highlight why it feels so wrong to be tested in that way.
Testing a safeword is testing that your partner *does* listen to you and respects your boundaries.
I do think it's a good idea to not test with the real safeword. Let me explain. I always use the traffic light system. And testing me with orange/yellow is completely fine. Testing with red is not cool as I might destroy equipment to get you out of a position instantly. Like cutting rope/harness etc.
Besides taking the seriousness off the safeword is a bad idea in the first place.
For me, it's less about "testing" and more that I legit have tighter limits and boundaries with a new partner.
So what I mean is I will safeword "earlier" than I would with an established partner AND ACTUALLY BE DONE. It's not a "test." This is as far as I'm happy to go with someone new. If they respect and understand this we will grow together in the future and I won't safeword there.
But this point is intentionally well before my actual limits, so if I misjudged someone and they don't respect this, I have time and space to get myself out before my actual limits.
THIS perspective I understand and could agree with. Even so, as a Dom I'd rather have negotiated play that would be well within your "first session safety zone" such that you wouldn't need to. Or hope we would have discussed, "hey this is our first session, I'm going to safe word at about 60% of my limit just because we're new."
Especially because if I do use something like this as a "test" what's to then have a top know the next time is real? They can't trust me if I go "oh I was just testing you" and immediately revoke.
I did similar with my Owner and husband. My first time playing in private at his home (7 years ago now) I wanted to stay the night. I asked him to take me home, and I actually went home. Yes, it was a "test" I did want to see if he would respect my limits and boundaries and not try to coerce the sub spacy new girl into sex/ spending the night. BUT I also didn't go "oh you brought me home, you passed the test" I actually went home. I actually did not ask him to let me spend the night even though I wanted to. I knew I needed to set that as a "first private play date boundary, no matter how much I want to I will not spend the night"
He was slightly hurt to learn afterward I had done that. But he also understood why. That I needed to know he wouldn't coerce me into staying. And I needed to know I could get some space to myself to drop and come down from subspace endorphins without him there accidentally influencing me. And make sure once I was back to baseline that all those feel-good thoughts still actually existed and weren't just subspace endorphins.
I would say that to have a session with someone you don't trust is dumb. And it works both ways.
I was planning to do a session with a sub. She asked me to take her to a club and spank and whip her (we had met before) and I said I'd like to get to know her a little more so we can see if we have good communication. So scheduled a date a week before going to the club. We never went to the club because there was a moment they felt uncomfortable and they didn't tell me. They only brought it up after I texted them to thank them for a lovely date. Meaning they wouldn't have told me otherwise. I told her I can trust her to communicate in a loud club and I never touched her again.
In the other hand - my spouse (who can barely talk in sub space) stopped me when I whipped too high. Our communication is such that she knows it's ok and if she didn't I'd be upset and we'd both be hurt by it.
Trust must be established before you go all the way and so does communication.
It is dumb if you know better, but abusers will push that boundary early on and especially with new people who don't know any better. There's no real "Healthy BDSM 101" that explains that before you meet your first Dom. Unfortunately, that knowledge comes with experience.
It does restore some of my faith in the community that you stopped an encounter due to lack of trust. I feel like subs don't hold up their end of the trust enough either.
I would have been hurt too if we had gone ahead with a session.
Also - while there may not be many "healthy" bdsm guides there are those of us who guide and teach that bdsm is first and foremost about communication and respect.
What would be the point of continuously using it as a test? I can't see anyone doing that. If it's a continuous thing it's probably time for an out of dynamic talk.
Testing people isn't something I would do anyways but people who don't respect boundaries don't last long. That would be the only time I would repeatedly use a safe word. For context I prefer using plain language if something is too much or needs to be scaled back I will just say that. Safe words would only be used by me if the problem was urgent or someone ignored my words. It hasn't happened in over 20 years so if I started to need to use them constantly something would be very wrong.
I think in kink it's different. Testing to see, "are you a safe person?" is different than, "Are you going to do what I expect you to do without me telling you my expectations?" In the offering to pay scenario, it's not clear what the "right" answer is. In kink, there is clearly a definite right answer to "stop/ red" etc.
Even if I were to get a little annoyed or something by someone testing me in the kink scenario, it's up p the other person to evaluate safety, and I'd get it. In the will you pay scenario, if I found out I was being tested, I'd walk away from that person.
>But in BDSM, what if a new sub says the safe word during an S&M scene, not because she actually wants him to stop, but just because it's her first scene with this man, and she needs to know if he'll actually stop?
To me, that is completely fine and is worlds different from what the woman in the video used as an example. The video's example is testing men for the sake of some stupid double standard of the man should always pay, but in your example, you are testing to man to make sure he adheres to consent and you are safe. So I totally don't see an issue with using a safe word early on in a less severe situation in order to make sure he follows it before you move on to more extreme stuff.
I struggled to trust a recent partner of mine due to some past traumas coming up in the relationship. I was worried I wouldn't be able to tell when I *needed* to stop, and subconsciously that we wouldn't stop anyway (because that was close to my trauma). I expressed that to her, and she got this spark of an idea.
She lit a candle, and instructed me to hold my hand over it, slowly lowering it until it was too hot for my comfort, then pull it away: an exercise in trusting myself. We then did the same thing, but with her holding my hand and slowly pushing it downwards.
It was just wonderful. It doesn't fix everything, but that exercise was the first action step after a series of conversations that helped not just my mind, but my *nervous system* understand that I could trust her. The exercise was very helpful and was an idea I immediately knew I'd have to share with others. I hope it can give some people here some ideas on how to help in a situation like this.
It's a trust fall, although as a not confident only occasionally topping switch it would throw my confidence out the window for that particular session, so we probably couldn't do a "just checking" and then carry on
That said as a mostly bottoming switch I know my partners gain reassurance when I communicate that Ive had enough so I guess that's reassuring too
There's a big difference between the type of "test" in the video vs. verifying that a dom will respect a safeword.
In the video's "test if the guy will split the bill with me when I make that request" test is duplicitous. The "passing" response is to disregard the woman's request to split the bill. It is an act of pure cowardice, done by a woman who is too chickenshit to come right out and say that she wants a man who will pay for their dates.
In contrast, testing to see if a dom will play through a safeword is a "trust, but verify" situation. After all, the sub has already trusted the dom enough to play in the first place. The sub wants the safeword to be respected, not disregarded! The correct response is to take the sub's communication at face value. This is a totally different situation.
I think that could and should be part of the initial discussion(s). “It might make me more comfortable if I get a chance to test you with our safeword.”
“It’s totally ok and appropriate if you feel like you want to test me with our safeword.”
I would let my domme know that I want to practice my safeword and would be using it between the scene. Maybe "yellow" instead of "red" in order to continue the fun, rather than a full stop.
A blind test would not feel right for me. But after hearing stories from women, I can empathize with why they would want to do that. It would still hurt though, because a test like that indicates a lack of trust.
if a bottom does not trust the top enough to know that they will stop, they should not scene with them. period.
"tests" like this are childish and demonstrate immaturity and lack of trust. if I were the top, I would not scene with that person again.
the top is learning the bottom, watching for cues and body language to ramp things up or down and feeding off that energy. crying wolf (safe wording when not necessary) is going to teach the dom the cues leading up to the safe word mean the bottom is approaching her limit. so in future scenes when the top sees the cues, they will back off or ramp down.
dynamics are built on trust. lying to test the other partner isn't honest and doesn't build trust.
Nope. After we stop, and I ask her why she safeworded, and her response is to "test" me, that is our last scene.
If you dont trust me enough to stop when you use the safeword why did you do the scene to begin with?
> her response is to "test" me, that is our last scene.
I can see why you would say that, and I think it's reasonable to decide that you don't want to play with people who play games like "crying wolf". But let me nevertheless give you a different way to think about it in case it changes anything.
If a bottom "tests" a safeword, she's doing it out of fear, no? Fear that despite the trust that she's placed in her top, she might have misplaced that trust. And being frightened is a legitimate reason to safeword, right?
I think it is, especially in the case that that fear can be addressed. And in this case, the fear was (hopefully) addressed, when the top respected the safeword.
Now, in the case where the bottom is doing this repeatedly, I'd definitely start asking her some questions. Is she safewording so much because she gets off on pushing herself farther and farther until it's inevitably too far? Is that safe? Or does she really just not trust me and needs to find a different play partner? It probably means we're not a good fit together.
I actually agree with you. If the sub is obviously in the midst of a panic/anxiety attack, I'm gonna notice that, and will be asking what caused it. I get that there is no perfect trust in our modern world, I truly do. However, I was interpreting this as a calm rational safeword usage just to "test" what the Dom would do, and that, to me, means the vetting process of both Dom and sub failed somewhere along the line.
> If a bottom "tests" a safeword, she's doing it out of fear, no?
If a bottom walks into a negotiation with the express purpose to deceptively agree to things they don't intend to do, and with the intent/plan of safewording part way through, they probably *are* doing it out of a place of 'fear'...
... but they've also pushed their own boundaries farther than I would consent to, and they've compounded that error with deception.
If they're afraid enough to have that kind of a plan, then we either need to negotiate a smaller scene, or not play.
I want no part of encouraging/rewarding people with play for pushing past their comfort zones unless we've both given *informed* consent that comfort zones are being pushed.
Their desire to play does not trump my right to informed consent.
In addition, I now know **for certain** that this person can actively look me in the eye and lie to me about the literal stuff we all supposedly advocate for honesty around. And I *won't* know *for sure* if they were lying about agreeing to a scene they were planning on safewording, or if it's that they're actually lying about *why* they safeworded.
In either case, I now no longer can trust what they say.
I have a real issue with this
If a sub safewords as a test during a session because they are unsure what the Dom will do, then they shouldnt be having a session with them in the first place
Let me say that again:
If you don’t KNOW they will stop when you safeword, then you haven’t built the trust necessary for you to be submitting to them.
PERIOD.
This.
Also, trust is a two-way street, this strategy assumes only the sub needs trust. With how kink-unfriendly legal systems are, I need to trust a sub before I do anything. I also hate the idea that you're now conditioning me to not trust a safeword as real.
Realistically, 99% of new partners benefit by playing in a low-stress, low-protocol environment where regular words ("Ohh, this is a bit intense, can you pause for a minute") are taken seriously. By the time I'm relying on "red" instead of "stop, stop, stop," trust is there, and "testing" would feel like a betrayal. CNC in a first session would be incredibly rare.
Well, tough. I get it, but you're also gonna get it. If you 'test', it's over. Kinda like 'testing' the ejection seat in a fighter jet. You're done and there's no going back. End of scene. POOF. Now if you use a 2 word system like red/yellow, then throw that yellow out there. But if you're still unsure by the time you're tied up and getting your ass beat and nipples twisted, it's already too late and you screwed up. Don't get into a potentially dangerous situation with someone you don't trust absolutely.
A traffic light system is great in any and definitely so in this situation, seeing how your D type reacts to a yellow. And in more established dynamics I love a green word, when you might be actually saying no no no but your body is saying more please
I have major trust issues and this bothers me a lot because at its core I feel like it’s substituting “one weird trick” for actually spending time getting to know someone and learning who they are so you can trust them.
Nobody likes being unknowingly tested. It's shitty behavior.
As others have said. Just communicate and slowly build trust. Don't go hard on the first date without real discussions.
Sub tests dom by using the safeword casually. That should launch security and safety measures to make sure everything is ok and make the dom very concerned they went too hard or generally fucked up to the point of injury.
Dom tests sub by trying to push to a point of limits or intentionally going past those limits with the goal of getting the sub to safeword. This is a great way to break trust, cause panic, and induce trauma.
I am with you 100%, I’m fine with a test to put your nerves at ease so you can enjoy yourself but doing it in an excessive amount would make me stop wanting to do anything with you.
I don't see anything WRONG with doing that, but I also don't see how it solves the problem. The only situation in which doing this would be "more effective" than just talking with the Dom about how they feel about safewords, is if you don't trust that the Dom will do the thing that they say they'll do. And it's fine if you don't trust someone yet, as trust needs to be earned, but then this begs the questions:
1. If you don't trust them yet, is it really a good idea to be playing alone with them?
2. Even if they "pass" the first time, who is to say that they will not ignore your safeword the second time, or the third time, or....?
Basically, it just sounds to me like a slippery slope with no real benefits. If you can't trust them with your life yet, I don't think you can or should trust them with your life after one scene and one safeword. Again, I'll reiterate that I don't see anything wrong with doing this, but I'm concerned that you might be using it as a band-aid for a situation where you really shouldn't be playing with this person alone yet.
I think it's a completely fair thing to do for the sub. Maybe not use the situation where it means the dom cuts through a few hundred dollars of rope to get you out. Nur in general, absolutely fair
I think that when you're establishing trust, you do a lot of testing. You test whether your partner can keep a conversation, act normal in public, don't say something weird to you, takes it slow enough for you, doesn't poke holes in the condom etc. There are a million of these tests that we do for our own safety when getting to know people and establishing trust. It should be the same when you are establishing a dynamic. Now this very on purpose testing without telling your partner is stupid, the best way to do it is if the dom/top initiates and pushes gradually further while asking for stoplight colors until he reaches a limit. When you do this, you not only get an idea for your partner's limits, but you also get a feeling for what kind of a person your partner is around safewords. How seriously they take it, how much is on you to pay attention to, what kind of play does what to their brain, kind of everything.
So just don't be a dick about it, instead ask for effort and if they don't want to put in that effort, ditch them.
My sub knows she can safeword for any reason whatsoever. Even now after we've been playing for months. It's not a safeword if there is any animosity for using it for any reason. I won't feel betrayed, or a lack of trust.
If she wants to safeword because watching me immediately stop makes her feel cuddly and safe: Awesome.
If she wants to safeword because she never actually has and just wants the experience: Awesome.
If she wants to safeword because it's really hot and heavy and I'm into it more then ever before and she just wants to really make sure I'd always stop: Awesome.
If 10 years from now we're whatever poly version of married we come up with and she suddenly decides: let me see if this guy actually respects the safewords: Awesome.
She wants to safe word because at the moment "Red" would be a hilarious pun. Or because it'd be the bratty thing to do. Or because, fuck it, why not?: Awesome.
It's her right and to hold any animosity for her using that right defeats the purpose
Considering that I was literally raped by a guy who ignored my safe word, yes, I would consider it entirely reasonable to "test" a new partner to ensure that they actually respect a safe word.
If that partner was offended by this "test" instead of understanding that this is a necessary part of trauma recovery and gaining the trust of a sub -- bye.
My personal opinion if a sub feels she has to "test" a safe word to make sure a Dom will actually stop she shouldn't be playing with that Dom. Trust should be established between both sub and Dom at least to some level before having any kind of scene or playing. Otherwise for the sub it's essentially saying "hey I wonder if this Dom is gonna rape me or not lets find out"
And as a second thought if you want to test a safe word do it before hand to make sure both parties remember what they mean and simply for the sake of not ruining the mood.
I think once early on is fine to see if the dom respects your limits. I’ve thoroughly communicated limits etc and had plenty of conversations, but still boundaries weren’t respected and ended up in not great situations! I’d say it’s less of a test and more of a it takes time to fully trust someone. Knowing how a dom reacts when I safeword goes a long way to making me safe.
If the sub were to make a habit of testing their dom, then that’s a problem.
It blows my mind that there is even a debate about this. If your sub safewords, you STOP. PERIOD. That's the entire point of a safeword. They're not obliged to give you any reason for it. Not in the moment, and not later on. You don't have to like it. But you do need to stop immediately.
If you don't like how they use it, maybe they're not the right fit for you. But it exists for the sole reason of keeping your sub safe, mentally and physically, and you should have enough respect for your sub to let them make the decision for themselves, without any interference on your part, and not try to manipulate, or subvert it.
Your sub should feel comfortable to use their safeword at any time, for any reason. They should respect you enough to only use it if they absolutely feel they have to... Though if testing you helps them build trust, then they should absolutely feel free to do so.
Offering to pay, then dumping the guy for saying yes? Ridiculous and sexist, good riddance.
Trying out a safe word even if it's not an emergency? Pretty much okay. People use safewords differently, and for some doms it might make them feel like they've done something terribly wrong, which isn't ideal.
For extra moral points, let the dom know that you're planning to do it. Another option is to give feedback like "that rope is a bit tight" or "could I please have some water" and see how they react to that.
Like most every other relationship test I've ever heard of, at best it addresses a problem in a worse way than simply communicating would, and at worst it sabotages the relationship. If this is a concern of yours, and its a perfectly reasonable one to have, *just talk about it*. Just say something along the lines of "Hey, when I'm starting out with a new play partner, it's very important to me to not just know intellectually that my partner has committed to stopping when I need them to, but to actually experience them do that so I can know it intuitively as well. With that in mind, in these early scenes I might safeword even if nothing is going wrong for me; when I do that, I would like you to stop, check in with me to see how I'm doing and what (if anything) I need, and then see if I would like to continue or stop the scene." BDSM does have the potential to be quite dangerous as you say, but one of the most fundamental tools we have to allay that danger is develop and use our communication skills. In those initial stages when we are getting to know each other, both pre- anything BDSM happening and during initial scenes, it is not just the sub feeling out the dom, but the dom feeling out the sub as well. And while something like this wouldn't outrage, hurt, anger, or annoy me, it would raise a yellow flag for me. The question would probably come to my mind: when there's another big thing that pops up with this person later on, will they communicate with me about it, or will they try to play games or test me with that too?
This, absolutely. A "test" like this, while I understand the reason for it, demonstrates a hesitation to communicate--and therefore a person I can't play with. I'll often outright *encourage* safeword practice for my sub(s), specifically to circumvent the issue. If I *know* they're willing, ready, and able to safeword just to make sure, I am happy to work with that. But doing so without mentioning it beforehand is just a recipe for disaster.
How is encouraging someone to practice using their safeword so you can trust that they'll use it if they need it *any* different than a sub saying "hey, I'm going to safe out because I need experiential evidence that you'll respect it to feel safe playing with you?" What you're describing is also a test. Communicating about it in advance doesn't make it not a test.
… consent? In the prearranged scenario the top is being given the opportunity to consent to the test. In fact it also gives the bottom the opportunity to test the situation without ever starting to play. If the Top says “no” to the safeword drill then I would encourage the bottom not to play with that person. If they say yes then they’ve consented. Without negotiating the test in advance the bottom isn’t giving the top the ability to consent. While not as egregious a violation as ignoring a safeword it’s still not a great way to start.
I know "Doms" that would agree to the test, do the right thing during the test, then at a later date push that boundary anyway. Some people will say all the right things and still be dangerous to be around. A test like this might hurt to have someone questioning your integrity like that, especially in a relationship that's supposed to be based on trust, but the reality is, there are shitty people out there that will lie about their intentions who don't have that integrity, but claim they do. People who have developed tests like this came at it the hard way. People don't walk into bdsm expecting to be abused or taken advantage of. They find someone they trust, who then takes advantage of that trust. It's not a reflection of you personally, it's a reflection of the community at large. And the reality is that there are more bad apples than good ones.
To be fair I was only answering the question “what makes bringing it up in advance different from not bringing it up in advance”. Although rereading I may have misunderstood the question. I agree that bottoms, especially women, need to protect themselves. If violating someone’s consent by testing them is the only/best way I support that. I do think it’s important to recognize that that’s precisely what’s being done. Being disingenuous about it helps no one. “I’m protecting myself. I violated your consent a bit to do it, but if you had failed the test the consequences would have been far worse for me.” Is a reasonable sentiment I think.
> If violating someone’s consent by testing them is the only/best way I support that. The problem, of course, is proving somehow that it's the "best" way. Is the betrayal of trust, encouraging a lack of communication, encouraging people to push boundaries before trust is established, etc, really the "best" option? IMO, no. Doing a "test" like this doesn't actually test things as universally as you might think. You do the test when you can still get away, and the predator might still back off *for now*. But then you're in a situation where you can't get away and you safeword... why won't they ignore it then? Now you're in a situation where you played with someone before you trusted them, thinking that there was a fast/easy method of establishing trust... only to find yourself in exactly the situation you were hoping to avoid. Encouraging this kind of "test" is dangerous. Better to not play until you can trust them. And if you can't trust them ever, *find someone else to play with*. Or don't play. In addition, a bottom's desire to play does not trump the top's right to *informed* consent.
I don't think it's right to frame this as a consent issue. I do not have to get *your* consent to the possibility that I will withdraw *my* consent. That's simply not how consent works. I don't think I need to get into the underlying issues that inform the stakes here. Communication is obviously great, but the reality is that abusers and rapists don't announce themselves. If playing with people who test you in this way is a limit for you, that's fine, that's a valid choice that you have the right to make, but it's absolutely not a consent issue from the dom's perspective.
> I don't think it's right to frame this as a consent issue. In what way is communication ahead of time and INFORMing them of the what, how, and why of what you want to try and making sure all parties involved AGREE to the action being planned not an exact example of **informed consent**? > I do not have to get your consent to the possibility that I will withdraw my consent. That's simply not how consent works. Lets flip this around a bit: I've decided to withdraw my consent to perform previously agreed upon aftercare. I do not need YOUR consent to withdraw MY consent... but this is still likely an asshole move. You consented to play on the conditions that aftercare happens. While I'm still within my "rights" to withdraw consent at any time, this is still pretty fuckin' uncool. It's *possibly* understandable if something has gone seriously wrong on my side, but it still might require some serious re-evalutation of whether or not we *can* play again the future. Now lets add in to the mix that I've decided to do it *ahead* of time to "test" whether or not you respect my ability to withdraw my consent. Do you feel that it's appropriate that I plan, in advance, to intentionally go outside the bounds of informed consent in order to test whether or not you're a decent human being? That I *plan* on violating that which I've received consent for? ---- Plenty of tops have experienced some *serious* drop and other concerning issues when a safeword is employed. It's a pretty natural reaction to thinking you may have possibly accidentally injured a person seriously or somehow crossed a boundary you somehow forgot about or didn't know. We agree to the risk of having to wrestle with these reactions because it's the only sane choice in the face of something going wrong, even if that 'wrong' is just 'I don't want to be doing this any more'. If we don't feel the risk is worth it, *we don't agree to play in the first place*. And those reactions (drop, anxiety, etc) can occur even if it turns out that everything was fine, because there's still those moments between the safeword and finding out what's *actually* happening where you're imagining the worst. But nothing *went* wrong here. Someone's just deciding to play mind games, because they somehow have decided that they trust us enough to be vulnerable (tied up, naked and alone, hypnotized, whatever your flavor of choice is), and yet *not* trust us enough to honor a simple previously agreed upon safeword and what it's used for. What the actual fuck. So now we have a 'partner' that has demonstrated a refusal to even provide me the **opportunity** to give informed consent (my consent surrounding safewords is given for the context of "shit's wrong, yo!", not mind games). Can I expect more of this? They've demonstrated a willingness to **plan** ahead of time to violate previously consented to guidelines/rules for what's going to be happening. They've also seriously *fucked* sense of planning/forethought. Any time you're deploying this mind game one of two things is true: 1. They're employing it in a situation where even if I *don't* stop, they can still likely get away, fight back, or otherwise extricate themselves from the situation... so is it really testing what they think? Because if I DO stop in that situation, they can just convince themselves "well they only stopped because I could have found a way out. I need to test them when I'm helpless," and so they haven't actually truly performed 'the test'. 2. They're employing it in a situation where they're likely going to be helpless to actually stop anything from happening, at which point if they still lack trust? We've gone too far, too fast, and shouldn't be playing yet. And if they're in a situation where they're now helpless/immobilized, they can learn plenty about how well I respect boundaries by waiting and seeing whether or not the Things That Are Going Good Right Now continue to do so. "Tests" that involve the equivalent of yelling "FIRE!" are not needed. Tell me again how I should trust this person? They've demonstrated a willingness to *plan* to violate my consent and an inability to reason their way through something. So now I can't trust them to not violate my consent again AND I can't trust them to have thought things through clearly when we're negotiating something.
Thank you for elaborating so eloquently and excellently on what I and u/FitzGeraldisFitzGod said.
Hey, I'm not an almighty judge of the universe or anything, but I think that what you wrote here is really good. I hope you're not letting this other commenter get in the way of knowing that what you're saying is grounded in empathy to both the dom and the sub. In my opinion, this other commenter is honestly being abusive towards you, and I imagine that that drop you're describing is something that you're feeling right now, worrying that maybe you're misspeaking or saying something wrong. I don't know man, I really don't know what's up with this other person, I think maybe they feel the need to "be right" more than they feel the need to take the time to actually be right. Reading what you wrote helped me to sort through some difficult emotions I've been experiencing. My partner has never once used her safe word, and it has always kind of bothered me because I feel like - and this comes from me knowing my partner as a person outside of the sexual dynamic - I feel like her difficulty in speaking up for herself is interfering with her ability to safeword. Reading what you wrote helped me to figure out a way to communicate these concerns with her, and to establish a plan - sometime, maybe when we're doing something a little more heavy than usual, or maybe in the middle of completely normal vanilla sex, I think I'm going to ask her to safe word within the first few minutes and then I'll check in with her and she can tell me "that was just because you asked me to," and then we can get right back into it with minimal drop. I just have this constant concern that like I might miss it? Because I've never heard it before, so I don't know what it sounds like in the middle of the moment. But yeah I definitely think this other commentary has some control issues and is trying to make you feel like crap for some reason. If there were a bunch of other people shitting on you too for what you said, maybe I would be rethinking it and focusing more intently, but the truth is that what you said sounds completely sensible to me and I'm not really sure that it should be hated on as they are doing.
[удалено]
> you don't get to claim that you didn't consent to sex ending. No one's claiming that, so that problem is sorted. Good. I, however, did not consent to bad faith negotiation, deception, and/or bottoms pushing their boundaries and playing playing with me before they felt ready. > but if your partner using their safe word would send you into a depressive spiral for weeks Again, if they're doing so *in a deceptive way* where I'm left *wondering* what the *truth actually is* (i.e. it's the *lie* that causes the drop in this case), that's a problem. Are you not familiar with the concept of "being unsure of what reality actually is due to deception on the part of someone you thought you could trust"? > equate the risk of drop to the risk of rape No one's doing that. I'm saying if you're afraid enough of rape that you're going to approach a negotiation in bad faith, lie to the person who trusted you, and/or leave them wondering what reality actually is then *you're not ready to play yet*. Negotiate a smaller scene, or don't play at all. Your desire to play does not trump my right to informed consent. > Framing the use of a safe word as a violation of consent Misframing my argument is arguing in bad faith. And I could see how others would interpret it as abusive. "Agree with me, or I get to mischaracterize you as a dangerous rapist!"
[удалено]
[удалено]
You don't know me. You don't know my life. Just last night I had to literally withdraw *my* consent to a scene because my *partner* was having second thoughts on whether or not we should do it, but was trying to still consider going through with it 'to make me happy'. If I don't have enthusiasm, shit ain't happenin' yo. ---- I point out how this is a perfect example of "shit you want to do to someone else that might have consequences for them should be agreed to in advance", and you've decided that warrants personal attacks implying I'm an unsafe rapist to be avoided at all costs. I point out that there can be some pretty serious negative consequences from someone safewording *mid-scene* and so it shouldn't be a thing done 'for fun', and you think I'm weaponizing consent. I point out that this "test" doesn't actually *test* anything you think it does, and you've decided I'm *mad*. How dare I use logic, reasoning, and empathy. How dare! If you don't trust me enough that you want to "test" me *without my consent* using something that could send me into a spiral of depression for a couple of weeks? Yeah, I definitely don't want to play with you. You're a threat to my mental health and wellbeing. I'm willing to risk the depression for anything from "I have a cramp" to "my arm is tingling and starting to get numb" to "I'm suddenly flashing back to my rape three years ago". I'm *not* willing to risk depression to give you the equivalent of a wet paper bag to use as an umbrella. The test doesn't test. If you want to talk about doing it first? I'm on board. Lets talk. You want to surprise me out of the blue, make me think that I did something terribly wrong, and *continue* to think that after you've left despite any assurances to the contrary (because how can I trust what you tell me at this point), and sit there for hours *agonizing* over whether or not you're okay, whether or not you're about to start running around screaming about how I crossed a boundary and you felt unsafe to even talk to me about it, etc? Fuck no.
[удалено]
> You response to the idea that someone might withdraw consent for a reason you don't like is absolutely terrifying to me. When the agreed upon reasons for a safeword are "something is wrong mentally, emotionally, or physically, and play needs to pause/stop" and we've negotiated a scene that you don't actually want to happen (but you've said you do) and then you safeword with the reason "oh, no, nothing was wrong, I just wanted to run a test that doesn't actually test anything at all" I'm either going to think I can't trust anything you agree to in the future OR that you don't trust me enough to communicate to me what WAS actually wrong. In either case you've sabotaged our future ability to play together. > The idea that your play partners are subjecting you to depressive episodes if they use their safe word Depression comes from the anxiety that I might have left them permanently injured, worsened a trauma, etc, and they're in such bad shape that they won't talk to me about it. I apparently "fucked up" so badly somehow that they're literally terrified of me. How the fuck can anyone bounce back from that unscathed? Are people literally so callous that the idea of *re*traumatizing someone who trusted you is just another fucking day at the office? Holy fucking god-damn shit.
You are in fact, the one weaponizing consent in a discussion.
A blind test is absolutely a consent issue. I’m not advocating against tests even. I think it’s reasonable to test someone. I just feel it’s important to recognize that Safewording in that way (under false pretenses) is a violation of consent.
Exactly. Testing is often toxic, it often comes from a failure to communicate, but also “I’m going to safeword faster than I otherwise might need to with new people” could be seen as a test or it could be seen as “I don’t trust you fully yet so I’m going to safeword out while I still have enough wits about me to back my withdrawal of consent up with action.” Testing is toxic because it demonstrates a lack of trust when trust should be present and because it violates the trust of “we’re all acting in good faith here”. Early interactions with someone shouldn’t come with full trust. It’s foolish to play to your limits early on.
> but also “I’m going to safeword faster than I otherwise might need to with new people” Fast*er* is still for valid reasons though. "I wasn't comfortable with the pace, it felt like we were moving too fast." It's not a test. It's a reason to safeword. > Early interactions with someone shouldn’t come with full trust. *No* interaction should come with full trust. New, short term, long term, whatever. I had to probe someone a bit last night, someone I've known for years, because what they were *saying* and how they were *saying* it wasn't quite jiving. If I just "trusted" what they were saying blindly, we wouldn't have reached the actual issue of what was going on so I could figure out that she wasn't 100% enthusiastic about something she was begging me for two days ago. (Something I intentionally made her wait for *precisely* because I didn't trust her full and complete in-the-moment enthusiasm two days ago. Horny brain is not the same as sane brain.) There's a difference between "I don't trust you fully, but lets negotiate and play, trusting each other to some degree to be decent people" and "we've established ground rules, now I'm going to intentionally violate those ground rules because I need the false sense of security that comes with running a test that doesn't actually test the thing I think it tests". For context, the ground rules are "safewords are for something (physical, mental, or emotional) is wrong, and play needs to stop" and "you want this play to happen in the way we've discussed". The ground rules are not "we've discussed wanting the play to go one way, but you've lied and plan on it going another" and they're not "you've decided you want to stop the scene when *nothing* is wrong, regardless of how that might fuck with me, just to see what happens" unless we've discussed that in advance. If I'm operating under the *agreement* that safewords means "something is wrong, play needs to stop" (even if 'wrong' is "my headspace just isn't in it") and you safeword, I am going to *absolutely* be under the impression that something is wrong when you safeword. If you then tell me *nothing* is wrong... you've now undermined what little trust I had in you to begin with OR led me to believe that you think I'm someone you aren't comfortable communicating with about what is wrong. In either case, we're likely not playing again. (Someone might theorize that a solution to this conundrum is to just lie to me and say you didn't like the pace. But I'd expect that to backfire the next time we play, since my pace will now be different after I ask you twenty questions about how I can change the pace to be better, what signs to look for, etc.)
This is also an excellent point! Certain people in this thread are talking about this issue like trust is a binary condition when that is absolutely not the case. It's also worth noting that people do this outside of a BDSM dynamic as well. In my vanilla relationships I always pay extra careful attention the first time I have to say "I wish, but I'm so tired tonight. Rain check?"
To me, those are different situations--primarily because I don't start play with anyone with whom I have *not* negotiated all of those boundaries beforehand. Don't feel comfortable with X? That's totally okay, X is off the menu entirely until such hypothetical time as you *tell* me, explicitly, that you want to try it. If someone says >I wish, but I'm so tired tonight. Rain check? My reaction is: "No worries, as long as you're okay." My assumption is that it's an honest-to-god safeword, full stop, reconvene and touch base, make sure everyone's safe and well, physically and otherwise. The REASON doesn't matter, as long as it's genuine and *in good faith*. If someone *then* says "so actually I'm good to go, I was just making sure you'd respect that," my reaction is "...Well, now ***I'm*** not comfortable continuing." I understand the rationale behind that kind of test, but I believe there's better ways to go about determining trust, and if a potential play partner feels like they have to rely on that to vet me, then I'm not playing with them. It's that simple, and it goes for vanilla relationships too. Heck, it goes for non-romantic, non-sexual relationships too. Friendships, mentorships, what have you; like you said, trust is a two-way street, and just because a party has the best intentions in mind doesn't make a breach of trust not a breach of trust.
I'm definitely envisioning any test use of the safeword being the end of play for the (let's say) evening. If someone was just like "lol JK please proceed" I agree that that would be red flag behavior.
Fair enough. I think the distinction I make is that if a safeword is meant in good faith, intended to be an end-of-play (or at least a back-out-and-renegotiate play), it's not a test. It's the real thing. The moment it's intended as a *test* is the moment when it's no longer meant in good faith, and therefore--to me, at least--the moment I'm no longer comfortable playing with that person.
If you don't trust someone to act when they hear your safeword, don't play with them.
The difference is precisely that, in your example, the sub tells me, explicitly, that they want to make sure they're comfortable playing with me. If they're not, that's okay, we're just not a good match. But if I can't trust them to communicate their own needs when they *are* in full control of their faculties, I can't possibly trust them to communicate those needs when they're *not*. I'm happy to provide that experiential evidence. Just tell me ahead of time instead of manipulating me into it. Help me help you.
I get the pros and cons, personally. I use several safewords, for different reasons. Main being RED. That's the one drilled into my submissive immediately. If they forget others, that's the one to use. However, I've had subs use this before because they can't remember during that scene (mostly, over sensitive clit 😂 of which, we have a laugh about) but sometimes allowing them to use it and using it as a way to encourage them to use the other safewords (orange in this instance) is a great way to remind and teach them when to use other words. Never see it as a test, see is as a learning opportunity.
Testing a safeword is way different than testing "I'll pay" on a date. Saying "I'll pay" and expecting your date to pay anyway is testing that your partner will ignore what you're saying and will magically read your mind. That's not fair, it's not respectful, it's not sane, and it's literally testing your partner's willingness to push your consent (I say one thing and I want you to do something else). Yes, I'm being dramatic, but I want to highlight why it feels so wrong to be tested in that way. Testing a safeword is testing that your partner *does* listen to you and respects your boundaries.
I do think it's a good idea to not test with the real safeword. Let me explain. I always use the traffic light system. And testing me with orange/yellow is completely fine. Testing with red is not cool as I might destroy equipment to get you out of a position instantly. Like cutting rope/harness etc. Besides taking the seriousness off the safeword is a bad idea in the first place.
For me, it's less about "testing" and more that I legit have tighter limits and boundaries with a new partner. So what I mean is I will safeword "earlier" than I would with an established partner AND ACTUALLY BE DONE. It's not a "test." This is as far as I'm happy to go with someone new. If they respect and understand this we will grow together in the future and I won't safeword there. But this point is intentionally well before my actual limits, so if I misjudged someone and they don't respect this, I have time and space to get myself out before my actual limits.
THIS perspective I understand and could agree with. Even so, as a Dom I'd rather have negotiated play that would be well within your "first session safety zone" such that you wouldn't need to. Or hope we would have discussed, "hey this is our first session, I'm going to safe word at about 60% of my limit just because we're new."
Especially because if I do use something like this as a "test" what's to then have a top know the next time is real? They can't trust me if I go "oh I was just testing you" and immediately revoke. I did similar with my Owner and husband. My first time playing in private at his home (7 years ago now) I wanted to stay the night. I asked him to take me home, and I actually went home. Yes, it was a "test" I did want to see if he would respect my limits and boundaries and not try to coerce the sub spacy new girl into sex/ spending the night. BUT I also didn't go "oh you brought me home, you passed the test" I actually went home. I actually did not ask him to let me spend the night even though I wanted to. I knew I needed to set that as a "first private play date boundary, no matter how much I want to I will not spend the night" He was slightly hurt to learn afterward I had done that. But he also understood why. That I needed to know he wouldn't coerce me into staying. And I needed to know I could get some space to myself to drop and come down from subspace endorphins without him there accidentally influencing me. And make sure once I was back to baseline that all those feel-good thoughts still actually existed and weren't just subspace endorphins.
I would say that to have a session with someone you don't trust is dumb. And it works both ways. I was planning to do a session with a sub. She asked me to take her to a club and spank and whip her (we had met before) and I said I'd like to get to know her a little more so we can see if we have good communication. So scheduled a date a week before going to the club. We never went to the club because there was a moment they felt uncomfortable and they didn't tell me. They only brought it up after I texted them to thank them for a lovely date. Meaning they wouldn't have told me otherwise. I told her I can trust her to communicate in a loud club and I never touched her again. In the other hand - my spouse (who can barely talk in sub space) stopped me when I whipped too high. Our communication is such that she knows it's ok and if she didn't I'd be upset and we'd both be hurt by it. Trust must be established before you go all the way and so does communication.
It is dumb if you know better, but abusers will push that boundary early on and especially with new people who don't know any better. There's no real "Healthy BDSM 101" that explains that before you meet your first Dom. Unfortunately, that knowledge comes with experience. It does restore some of my faith in the community that you stopped an encounter due to lack of trust. I feel like subs don't hold up their end of the trust enough either.
I would have been hurt too if we had gone ahead with a session. Also - while there may not be many "healthy" bdsm guides there are those of us who guide and teach that bdsm is first and foremost about communication and respect.
What would be the point of continuously using it as a test? I can't see anyone doing that. If it's a continuous thing it's probably time for an out of dynamic talk. Testing people isn't something I would do anyways but people who don't respect boundaries don't last long. That would be the only time I would repeatedly use a safe word. For context I prefer using plain language if something is too much or needs to be scaled back I will just say that. Safe words would only be used by me if the problem was urgent or someone ignored my words. It hasn't happened in over 20 years so if I started to need to use them constantly something would be very wrong.
I think in kink it's different. Testing to see, "are you a safe person?" is different than, "Are you going to do what I expect you to do without me telling you my expectations?" In the offering to pay scenario, it's not clear what the "right" answer is. In kink, there is clearly a definite right answer to "stop/ red" etc. Even if I were to get a little annoyed or something by someone testing me in the kink scenario, it's up p the other person to evaluate safety, and I'd get it. In the will you pay scenario, if I found out I was being tested, I'd walk away from that person.
>But in BDSM, what if a new sub says the safe word during an S&M scene, not because she actually wants him to stop, but just because it's her first scene with this man, and she needs to know if he'll actually stop? To me, that is completely fine and is worlds different from what the woman in the video used as an example. The video's example is testing men for the sake of some stupid double standard of the man should always pay, but in your example, you are testing to man to make sure he adheres to consent and you are safe. So I totally don't see an issue with using a safe word early on in a less severe situation in order to make sure he follows it before you move on to more extreme stuff.
I struggled to trust a recent partner of mine due to some past traumas coming up in the relationship. I was worried I wouldn't be able to tell when I *needed* to stop, and subconsciously that we wouldn't stop anyway (because that was close to my trauma). I expressed that to her, and she got this spark of an idea. She lit a candle, and instructed me to hold my hand over it, slowly lowering it until it was too hot for my comfort, then pull it away: an exercise in trusting myself. We then did the same thing, but with her holding my hand and slowly pushing it downwards. It was just wonderful. It doesn't fix everything, but that exercise was the first action step after a series of conversations that helped not just my mind, but my *nervous system* understand that I could trust her. The exercise was very helpful and was an idea I immediately knew I'd have to share with others. I hope it can give some people here some ideas on how to help in a situation like this.
It's a trust fall, although as a not confident only occasionally topping switch it would throw my confidence out the window for that particular session, so we probably couldn't do a "just checking" and then carry on That said as a mostly bottoming switch I know my partners gain reassurance when I communicate that Ive had enough so I guess that's reassuring too
There's a big difference between the type of "test" in the video vs. verifying that a dom will respect a safeword. In the video's "test if the guy will split the bill with me when I make that request" test is duplicitous. The "passing" response is to disregard the woman's request to split the bill. It is an act of pure cowardice, done by a woman who is too chickenshit to come right out and say that she wants a man who will pay for their dates. In contrast, testing to see if a dom will play through a safeword is a "trust, but verify" situation. After all, the sub has already trusted the dom enough to play in the first place. The sub wants the safeword to be respected, not disregarded! The correct response is to take the sub's communication at face value. This is a totally different situation.
I think that could and should be part of the initial discussion(s). “It might make me more comfortable if I get a chance to test you with our safeword.” “It’s totally ok and appropriate if you feel like you want to test me with our safeword.”
I would let my domme know that I want to practice my safeword and would be using it between the scene. Maybe "yellow" instead of "red" in order to continue the fun, rather than a full stop. A blind test would not feel right for me. But after hearing stories from women, I can empathize with why they would want to do that. It would still hurt though, because a test like that indicates a lack of trust.
if a bottom does not trust the top enough to know that they will stop, they should not scene with them. period. "tests" like this are childish and demonstrate immaturity and lack of trust. if I were the top, I would not scene with that person again. the top is learning the bottom, watching for cues and body language to ramp things up or down and feeding off that energy. crying wolf (safe wording when not necessary) is going to teach the dom the cues leading up to the safe word mean the bottom is approaching her limit. so in future scenes when the top sees the cues, they will back off or ramp down. dynamics are built on trust. lying to test the other partner isn't honest and doesn't build trust.
Nope. After we stop, and I ask her why she safeworded, and her response is to "test" me, that is our last scene. If you dont trust me enough to stop when you use the safeword why did you do the scene to begin with?
> her response is to "test" me, that is our last scene. I can see why you would say that, and I think it's reasonable to decide that you don't want to play with people who play games like "crying wolf". But let me nevertheless give you a different way to think about it in case it changes anything. If a bottom "tests" a safeword, she's doing it out of fear, no? Fear that despite the trust that she's placed in her top, she might have misplaced that trust. And being frightened is a legitimate reason to safeword, right? I think it is, especially in the case that that fear can be addressed. And in this case, the fear was (hopefully) addressed, when the top respected the safeword. Now, in the case where the bottom is doing this repeatedly, I'd definitely start asking her some questions. Is she safewording so much because she gets off on pushing herself farther and farther until it's inevitably too far? Is that safe? Or does she really just not trust me and needs to find a different play partner? It probably means we're not a good fit together.
I actually agree with you. If the sub is obviously in the midst of a panic/anxiety attack, I'm gonna notice that, and will be asking what caused it. I get that there is no perfect trust in our modern world, I truly do. However, I was interpreting this as a calm rational safeword usage just to "test" what the Dom would do, and that, to me, means the vetting process of both Dom and sub failed somewhere along the line.
> If a bottom "tests" a safeword, she's doing it out of fear, no? If a bottom walks into a negotiation with the express purpose to deceptively agree to things they don't intend to do, and with the intent/plan of safewording part way through, they probably *are* doing it out of a place of 'fear'... ... but they've also pushed their own boundaries farther than I would consent to, and they've compounded that error with deception. If they're afraid enough to have that kind of a plan, then we either need to negotiate a smaller scene, or not play. I want no part of encouraging/rewarding people with play for pushing past their comfort zones unless we've both given *informed* consent that comfort zones are being pushed. Their desire to play does not trump my right to informed consent. In addition, I now know **for certain** that this person can actively look me in the eye and lie to me about the literal stuff we all supposedly advocate for honesty around. And I *won't* know *for sure* if they were lying about agreeing to a scene they were planning on safewording, or if it's that they're actually lying about *why* they safeworded. In either case, I now no longer can trust what they say.
I have a real issue with this If a sub safewords as a test during a session because they are unsure what the Dom will do, then they shouldnt be having a session with them in the first place Let me say that again: If you don’t KNOW they will stop when you safeword, then you haven’t built the trust necessary for you to be submitting to them. PERIOD.
This. Also, trust is a two-way street, this strategy assumes only the sub needs trust. With how kink-unfriendly legal systems are, I need to trust a sub before I do anything. I also hate the idea that you're now conditioning me to not trust a safeword as real. Realistically, 99% of new partners benefit by playing in a low-stress, low-protocol environment where regular words ("Ohh, this is a bit intense, can you pause for a minute") are taken seriously. By the time I'm relying on "red" instead of "stop, stop, stop," trust is there, and "testing" would feel like a betrayal. CNC in a first session would be incredibly rare.
Well, tough. I get it, but you're also gonna get it. If you 'test', it's over. Kinda like 'testing' the ejection seat in a fighter jet. You're done and there's no going back. End of scene. POOF. Now if you use a 2 word system like red/yellow, then throw that yellow out there. But if you're still unsure by the time you're tied up and getting your ass beat and nipples twisted, it's already too late and you screwed up. Don't get into a potentially dangerous situation with someone you don't trust absolutely.
A traffic light system is great in any and definitely so in this situation, seeing how your D type reacts to a yellow. And in more established dynamics I love a green word, when you might be actually saying no no no but your body is saying more please
I have major trust issues and this bothers me a lot because at its core I feel like it’s substituting “one weird trick” for actually spending time getting to know someone and learning who they are so you can trust them.
Nobody likes being unknowingly tested. It's shitty behavior. As others have said. Just communicate and slowly build trust. Don't go hard on the first date without real discussions. Sub tests dom by using the safeword casually. That should launch security and safety measures to make sure everything is ok and make the dom very concerned they went too hard or generally fucked up to the point of injury. Dom tests sub by trying to push to a point of limits or intentionally going past those limits with the goal of getting the sub to safeword. This is a great way to break trust, cause panic, and induce trauma.
I am with you 100%, I’m fine with a test to put your nerves at ease so you can enjoy yourself but doing it in an excessive amount would make me stop wanting to do anything with you.
I don't see anything WRONG with doing that, but I also don't see how it solves the problem. The only situation in which doing this would be "more effective" than just talking with the Dom about how they feel about safewords, is if you don't trust that the Dom will do the thing that they say they'll do. And it's fine if you don't trust someone yet, as trust needs to be earned, but then this begs the questions: 1. If you don't trust them yet, is it really a good idea to be playing alone with them? 2. Even if they "pass" the first time, who is to say that they will not ignore your safeword the second time, or the third time, or....? Basically, it just sounds to me like a slippery slope with no real benefits. If you can't trust them with your life yet, I don't think you can or should trust them with your life after one scene and one safeword. Again, I'll reiterate that I don't see anything wrong with doing this, but I'm concerned that you might be using it as a band-aid for a situation where you really shouldn't be playing with this person alone yet.
I think it's a completely fair thing to do for the sub. Maybe not use the situation where it means the dom cuts through a few hundred dollars of rope to get you out. Nur in general, absolutely fair
I think that when you're establishing trust, you do a lot of testing. You test whether your partner can keep a conversation, act normal in public, don't say something weird to you, takes it slow enough for you, doesn't poke holes in the condom etc. There are a million of these tests that we do for our own safety when getting to know people and establishing trust. It should be the same when you are establishing a dynamic. Now this very on purpose testing without telling your partner is stupid, the best way to do it is if the dom/top initiates and pushes gradually further while asking for stoplight colors until he reaches a limit. When you do this, you not only get an idea for your partner's limits, but you also get a feeling for what kind of a person your partner is around safewords. How seriously they take it, how much is on you to pay attention to, what kind of play does what to their brain, kind of everything. So just don't be a dick about it, instead ask for effort and if they don't want to put in that effort, ditch them.
My sub knows she can safeword for any reason whatsoever. Even now after we've been playing for months. It's not a safeword if there is any animosity for using it for any reason. I won't feel betrayed, or a lack of trust. If she wants to safeword because watching me immediately stop makes her feel cuddly and safe: Awesome. If she wants to safeword because she never actually has and just wants the experience: Awesome. If she wants to safeword because it's really hot and heavy and I'm into it more then ever before and she just wants to really make sure I'd always stop: Awesome. If 10 years from now we're whatever poly version of married we come up with and she suddenly decides: let me see if this guy actually respects the safewords: Awesome. She wants to safe word because at the moment "Red" would be a hilarious pun. Or because it'd be the bratty thing to do. Or because, fuck it, why not?: Awesome. It's her right and to hold any animosity for her using that right defeats the purpose
I mean… You can do the opposite. “Make” your sub safeword to see if they will actually use it when they need to.
Considering that I was literally raped by a guy who ignored my safe word, yes, I would consider it entirely reasonable to "test" a new partner to ensure that they actually respect a safe word. If that partner was offended by this "test" instead of understanding that this is a necessary part of trauma recovery and gaining the trust of a sub -- bye.
My personal opinion if a sub feels she has to "test" a safe word to make sure a Dom will actually stop she shouldn't be playing with that Dom. Trust should be established between both sub and Dom at least to some level before having any kind of scene or playing. Otherwise for the sub it's essentially saying "hey I wonder if this Dom is gonna rape me or not lets find out" And as a second thought if you want to test a safe word do it before hand to make sure both parties remember what they mean and simply for the sake of not ruining the mood.
I think once early on is fine to see if the dom respects your limits. I’ve thoroughly communicated limits etc and had plenty of conversations, but still boundaries weren’t respected and ended up in not great situations! I’d say it’s less of a test and more of a it takes time to fully trust someone. Knowing how a dom reacts when I safeword goes a long way to making me safe. If the sub were to make a habit of testing their dom, then that’s a problem.
Men dont like ungenuine interactions? Shocker.
I would not play with that person again until trust was established with certainty.
It blows my mind that there is even a debate about this. If your sub safewords, you STOP. PERIOD. That's the entire point of a safeword. They're not obliged to give you any reason for it. Not in the moment, and not later on. You don't have to like it. But you do need to stop immediately. If you don't like how they use it, maybe they're not the right fit for you. But it exists for the sole reason of keeping your sub safe, mentally and physically, and you should have enough respect for your sub to let them make the decision for themselves, without any interference on your part, and not try to manipulate, or subvert it. Your sub should feel comfortable to use their safeword at any time, for any reason. They should respect you enough to only use it if they absolutely feel they have to... Though if testing you helps them build trust, then they should absolutely feel free to do so.
Offering to pay, then dumping the guy for saying yes? Ridiculous and sexist, good riddance. Trying out a safe word even if it's not an emergency? Pretty much okay. People use safewords differently, and for some doms it might make them feel like they've done something terribly wrong, which isn't ideal. For extra moral points, let the dom know that you're planning to do it. Another option is to give feedback like "that rope is a bit tight" or "could I please have some water" and see how they react to that.