| --- |
| title: "House Oversight: Estate Documents (Nov 12) (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018469)" |
| source: "House Oversight: Estate Documents (Nov 12)" |
| sourceUrl: "https://www.justice.gov/epstein" |
| date: "2026-01-01" |
| category: "House Oversight" |
| eftaNumber: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018469" |
| ocrPages: 1 |
| ocrChars: 3051 |
| ocrElapsed: 0.0 |
| parseTier: "external-legacy" |
| engine: "engine undisclosed (ep-nov-12.greg.technology mirror)" |
| externalSource: "greg-ep-nov-12" |
| externalLicense: "not granted" |
| externalCredit: "ep-nov-12.greg.technology" |
| externalUrl: "https://ep-nov-12.greg.technology" |
| --- |
| |
| as I outline above in the Klark example. Or even quicker, as for example with the hand- |
| squeeze system, where the participants agree ahead of time that you can squeeze another |
| person's hand twice and expect two squeezes back -- and if there aren't two return |
| squeezes, it's time to stop and figure out what's going wrong. (Squeeze system: also very |
| helpful when gags are involved.) |
| Thomas MacAulay Millar: |
| There are all kinds of safesigns when nonverbal communication is necessary; one being |
| to give the bottom an object to hold and to drop when at a limit. It has the disadvantage of |
| being binary, so it loses the middle step that the stoplight system provides. |
| Clarisse Thorn: |
| Sometimes submissives will have a hard time safewording -- whether out of pride, |
| inexperience, or eagerness to please -- and that's another reason check-ins can be good |
| even when there's a set safeword. If you aren't sure how to read your partner's reactions |
| and you suspect ze may be uncomfortable with what you are doing, then you might |
| consider checking in even if ze hasn't safeworded, because your suspicion may be right. |
| Thomas MacAulay Millar: |
| This can't be emphasized enough. Tops Can Never Be On Cruise Control! A safeword |
| gives the bottom a tool to communicate, but it does not ensure safety. The top has at least |
| as much information that the bottom doesn't have, as the bottom has information the top |
| doesn't have. Therefore, the top has to be a full participant in making sure the scene is |
| working and the risks are under control at all times. Anyone who thinks ze can ignore |
| safety as long as the bottom has a safeword is dangerous. |
| This post was edited to add: In the comments on this article, Dw3t-Hthr made a powerful |
| point that for some people, safewords are unavailable in scene. She said, in part: |
| If I am in a place where a safeword might be necessary, a safeword is not possible. Not |
| just because I am someone who is regularly nonverbal, but because the altered |
| consciousness state that I achieve makes processing those sorts of questions at best |
| difficult and at worst unachievable... |
| But I'm not a bottom, I'm a submissive, and this isn't about "wanting to please," it's about |
| a psychological incapacity to recognise when I might be doing myself damage in certan |
| situations. If I'm not in that state, I can say "Oh stop doing that it's wrenching my |
| shoulder" or whatever is appropriate. If I am in that state, I cannot indicate and have to |
| place complete trust in the judgement of my partner. |
| I happen to know that I'm not the only person like this. I think it's important to recognise |
| that safewords are not always possible. It's important, I think, to communicate to the |
| person who resembles me in this that while their brainwiring is not morally incorrect, |
| that they probably ought to think of themselves as Advanced Subjects and try to do their |
| thing in a context where the trust and competence required to do it safely is |
| demonstrated. |
| Also, a note on terminology: Clarisse used "submissive" there in a way where it's not |
| HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018469 |
|
|
