I guess the partners should figure out if being tried for negligent homicide is part of their kink if something went wrong.

Being left alone in a sleep sack on a bondage board? Low risk.

Being left in a hog tie or a stress position or suspended? High risk.

Being left alone or “put away” is a huge fantasy for some subs. The goal of a good dom is to mitigate those risks while still indulging the sub’s fantasies.

I'd be OK with the other two guys going into another room, being quiet, and eating dinner, having told the tied-up guy that they went out on the town. Bang some doors, play pretend. That way, he'd feel like he was left alone but the doms would know they could hear him call for help or they could put out a fire. "Playing" doesn't have to be "for real".

Except people can gauge their skill level and take an actual calculated risk while skiing, skydiving, scuba diving, etc., and for many activities have to be certified or performed under the supervision of a professional.

Whereas it does not matter how good or experienced you are with bondage if there is a fire or other emergency and you are hogtied and alone.

In 1997 i worked at ucsf i.t. in the Mission. One afternoon i fried my password and had to beg for mercy from the unix admin, a surprisingly pleasant older white thumb. Typing shit into his desktop, he said oh i need to check something first. He brought up a color window which was a cam in his apartment. A hooded naked guy was trussed up in a semi-standing position in a large cage. He was clearly not happy about it, swaying and jerking violently against his restraints. We watched for a bit, not saying a word. Complex situation, how to react? He said ok then, clicked off and fixed my password. I left work early and got trashed.

How risky would it be to slip sleeping drugs in your girlfriend's drink without her knowledge and then tie her up, with a gag and a hood over her head, and then put her in a large crate (don't worry, there were air holes drilled out) and have her shipped overseas?

/asking for a friend

@6 I remember a cartoon strip where Garfield tried to do that to Nermal. The mailman brought the box back to Jon, saying, "There is insufficient postage on this box you're sending to Abu Dhabi".

What about the risk of overheating in a sleep sack, or mummified with a hood?

No, I'm left unsatisfied by the response. Let the bondee believe he is alone, but have a guardian somewhere else in the house in case of emergencies. How can someone blithely go out to dinner leaving someone bound and gagged? Man, talk about sociopaths. And the dinner twins in this case - should something happen - will be 100% responsible in a court of law.

Isn't there a middle ground between being alone and being accompanied? Why not be alone with a cell phone so you can say "hey Siri, call 911" or something?

Also, I find this guys advice on panic disorder and mental illness lacking. Not everyone with panic disorder will panic in that situation or in a way that is dangerous, this should be judged on an individual basis.

originalcinner @3 -- good description of how to pull it off. Hidden cameras would also provide the tops with the ability to check on him (as vividly portrayed @5!)

And the LW has no way to know if that safer version is what actually happened. Nor does she have any way to prevent her guy from doing this again. She's made her point; I would drop it and just decide if she's able to stay with him under these circumstances.

You could just tie them up and leave them an escape route. Put them in a cage with the key taped within their reach which they are forbidden to use or will be punished for using except in direst emergency? I think that the person in bondage would probably enjoy the torment of knowing they could escape, along with the fear of what might happen to them if they do so frivolously.

I think Last Comment @10 has it right. Just have a Siri or Alexa there so sub can call for help if s/he needs to. Also, the burglar thing? I think it'd be even funnier if the burglar tries to help.

Burglar: "Damn, man I just wanted to steal some shit but this is fucked up - you ok? Here, we'll get you out."

Sub: "No, really, I'm fine... I mean... wait, you're stealing our shit?"

Burglar: "Uh... yeah. I got bills to pay."

Sub: "Well, this is awkward."

Burglar: "Yeah."

Sub: "Kinda hot, though."

Burglar: "Damn, man, why you gotta make it weird?"

The likelihood of the LW's BF not doing this again is slim (see MADDL's letter in the weekly column re: people promising not to do something they really enjoy). The LW has to learn to deal with that probability or put an end to their relationship. This is not going to go away, and putting barriers to it happening ("I don't want him to do it again. I don't want him to play with them again.") is just a way to ensure the LW will be lied to.

@10 TheLastComment
Good thinking, but maybe having Siri there to call 911 would kill it for the sub? If so, and if it's done relatively safely, I say go ahead. I'm very surprised by the risk averse consensus here. I've done far more dangerous things climbing mountains.

There's a principle (I fully support) of law (and mental health) protecting people from harming themselves. But as Dan says, we shouldn't balk at risks simply out of sex-phobia.

"It should also be noted that if your burglar sees a slave in a cage, he’ll most likely flee: only 7% of US burglaries happening while house is occupied result in any violence."

That 7% stat has only vague relevance since it is not limited to houses occupied by people who are restrained.

@13 Traffic Spiral
LOL!

Original @3: Yes, this is what I came here to say. "We're leaving now!" Slam door. Stay quietly in next room instead. Perhaps if the sub can handle this with no ill effects, they could actually leave him alone -- with a hands-free cell phone for emergency safewording, like TLC @10 suggests.

Our modern world of technology offers many options for the conscientious dom who wants to fulfill his sub's fantasies of being left alone or "put away", whilst mitigating the risks. Data can be live-streamed to a smartphone from any number of sources. For visual monitoring, an HD camera with audio (hidden or camouflaged so the sub does not know it exists). Want to know the sub's physiological response? Incorporate a galvanic sensor into the wrist restraint, and watch a data race of the sub's responses in real time. Does the sub fantasize about being "found" in such a helpless state? Route the sounds of doors opening, floors squeaking, etc. through the home entertainment system.

Meanwhile, the dom and his buddy can watch all of this from the corner bar, mere moments away from any needed intervention.

I'm sorta surprised all you young'ns haven't suggested a technological solution.

Baby monitors have been around for years. Security cameras. That stuff is getting more sophisticated and compact every year. If, per @5, a BDSM scene could be remotely monitored in 1997, it should be far easier, cheaper, and more compact and unobtrusive to set up a way to remotely monitor a BDSM scene in 2018. A sub could be "alone" but still observed to mitigate many potential safety problems.

Wandering off for dinner and leaving someone completely alone for a couple hours still doesn't sound too smart, but it seems to me that a sub's desire to be left "alone" could be accommodated with a little technological assist, if done by a responsible top.

@17, 18 - I'd think that part of the thrill for the sub comes in knowing that you actually /are/ alone. I've been thinking about this as well, with the possibility of hidden or unobtrusive cameras, etc. If the sub knows that those safety measures are there, wouldn't that reduce the thrill of being "alone"? There also might be legal issues depending on the state regarding cameras.

IMO video + sound is needed if this is to be a /true/ safety precaution, given the use of safe words in that area. Let's say there is a problem, the sub uses their safe word, and the dom comes running to take care of whatever issue -- that works out well. But it also might happen that the sub /thinks/ things are going well and passes out due to restricted blood flow. In that case, there would be no use of the safe word; the sub needs to be visually monitored.

This then goes back to my initial point about hidden cameras vs recording someone with their consent. If consent is given and camera use is known, I don't think there is a legal issue. But would the sub find that lessens the thrill? If you know your sub likes this kind of play and you install /hidden/ cameras to maintain that thrill (but maintain safety), there would be issues there.

"In most states, it's illegal to record hidden camera video in areas where your subjects have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In your home, these areas might include bathrooms and bedrooms." The "bedroom" standard might apply here, even if it's taking place in a dungeon, because this is sexual activity. Most people have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to sex (unless they've consented to being recorded).

https://www.brickhousesecurity.com/hidden-cameras/laws/

@nightscrawl - in many places hitting someone is illegal, even with consent. As is rape play, where you agree ahead of time to struggle and say no, and be forced into sex. And yet people do these things and don't end up in prison because both people are happy at the end.

Even where it's illegal to record someone secretly, I think a top would be well-advised to do when fulfilling someone's fantasy of being bound and "not monitored." The illusion can be just as good as the real thing for the bottom. And the illegal recording isn't likely to come to anyone's notice if you delete it that evening after the bottom is safely released.

@19: "If the sub knows that those safety measures are there,"

When did I imply the sub would know this?

"There also might be legal issues depending on the state regarding cameras."

It would be so much fun to see such a case actually litigated in court! The only time that would work is if, as @20 noted, the dom misused the secret recordings after the session ended.

Nightscrawl @19: Subs suspend their disbelief in a lot of situations in order to make their fantasies seem real. Rape play, as EricaP @20 suggests, is a good example. The sub knows that they are not actually being raped, that they have consented, and that their top will stop if they say the safeword. How would knowing, but putting out of one's mind, that there are cameras for safety be any different?

It's not like tying people up and leaving them in a basement is legal. If they died the dom would probably be found guilty of manslaughter or even murder. So I would say recording is the lesser crime.

I’m absolutely with BiDanFan on this.

There are ways to fiddle this for safety, and people can and do do that, just the same as "rape", "torture", or any other thing that would be a Very Bad Thing in real life.

People have been using willing suspension of disbelief since as long as there were stories! Individuals' experience of play may stretch from toddler age to the rest of their lives (given the popularity of videogames or sports)! Is Dan really telling us there's no way to get the desired feeling short of actually being too far away to help and leaving the sub unsupported?

There are many, many sadomasochists out there for whom lack of consent, or danger, are a huge part of the fantasy.

I seem to remember Dan talking through it with someone whose girlfriend had vore fantasies, so even in that extreme case (fantasising about being eaten alive) it's possible for an ethical dom/SO to allow the fantasy without going all Armin Meiwes on her ass (or other body parts). In fact, a service top or vanilla partner/outside observer like the LW is useful in pointing out the dangers and how to get round them, while if all parties are heavily in-scene it may not occur to them.

Statistics are one thing - there's a significant difference between "my sub died or suffered serious injury because of an unpreventable accident" and "my sub died or suffered serious injury because I did something stupid or careless" (and if those don't feel psychologically different to you, stay the fuck away from actual human beings). On top of which, criminal negligence is a thing.

There are subs who want to enact rape fantasies, or want to have sex with a centaur, or want to pretend they're children and have sex with an adult. "Play" versions of those fantasies are sufficient for them. The responsible way to handle this is to fake leaving, not to actually leave.

LW can't force their boyfriend to abstain from this kind of play or to stop seeing those other guys. But LW can vote with their feet.

I have a question - for people who are paraplegic say, thus effectively in a fairly similar state to someone in bondage in that they are unable to move, do they just never ever get left alone in a house? Surely the same things apply with regards to fire and burglary risk, but I've known of people who were severely disabled like that and nothing I heard made me think that they had 24 hour care at home, rather carers who came in at set times.

Perhaps finding out how this is normally approached in these situations would help?

Actually, even for people who are just unable to move themselves - e.g. my mother in law is in a wheelchair and has some hand movement but can't roll herself - it's never been questioned whether she should not be at home alone due to fire or burglary risk, but she'd be pretty equally incapacitated in either case.

Murphy's Law - that's all anyone needs to consider.

So I assume he would pee and s**t on himself bound in that sack. Licentiousness isn't sexy.

@26: They typically have alert buttons and other devices handy. This dude didn't.

I'm surprised at the level of judgment. Would people not accept a similar quantifiable risk for other leisure time activities? Skiing, motorcycling, etc. Maybe y'all a bunch of general-purpose tightasses, but it sure sounds like judging taking risk for sex, or for kinky sex that seems pointless to you.

@26 For me it's not so much about being unable to move, but about being physically bound with restraints, which can cause circulation issues or other problems, especially if the person is put in certain positions. Presumably a paraplegic person in that state would have avenues to get help if they needed it. The assumption is that those same avenues don't exist in the dungeon, which is where all this talk of baby monitors and Siri is coming from.

Also, why is everyone assuming the LW is a woman? Is it just because of this line: "There are two guys he plays with and that's not a problem"?

@5 that is a great story!!!

If LW is uncomfortable with this, couldn't they become more involved? Suspension of disbelief seems compulsory with kinks like these. If LW cannot tune the Doms to their concerns, why not insert themselves in a non-intrusive way, if only for quality control? That's true love.

Nightscrawl @32: I was assuming LW was a man, because of the line you cited. I think it was only EricaP who read the letter as being from a woman -- not "everyone." (I declined to challenge her assumption because the LW's gender makes no difference.)

Wasn't that the plot of something by James Kirkwood? PS Your Cat is Dead, I think.

Just went and read the plot synopsis on Wikipedia and while there is a burglar and bondage, I had remembered it wrong. Been a long time, what can I say.

@31 Mtn. Beaver
Agreed (as I said up in @15). I'm astonished by the responses; maybe most of the kind of people hanging out on an internet thread are far more risk-averse than average. But for fucks sake, even if someone is that fearful they have no right to expect others to be.

In activities like mountaineering I am frequently at vastly more risk than the LW's BF who is in his bloody home merely surrounded by tiny statistical risks. (And that risk is always gonna be there despite my being highly skilled and experienced; and even though when solo I carry a sat phone.)

I can see why a professional like Dan can't recommend something like this because of potential legal exposure, y'all don't have that excuse.

I believe risk is a personal decision and should be respected as such. The law may disagree for risky activity X and agree for risky activity Y, but that's just an additional part of the risk equation.

@38: "Professional" Dan basks in First Amendment privileges has has no legal risks in his advice other than theoretical defamation suits.

@38: ""Professional" Dan basks in First Amendment privileges"
Ah, interesting and cool, thank you. Still, I can see why Dan doesn't want to recommend this less than 100% risk-free behavior simply because he's a respected public figure.

oops sorry that was for @40 raindrop

If the sub dies, it's jail for the dom. Consent won't matter.

sirkowski @43. This. MB@31: The comparisons with mountaineering etc. fall short because when a mountain climber falls to his death there probably won't be a murder trial with other people ending up in jail.

One scenario that hasn't been mentioned here is that the doms could be involved in a traffic accident. I know of one such scene where the dom was hospitalized for 2-3 days, unconscious. No one knew the sub was tied up. Severe dehydration, etc.
A way to mitigate this risk is for someone to know, the vanilla partner, for example. If their partner is not home by a certain hour, some prescribed action could take place. This still does not help with any issues that would require the rescue of the sub in a minute, such as asphyxia.

One might not think them serious enough to mention, but as someone with sleep apnea and acid reflux issues, I think these could be complicating factors when bound and left alone long enough to fall asleep.

The LW might talk with the doms to assure that they are live-streaming video when they are away. The sub does not need to know about this communication. We also do not know whether the doms might already be faking leaving.

I mention the above to help those who are compelled to play this way. I think there are still too many unknowable issues to consider this wise. I am squarely in the camp that says one does not leave a bound sub alone, without audio/video monitoring from within a very short distance.

The camping and mountain climbing analogies don't really work for me. It is not about the sub's taking a personal risk. It is that I would never take on the responsibility (of actually leaving) as a dom.

@43 sirkowski @44 Registered European @45 vab251
I would agree with you if a dom had written to Dan asking for advice; but they didn't. So please restrict my dismay to the parties relevant to the letter:

In the exceedingly unlikely event that the LW's BF dies neither the (thus dead) BF nor the LW will end up in any trouble at all.

Mtn Beaver @31: Surprised at the level of judgment? The level of judgment I see here is zero. Nobody's saying these guys shouldn't be engaging in bondage. They're making suggestions about how to make bondage play less risky, which, hello, was the question asked by the letter writer.

I've had a few partners who want to be "choked out" (more specifically, they want to wake up to me using their body). I understand that constricting blood to the head can do this but I've never been clear how safe/dangerous it is, I can't help but stop at "somewhat light headed" (which apparently causes a pleasurable rush all its own during sex).

Is this straight-up unsafe, or is there a method to it?

@47 BiDanFan "how to make bondage play less risky...was the question asked by the letter writer"

Actually the LW asked if everyone agreed that the BF's behavior was unsafe. And most comments have astonished me by agreeing that it is. (Thought I do agree that it is helpful that they've provided suggestions on how to make it even safer.)

Now a bit more @43 sirkowski @44 Registered European @45 vab251
Then there's the comments that jump to pointing out that it's (legally) unsafe FOR THE BF's DOM. Which is not nearly as relevant to the LW's concern for the LW's BF (as I too-cryptically pointed out in @46). Because it's not the BF's job to control the behavior of the BF's dom; even if the BF doesn't ask the BF's dom to do risky behavior for the BF, the BF's dom can still do it for other subs.

However while it's thus not unethical for the BF to ask the dom to do behavior legally risky for the dom, I would agree that this would show a lack of concern by the BF for the BF's dom. (In other words, the BF is behaving emotionally questionably but not ethically questionably.)

(Man, if the LW had specified their gender, writing about them would be easier.)

More generally, it seems to me people often misplace ethical responsibility onto others. And not just in this case where @43 sirkowski @44 Registered European @45 vab251 thought the legal exposure of the LW's BF's dom was a relevant answer to the LW.

There's also the common feeling (I noted here some months back that Dan shares) that the "other man/woman" is doing something ethically wrong...even though they made no promise to the cheater's spouse, so they are breaking no promise. (As I noted some months back) They are simply guilty of having the questionable judgement to fuck a CPOS.

@39 philosophy school dropout
Agreed.
Incidentally one of my degrees (the one 2nd-most relevant to Dan's column) was in philosophy; I couldn't resist, I was a natural, it was as easy as falling off a log for me to get A+ scores in those classes.

I don’t see any judgement in these comments. Saying it’s a bad idea to endanger life doesn’t mean you are some kind of huge sex hating prude. Like, if you asked me if you should do heroin I would say no and tell you why you shouldn’t. It doesn’t mean I would judge you if you did it anyway. It’s your body not mine. So you can knock off the prude shaming thanks.

@48 Some police departments use a technique called the LVNR -- lateral vascular neck restraint. (There are similar holds used in Judo). This is exactly what the name suggests: the arteries on either side of the neck are compressed, restricting blood flow, causing the subject to pass out. Now, in a cursory glance around Google, it's difficult to find non- law enforcement sources discussing the safety of this technique. Of course /they/ are going to claim it's safe. However, one point that is reiterated and made very clear is that extensive training is required to use it accurately and safely. (You want to apply pressure to the /arteries/, not constrict the airway.)

With that said, there is always a danger in doing something like that because you are restricting blood flow to the brain. There is a risk in doing it incorrectly and causing harm, especially for untrained people.

I did find one study by the Calgary Police examining use of neck restraints, including medial literature.
https://www.interpol.int/Media/Files/INTERPOL-Expertise/IGLC-Files/Calgary-Police-Service-Neck-Restraint-Literature-Review-Technical-Report-Canadian-Police-Research-Centre
One case involved a young man, a Judo expert, who presented with various brain issues. The researchers concluded that they were a result of the many such holds he experienced over the course of his career.

Now, I mention this because it's different from one random subject being restrained by police, but the long term effects of repeated use. I'd suggest that a person who has that as part of their kink might also experience something similar if they repeatedly have this done to them over many years (esp by possible untrained partners!).

@50 Exactly. I don't care what someone's kink is. It's not prudish to point out that leaving a restrained person alone is more dangerous than, say, someone who wants to get peed on, or someone who goes around wearing diapers (as a previous SLLotD).

I also don't think the LW is a prude. LW's main concern seems to be for the safety of her/his partner. The fact that LW is perfectly fine with the BF's play time /outside of this one thing/ should attest to that.

BIND, buy a life insurance policy on your BF. He's going to keep doing this, so you might as well make sure you're financially protected if something goes wrong.

@53 BadBreathMommy
Poor investment if based upon this behavior by the BF who is (quoting me upthread) "in his bloody home merely surrounded by tiny statistical risks". Fraidy cat.

There are more common dangers that I'd be worried about besides fire or burglary. Your dom goes out and gets hit by a car at a crosswalk, or is driving and gets into an accident, gets appendicitis or some other thing requiring medical attention, is witness to a crime and is held by police, loses his keys, or just turns out to be an asshole and decides to spend an extra hour or two grocery shopping. There are any number of things that can unexpectedly crop up when someone is out and about. The reason the risk is so exciting is precisely because it's a risk -- and risks are called that because sometimes those risks actually materialize in unexpected ways. What the LW described is incredibly stupid.

I go snowboarding, skydiving, rock climbing, and motorcycle riding. None of those things involve leaving a helpless person completely unattended. This isn't about being "more risk-averse than average", it's about not being stupid (you want some judgment, here, I'll give you some actual judgment). There's a lot more that can go wrong than a housefire or a burglary. What if the sub slips and starts to strangle? What if they have a medical emergency or an anxiety attack? What if the dom loses their keys or gets in an accident? What if a restraint is too tight and cuts off circulation? I know people who have permanent nerve damage because of mistakes like that. Some idiot in Finland wants to talk about statistics, let's do a cost-benefit analysis:

Cost:
- low but non-zero risk of death, trauma, or permanent injury
- higher chance of being dumped by the LW

Benefit:

...microscopically more convincing experience of fantasy than the pretend versions?

Yeah, that's totally worth it.

But I'm actually in favor of more play like this. There are 8 billion people in the world, smart well-educated people don't have kids as often, and the morons have taken over what was the most powerful country on earth (as of 2016, at least) and are rapidly burning everything down. We need the Darwin Awards to re-balance things, and fast.

@55 Xian-Qi
You note a buncha stuff that could rarely happen to the LW's BF's dom...but please note that the LW's BF has TWO doms for those things to simultaneously sideline.

p.s.
@55 Xian-Qi
"dom goes out and...gets appendicitis"

Er, couldn't this could happen (to BOTH of the LW's BF's doms, sure) even if the BF's pair of doms didn't leave the house?

Hey, I recommend everyone reading this wrap themselves in bubble wrap and have ten doctors shaddowing them at all times. Especially dear sweet Chase.

Oh look, we have an edgelord. How novel.

Seems like caging would be significantly safer...low risk of nerve or circulatory damage, I'd think. Not risk-free of course.

Boys, this is not some competition. It's obviously unwise to leave someone caged up and leave the premises. What if there's a fire. Irresponsible bull, and no *decent Doms should ever conduct themselves like this.
*Going on the imagined Dom spectrum.

@57 In that, the wife is handcuffed to the bed, so not restrained in a way (tightly compressed) that would cause nerve damage. However, in her escape, one of her hands does get severely damaged due to what she does to get it out of the handcuff. Also, in that novel, the husband died in the room with her, rather than intentionally leaving her alone. So really, there is very little similarity.

@3: This, for fuck sake. Suspend your goddamn disbelief for a couple hours if that's what it takes.

@65 ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ
¡ǝɯɐuɹǝsn spɹɐʍʞɔɐq/uʍop-ǝpᴉsdn ɹnoʎ ǝʞᴉl I