![[PukiWiki]](image/pukiwiki.png "[PukiWiki]")
https://bit.ly/3JaD0It https://bit.ly/3GuGzI1 https://bit.ly/3Hx1M5g https://bit.ly/3GHFUTK https://bit.ly/3st3MVQ https://bit.ly/3rAyBsE https://bit.ly/34o5yj7 https://bit.ly/3JaD377 https://bit.ly/34vdQFM https://bit.ly/3uDRiNR
Then I encountered Taken In Hand, which is right on the edge where fantasy meets reality. Also, on a certain level, somewhat similar to base-jumping or sky-diving, it appears irresponsible to one who is accustomed to BDSM scenes. I can't remember who said it, but Taken In Hand is lived by the seat of the pants, with no rules other than what is made up as time passes.
This is in sharp contrast with acceptable BDSM practices, which may seem to some to be almost overburdened with rules of consent, safety, and conduct. These practices differ from Taken In Hand in that they are planned procedures of what will be done when by whom to whom with whom as a scene. Even the so-called “24/7 lifestyles” are pretty much extended scenes that can be stopped, re-planned, and re-started. In my admittedly limited understanding: BDSM enacts fantasies; Taken In Hand lives them. BDSM concentrates on the activities; Taken In Hand concentrates on the relationships.
The most dangerous Taken In Hand concept, from the BDSM point of view, is consensual non-consent, which seems to them too vague to be truly safe, hand-in-hand with the lack of a safe-word in most cases. From the BDSM perspective, this is much like driving a car full-throttle after bleeding out all the brake fluid and dismantling the emergency brake.
In consensual non-consent there is always room for doubt, a chance of overstepping an unexpectedly-changed boundary. In a situation with overt consent such an event is far less likely to occur. As risky as their acts are, BDSM folk still want all the rules and consents plain and clear. I think that the lack of consent – or rather, the seeming appearance thereof – is the single scariest thing about Taken In Hand to the BDSM mind.
