I personally don't respond to "written" or "texted" triggers. If I had to guess it's because I've spent my whole life seeing words written down or whatever, and I don't think a specific grouping of words carries the amount of atmospherics and mood to drop me or impact me just from seeing them on a page.
That being said, I have been Bambi before and watched from the sidelines while she chats with randoms. In those instances, the triggers seem to affect Her because she's a
eady like, I dunno, "under the spell". The mood and the atmospherics are right. She's submissive, She's open and willing.
And that kind of behavior is more common than one might think, and is terrible. I think there is a good percentage of people that hear about BS and find the Reddit, then attempt to try out triggers on people as kind of an experiment to see if it works. Because if it did, that would be a ticket to controlling or commanding another person and dropping them into the most vulnerable part of themselves. At which point the person rapid firing triggers gets to play with the Bambi being triggered or if it doesn't work they move along. At least, that's what they think.
(13 Dec 2023, 04:19 )Lycalopex Wrote: [ -> ]At worse, it's real, and attempted rape.
Monitor-text-rape? SMS-rape? Whatsapp rape? What would reading detective romans or watching horror films qualify? A murder attempt?
(14 Dec 2023, 14:26 )Like Ra Wrote: [ -> ] (13 Dec 2023, 04:19 )Lycalopex Wrote: [ -> ]At worse, it's real, and attempted rape.
Monitor-text-rape? SMS-rape? Whatsapp rape? What would reading detective romans or watching horror films qualify? A murder attempt?
I mean I understand the reasoning, especially if one considers sexual abuse not primarily motivated by libido but by maliciously exerting power. Then this is somewhat related in so far as the aggressor has a non-consensual intent to corrupt another one's sexual integrity.
On the other hand, I'd find it ridiculous if, would I have ever outed myself to my everyday communities' (since companies are so into diversity now, lol) I could accuse women at the office of fucking around with my mind whenever they wear shiny tight stuff or demand from them not to wear it because it crushes my professional focus. Still, one can say it makes a difference with respect to the obvious intent.
With things like these it's your own responsibility to always have a mental guard/compartmentalisation up and only ever actively letting it down when you feel like it might be nice to allow for it. Even if its trigger text bombs that could affect you nonetheless with their repeated usage, blocking should be easy.
In my neighborhood there's a "Bambi"-Tag sprayed on a wall and it's relating to I don't know but apparently not the deer, do I make associations everytime I pass by? Of course, but do get mindless on the pavement? Of course not. Or another example there's a Z-tier celebrity cliché Bimbo in my city, nicknamed Bambi (after the deer), and you could encounter her when browsing through yellow press or watch trash TV (g "Bambi Bruckner"). Think about rule 34 - how many trigger warnings would you have to include to each piece of media?
So it's virtually impossible to not encounter triggers int the wild and therefore one should never get themself in a state where without an active yes, anything can happen immediately (and perhaps that is only role-playing then 😟 ?)
At a minimum - being pounded with text or audio triggers from strangers is annoying. There is no relationship to the person doing all the triggering, and since it is unclear what their intentions are, I get 'triggered' internally and then dislike the stranger who is really just berating me to get something. It is transactional and abusive behavior on their part, and since they act like garbage people, it's not like I am going to engage with them to help them 'trance me better.' Or any Bambi) for that matter.
(14 Dec 2023, 19:56 )sexyfayetv Wrote: [ -> ]At a minimum - being pounded with text or audio triggers from strangers is annoying.
Check the screenshot. The "victim" was being clearly role-playing as Bambi, and even called "the abuser" "a daddy". So... I would say .. it's a different story...
(14 Dec 2023, 16:21 )thominhose Wrote: [ -> ]On the other hand, I'd find it ridiculous if, would I have ever outed myself to my everyday communities' (since companies are so into diversity now, lol) I could accuse women at the office of fucking around with my mind whenever they wear shiny tight stuff or demand from them not to wear it because it crushes my professional focus. Still, one can say it makes a difference with respect to the obvious intent.
(14 Dec 2023, 22:47 )Like Ra Wrote: [ -> ] (14 Dec 2023, 19:56 )sexyfayetv Wrote: [ -> ]At a minimum - being pounded with text or audio triggers from strangers is annoying.
Check the screenshot. The "victim" was being clearly role-playing as Bambi, and even called "the abuser" "a daddy". So... I would say .. it's a different story...
Intent and explicit consent are key.
If someone is breaking your focus just by wearing something and they aren't
intending to do so, that's your problem. If they use some sort of trigger you have without knowing it's a trigger, that's not their fault. If they were to specifically do it
because they know you have a reaction to it, then it is their fault.
Having a "relationship" where the sub calls the dom "daddy" does not inherently nor necessarily mean they have given consent for hypnotic triggers to be used, and judging from the person's reaction, that consent was not given, and judging by sam_henry's
other posts in that subreddit, they were likely catfishing the stranger anyway.
It's in a similar vein as "just because I gave consent to be spanked does not mean I give consent to have nipple clamps" or something.
(15 Dec 2023, 04:17 )Lycalopex Wrote: [ -> ]It's in a similar vein as "just because I gave consent to be spanked does not mean I give consent to have nipple clamps" or something.
It also scratches "she asked to be raped by wearing these clothes" territory.
I'm very aware of this and notion about yesterday's post potentially heading towards that interpretation of victim blaming. I'm afraid it's no good to being right in principle when the concepts and codes of a particular community are alien to outsiders.
To get back to my example, just like when somebody believes triggers to be only effective in the context of role-playing then they can do no real harm from their point-of-view - potentially in contrast to the belief of the recipient. If accused of malicious intent, then they can resort to that point of view, that they were merely proving a point.
If I disclose that a person's choice of wardrobe has a significant impact on my output at work and therefore ask to respect that, it's by today's standards a ridiculous request and even if its more than obvious that a colleague tries take advantage of that, it is my problem and I can't do shit about it, since they are free to wear whatever goes by social conventions. So what good is it then to state your very own boundaries without always having your guard up?
(15 Dec 2023, 09:58 )thominhose Wrote: [ -> ]To get back to my example, just like when somebody believes triggers to be only effective in the context of role-playing then they can do no real harm from their point-of-view - potentially in contrast to the belief of the recipient. If accused of malicious intent, then they can resort to that point of view, that they were merely proving a point.
So that means if I'm confident that a certain thing isn't explosive, I can carry it into a mall and start proving that it isn't explosive...?