I saw that on my Dash yesterday, and I commented on it (of course. When do I NOT comment on things), and now I have a bit of a text post I need to make.
In addition to the above statement, beware of any Dominant/Master/Mistress who tells you that safewords are not valid during a punishment. Run from them as fast as you would run from any Dominant who doesn’t like safewords. These people are not Dominants, they are abusers, no matter if they are male or female.
There’s a disturbing trend I’ve seen lately, where safewords are starting to be considered bad, or obsolete, or the sign of a submissive who isn’t “really a submissive”, or even a sign of weakness.
No. Stop. This is a BAD train of thought.
Safewords are important. Vitally important. They protect both the Dom/me and the submissive. They protect the submissive from obviously having serious harm done to her, and they protect the Dominant from harming the submissive, and possibly breaking their trust.
Please, PLEASE take safewords seriously at all times. Whether it’s during a punishment, or any other type of scene. They are a method of communication that those involved in the Community cannot allow to fall by the wayside, because we, as in everyone who participates in BDSM, need them. They are for the benefit of EVERYONE involved.
Holy shit, all of the above.
Telling somebody they’ll be punished for safewording is just a slightly less upfront way of saying that their comfort and consent are unnecessary in certain contexts- do not let anybody do this to you. Never, ever, ever let somebody deprive you of your right to say no.
Here’s some appropriated Shakespeare for dubious clarity:
A no by any other name would sound as final.
Whatever word you use for it, if and whenever you chose to use it, that no is your right and treasure. Don’t let anyone take it from you. Anyone who tries is bad news.
No writer is as fond of messing with canon as Brad Buckner & Eugenie Ross-Leming. In Taxi Driver they changed the entire mythology for Purgatory and Hell, and invented the Rogue Reapers, unbalancing much of the storylines that came before it. In I’m No Angel they made reapers body snatchers like demons and angels.
In Holy Terror we find out angel graces do not come with a name tag attached to them. They aren’t like human souls, which have a one to one relationship with their owners. Instead they are like those five hour energy shots. Any angel could slice through another angel’s skin and steal his or her grace, thus making it his own, as Castiel did in this episode. A grace is just the battery fluid on which the angel engines run.
Except that causes a whole lot of canon problems. Like why Castiel didn’t do the same thing with Hael, or the angel he killed on the bus in 9.03. Also if a grace is so generic why did Metatron collect Castiel’s grace in a bottle? Why did Anna search for hers for so long when she could have just ripped one out of the red shirt angels that came after her? Why, when he was losing his powers at the end of season 5, didn’t Castiel absorb a grace from one of the many angels he killed?"
9.09 Gripe Review on SpoilerTV [x]
This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.
THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you.