That's "Most High, Magnificent, and Resplendent Goddess" to you.



I'm sorry, pardon me? Are you saying that it's an insult for me to say that I believe you do not understand how power exchange and safewords work? Or are you saying that you feel insulted that I made a joke about your erection being bummed out by legal matters? The guy who is telling everyone he wants safewords removed from a session so he can (presumably) be beat by a Domme to her heart's content? I apologize for the offense. I thought you were made of stronger stuff.

OK, so here's why we keep going in circles: You are approaching this topic from your fantasy of not being able to revoke consent. I'm approaching it from the reality that we Dominants -- pro or not -- must offer our subs and bottoms that option.

You keep saying that some pro Dommes offer no safeword sessions and I'm saying that you cannot take that at face value. It might be a wink and nod; a "no safeword". I'm also saying that if a Domme is in fact denying her clients the ability to safeword out then these Dommes are putting themselves at risk for assault charges. It doesn't matter how many years a Domme has been doing this or how famous she is, she is not immune to the law nor to a misunderstanding of it.

You have indicated in previous posts what seems to be a confusion between fantasy and reality. You asked about Dommes seducing their clients into doing their hard limits. You mentioned that you wanted a Domme to provide "sexy" aftercare. Now you're saying you enjoy when a Domme removes the right for you to stop the scene. These are your fantasies, ztrade. You can have whatever fantasies you want, of course, but let's say you had indicated a hard limit of being marked on your face and a Domme marked your face, is that arousing to you? If so, at what point does her transgressing your pretend boundaries turn into transgressing your real boundaries? Because it is that point that I'm talking about, and that is what safewords are actually intended to be used for.



CNC does not mean you don't allow safewords. It's a framework that means you are consenting to that which you have not explicitly consented. It doesn't mean you don't get to tap out.

Being a lawyer does not mean you understand how to negotiate power exchange within BDSM. It doesn't mean you're a good negotiator -- or a negotiator at all. There are plenty of bad lawyers out there. There's also plenty who are good and understand the risk in legitimately playing without safewords.

Ask a criminal defense attorney about consent and what it would mean if we didn't stop when our play partners told us to stop. Also, ask them about the 2004 case State vs Van. Two guys were in a Master/slave relationship. The slave wanted out, the Master said no, and once the slave got out, went to the police and when all was said and done the Master was charged with two counts of assault, one count of sexual assault, false imprisonment, and terroristic threats...because he essentially ignored his slave's safeword.

So, yeah, your fantasies are hot and all but the reality is that we have to stop if you tell us to or we could end up like Master Van here.



Yes, I am speculating. It is based on what you write here. And I feel pretty confident in my abilities in this area.



You've mentioned "clips" before. As if they're a benchmark for understanding reality. Clips are porn and porn is fantasy-based entertainment. Like the clips where the person is getting sexually assaulted or is getting beat until he bleeds and is saying, "Please, Mistress, please! I'll be a good slave. I promise!!" It's pretend. The person is (hopefully) not actually being sexually assaulted and the guy getting punished for being a bad slave is not only a good guy he's not a slave! This is the part you seem to have trouble with. There is a lot of pretend in BDSM. And the exclusion of safewords...



...can be an another form of pretend.



One thing about me is that I can't be manipulated to behave in a way you find more palatable by carrot-dangling. It's cute when guys try that with me, though.