Talk:Risk-aware consensual kink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 November 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

There are so many WJDI on this page that it is impossible for the unkinked reader to comprehend. Patrick0Moran 05:02, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Am I supposed to know what "WJDI" means? From context, I wonder if it is a self-reference. -jholman

[edit] External links

I can't really check at work, but do the two links go to the same text or two different texts with the same title? ♥ «Charles A. L.» 14:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm home, I just checked. Two different texts. Heaven knows what autocomplete is now going to show my stepdaughter.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 01:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article/Reference Disagreement

The essence of the argument made in the references for using the term RACK, over SSC, is that very little play is objectively, proveably, utterly Safe and/or Sane, and that calling one's play SSC is a bit dishonest, or at least disingenuous. The article does touch on it, but seems to my reading to emphasize an interpretation that RACK implies edgier play: "[RACK] expands ... to include ... edgeplay and play that is engaged in without safewords". With respect, no no no. Whatever play you think is edgy, someone somewhere is doing it and calling themselves SSC, right? It's not that subscribing to RACK (as contrasted with SSC) is correlated with edgier play, it's that subscribing to RACK is (supposedly) correlated with a conscious awareness that risk is a continuum, not a clear line. To mutili-quote one of the references, there's a reason modern sex educators talk about "safer" sex.

Also, I don't think it's quite right to say "an SSC person would do X, a RACK person would do Y". I mean, aside from being a demonstrably false description of the actual use of SSC in practice, it just seems better to describe an analysis or a perspective as SSC/RACK, rather than a person. Maybe this is overly picky of me.

Also, the references are very useful articles, but I feel they do not support the points that they are connected to.

I thought about just editing all this in, but I couldn't figure out how to do so gently, and didn't want to totally re-write, given my limited knowledge, and lack of scene-expertise.

-jholman