Original link: https://onojyun.com/2022/06/17/6220/
△ 168｜Safety word
Who would have thought, it turns out that the BDSM circle also has “involution”, and it is very interesting.
Roughly speaking, if an S cannot know where the lower limit of M is, and still needs to set a “safe word” in the terminal control of the sexual intercourse, it means that this S is not only very unqualified, but also not worthy of being a qualified S.
The so-called “safe word”, in simple terms, is a line agreed between two people who play SM to express “I can’t accept it”. Saying this line means that the sexual interest of the two people has become subtle. Disagreement, then the two people have to stop and reach some kind of “compromise” contract.
The reason why I find it “interesting” is because of the involution here, which pulls out the “shit theory” that many people will believe in reality, especially in many love philosophies – this kind of logic exists very much. Many forms: a person still wants to say what he wants, but the other person can’t guess, it means that there is no true love between two people. To this end, there are various test questions and corresponding standards. Like the logic of “S should not set a safe word for M”, they advance a precondition to a result, and then rewind from that result to some new condition.
Case in point: If he doesn’t offer to send you a good night before you go to bed, he’s not planning to go to bed — so he’s probably cheating.
This logic seems absurd at first glance, but it has to be said that this kind of logic is the most direct and effective method that many people use to test each other. Don’t look at its logical bullshit, but it will indeed explode a lot of possibilities. If a person really believes in this theory, after not getting the other party’s “good night”, he sends a long speech, condemning whether the man is cheating – but anyone with a ghost in his heart can’t stand this kind of suspicion, and it may be true He was deceived and admitted the fact that he had cheated. Once there is a case in this situation, it means that this bullshit theory is feasible, so it will be believed by more and more people, and then put it into practical application.
When I wrote this, I originally wanted to apologize for the absurd logic of “using BDSM to cut into the emotional outlook of modern people”, but now that I think about it, those who believe in the philosophy of emotion are also emotional logic that is willing to fight and suffer. This is not much different from BDSM. I was once in “If we weren’t together, would you cheat on me if you met me?” ” discusses the core problem of emotional testing, but it addresses only those situations in which there may be “unanswered questions” between those who ask the question and those who answer it. And more often, those who are obsessed with emotional tests and try to quantify each other’s emotional situation, what they have to solve is not what kind of questions to ask, but to solve whether there is a so-called “safe word” between them.
Very interesting, I have seen many couples who quarrel, some of them talk about divorce from time to time, but often they quarrel, but they never choose the ending of divorce – quite a lot of fun with what kind of pot goes with what kind of cover While other couples quarrel, both of them tacitly will not propose the word “divorce”, but once one party proposes a divorce, the probability of their divorce will be very high – in fact, it is easy to understand by changing the way of thinking. Those who quarrel will not propose “divorce” because they have acquiesced in divorce as a “safe word”, and quarrels will return to quarrels, but as long as this lower limit is not touched, the problems between them can still be solved.
Especially when they encounter those with strong self-esteem and self-love, they will never choose to kneel at each other’s feet to admit their mistakes, or to have independent personalities. Once one party proposes the word “divorce”, they are very likely to I followed the “suggestions” made by the other party and implemented it. Maybe some people propose “divorce” just to scare the other party and ask the other party to kneel and beg for mercy, but the other party is a person with strong self-esteem, and also has some “knowledge”, then when he hears that the other party proposes “divorce” , Naturally, he also consciously no longer entangled, and as a result, the two of them divorced by mistake.
Therefore, the word “divorce” may become a “safe word” in some marriage relationships. They can have any love and kill each other, but as long as someone proposes this word, it means that their relationship has come to an end. , and each other will abide by the rules of the game and choose to get together and leave.
Enlarge this “safe word” a bit, jumping out from marriage to love. Of course, there are also many people who use “break up” to threaten each other. Similarly, if the other party is a “knowledgeable” person, it is very likely that they will climb up the pole. At that time, if the person who proposed to break up found out that the other party was not threatened, and that they might have become the key person who facilitated the breakup, then they would put down their face at that time and try to keep the other party, would the plot move towards something more interesting? Which direction has it developed?
There are also some “safe words”, which are not a certain word, but a “subtle emotional change”, which I can also find a counterpart to. For example, when I was extremely angry, I would smile all over my face and stay silent. If such a “safe word” does appear, it is probably to spread a message – don’t challenge my patience any more. But unfortunately, this “safety word” was set by me. If I don’t tell the other party what it means, the other party is likely to take an inch.
As a result, you will find that these “safe words” are only set for those who are “interested and knowledgeable”. Even if you don’t say it, the other party will know where your lower limit is – so let’s go back and look at the BDSM at the beginning. The involution statement can’t be said to be completely bullshit logic, at least this S is more sensible than those who are even more cheap than M!
This article is reproduced from: https://onojyun.com/2022/06/17/6220/
This site is for inclusion only, and the copyright belongs to the original author.