Normal BDSM relationships are built on the basis of mutual respect and trust and, of course, their main goal is to enjoy all parties to the process equally. To do this, you need to take into account all the criteria of preferences and safety for all participants so that "no animal is harmed" either morally or physically!

If you find a new partner, for example on BDSM dating sites, this article might be very useful. In order for your partner to receive due satisfaction from your actions, and vice versa, you need systematic practice, thematic experience, the manifestation of maximum attention to the desires and capabilities of the partner. But what if you decide on the first session with a new partner or want to deepen and develop relationships, try new practices with an existing one? Of course, trust each other and in advance, in a calm, relaxed atmosphere, outline your secret fantasies and desires as fully as possible, focusing on what you like, what you are willing to endure if your partner wants it, but you do not, and what is completely unacceptable for you. Otherwise, instead of the expected maximum of pleasure, you can get maximum frustration, which can discourage you from further experiments, as well as cause mental and even physical trauma.

Remember and always follow the rule when you enter into a BDSM relationship with a new partner or develop them in some direction with a person you already know. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO DISCUSS THE DETAILS OF THE UPCOMING THEME SESSION. It is even better and more correct to take a pen and a piece of paper, sit down and reflect on your desires and physical capabilities, write them down in the form of a list, a questionnaire or a kind of contract (list of conditions) or as a script for a BDSM session, and then show it to your friend / girlfriend (slave / slave) and discuss it over a cup of coffee or a glass of wine. At the same time, remove something, add something, adjust something, listening to the wishes of your partner.

Are you confused by the abundance of your desires? Is it difficult for you to formulate them? Not sure what you want or what you can and should want? We will help you! Check out the so-called "Slave Profile" (or "Slave Profile"), which has become widely known and spread in the Russian BDSM community.

In the thematic world, there are two samples of such documents - the so-called BDSM questionnaires for a slave (or slave) and BDSM contracts (agreements). In a standard topical questionnaire, you offer a list of what you want to do with your submissive, and he, answering the questionnaire, makes it clear what is acceptable for him and what is not. No one forbids the slave to voice his desires, which were not included in the questionnaire drawn up by the Master. Actually, you can even question the Lord, this is not entirely tactful from a thematic point of view, but quite acceptable when it comes to the beginning of a relationship and mutual achievement of conditions leading to the creation of an atmosphere of comfort and trust.

If we take a BDSM contract, then this is a more complex and detailed document, which, as it were, transfers the control rights of the submissive to his Master, at the same time limiting him in some reasonable framework. It does not seem to us that such a document should be invented and drawn up during BDSM sessions. Usually it is signed by those people who are quite serious and deeply passionate about the topic, and for them it is broader than session role-playing games. BDSM agreement is widespread in lifestyle relationships, when the thematic life of the participants follows the 24/7 formula - i.e. constantly and applies to all aspects of their life together. Of course, the document has no legal force, since its very essence contradicts the current civil legislation on the rights and freedoms of the individual. Rather, it plays the role of, on the one hand, a kind of document, the provisions of which should be adhered to and which sets the framework and rules for serious thematic relations, and on the other hand, it is an additional attribute, the aura of relations, complementing the psychological dependence of the slave on the Master.

Variants of BDSM questionnaires Variants of BDSM contracts and agreements

It should be noted that these are quite general, albeit well-developed blanks. It is not necessary to fill out all the points of the questionnaire or follow all the provisions of the contract. Take a look and decide for yourself which items you need to leave, and which ones to remove or supplement documents, based on your wishes. The most logical thing - first the master writes his fantasies and desires, then submits his own - then the questionnaire is printed in duplicate and filled in. All controversial points are negotiated and clarified after the negotiations.

So, the slave's profile

Full name

1.Sexual orientation (strictly hetero, hetero, bi, strictly homo): ____

2. BDSM orientation (top, bottom, switch): _____

In the EXPERIENCE column, the REAL experience is written, that is, what happened in reality with an assessment of how the incident was perceived:

On a 5-point scale 5 - excellent 4 - in some places it was good 3 - experienced nothing 2 - mostly unpleasant, but you can endure without problems 1 - very unpleasant as a last resort 0 - never again and never

If you have no experience on the issue, you do not need to write anything.

In the FANTASY column, you write your attitude to the proposed, as you imagine it in your fantasy and imagination:

On a 5-point scale

5 - very exciting

4 - attractive

3 - indifference

2 - rather unpleasant, but you can probably be patient

1 - definitely unpleasant, I don't even want to think

0 - I don't know what it is, I never thought about it

IMPACT EXPERIENCE FANTASY

• Anal plugs (vibrators, dildos)
• Anal sex
• Hitting the heels
• Bondage
• Underwear bondage in public places
• Shaving, epilation of genital hair
• Vaginal sex
• Inserting a finger into the cervix
• Verbal (verbal) abuse
• Vibrators, underwear imitators wearing in public places
• Temporary transfer to another Master
• Temporary change of appearance (hairstyle, repainting, hair cutting)
• Doing housework
• Stretching the arms and legs
• Harem (serving the Master with other slaves)
• Group sex
• Locking in cages
• Locking in closets, bathrooms
• Suction
• Horse game (cart ride or horseback riding)
• Play the role of any animal
• Play rape
• Game rape gang
• Outdoor play scenes (if appropriate)
• Injections
• Using various objects in the game (bottles, hairbrush handles, candles, vegetables, etc.)
• Using various objects in the game (bottles, hairbrush handles, candles, vegetables, etc.) vaginally
• Using a gag
• Using ice inside (anus)
• Using ice externally (nipples, genitals)
• Using spacers and stretchers for arms and legs
• Using a slave's mouth instead of an ashtray for cigarette butts
• Using a slave mouth instead of an ashtray
• Using the hands of a slave instead of an ashtray
• Dripping wax on the chest, abdomen, genitals, back and buttocks
• Branding (with hot iron)
• Enema
• Control over the life of a slave, external service contacts
• Control by the Master over the life of a slave, complete
• Master's control over the life of a slave, external household contacts
• Master control over slave life, vanilla external contacts
• Master's control over the life of a slave, external contacts Thematic
• Copro (various options)
• Mouth to mouth feeding
• Hand feeding
• Mouth to mouth smoking
• Caressing the Master's genitals with the hands
• Lick the master's anus
• Lick and kiss the feet of the Master
• Lick and kiss the Boss's shoes
• Wearing corsets, graces, suspenders
• Wearing handcuffs and leg shackles
• Wearing whore clothes (private)
• Wearing whore clothes (in public)
• Wearing slave jewelry
• Anonymization is temporary
• Passport depersonalization (change of name at the request of the owner)
• Complete depersonalization
• Pouring chocolate
• Stunned state (sleeping pills, alcohol)
• Simultaneous penetration into the mouth and anus
• Burning by a lighter candle
• Oral sex for the Master
• Collars (private wearing)
• Collars (public wearing)
• Dressing in underwear or clothing of the opposite sex
• Spitting
• Piercing
• Mouth to mouth drinking
• Blindfolds
• Hanging upside down
• Horizontal suspension
• Hanging weights from the nipples and genitals
• Knife cuts
• Spanking weak (until redness)
• Average flogging (up to bruising)
• Spanking strong (up to scars)
• Simulation whipping (light spanking)
• Back whipping
• Butt whipping
• Spanking feet
• Hand whipping
• Breast flogging
• Spanking genitals
• Slaps
• Chastity belt (worn while playing)
• Chastity belt (wearing on a permanent basis)
• Long-term stay in the Master's house (more than a week)
• Stay in the Master's house, up to a week
• The Master's stay in your house
• Compulsion to homosexuality
• Forced to private masturbation
• Forced to public masturbation
• Penetration of the hand into the anus (fisting)
• Clothespins for body, nipples and genitals
• Ripping clothes
• Money management (financial control)
• Spacers
• Sex without preparation
• Outdoor sex (in a suitable setting)
• Sexual abstinence
• Sexual abstinence by order of the Master
• Seduction of women
• Seduction of men
• Competition with other slaves (slaves)
• Hair pulling
• Trampling with feet strong

Bolivian army soldiers clear a blockade in the impoverished area of Ventilla, El Alto, October 9, 2003. The wall checks out “OUT GONI,”the label of then-president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada. (AP Photo/ Dado Galdieri). 2 weeks after the decision in a landmark human-rights case in Fort Lauderdale, Thomas Becker was still thrilled. “This is a historical success,”the lawyer stated. “This case shows that you can be a bad person and defend human rights, justice and social change. And you can win.”. Becker was discussing the early April jury choice in a civil trial that has actually substantially improved the reach of US human-rights law versus foreign federal government authorities. The occasions in the event occurred 15 years back and countless miles far from the US district federal courtroom in downtown Fort Lauderdale where the trial played out. For 3 weeks in March, the households of people eliminated by the Bolivian armed force throughout a 2003 country-wide uprising affirmed versus previous president Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada and his minister of defense Carlos Sánchez Berzaín. The decision lastly returned on April 3: The case marks the very first time that an ex-head of state was required to face his accusers in a US court for human-rights abuses.

The catastrophe started with a federal government proposal to build a pipeline: The plan was to increase exports of the landlocked nation’s enormous gas reserves– at the time the 2nd biggest in South America– by piping the gas through Bolivia on to Chile, the nation’s veteran enemy. Throughout the nation, big swathes of the population saw the proposal as one more circumstance of a long and uncomfortable history of immigrants taking the nation’s natural deposits and area. Demonstrations were most extreme in the highlands, where the mainly native city of El Alto obstructed food and fuel predestined for the city of La Paz, which beings in a basin listed below. The union federal government of Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, commonly called Goni, who had actually won his 2nd term with the help of US Democratic Party election experts, stated a state of siege and militarized El Alto and surrounding locations. Once the dust settled, around 60 people had actually been eliminated and over 400 injured, nearly each of them working class people of Aymara native heritage. All the case’s complainants lost family in the uprising; a number of them lost senior parents or children. “Even though it took 15 years, we never ever quit hope that we would get our day in court,”stated Teófilo Baltazar, among the 9 complainants. His other half who was 5 months pregnant was shot to death through the wall of their home.

Felicidad Rosa Huanca Quispe, from a small neighborhood south of La Paz where protestors were obstructing roadways, was preparing lunch for her 5 kids on October 13, 2003, when her 69-year-old daddy Raúl Ramon went to a neighboring corner shop to purchase a soda. On the stand in the Fort Lauderdale courtroom, worn the broad skirts that define Aymara women, she started to sob frantically as she informed the court, “the military shot him in 2 locations and eliminated him.” A few of the most damning testament versus the 2 men originated from a carpenter who was satisfying his required military service in 2003. Edwin Aguilar Vargas informed the court that “soldiers were purchased by their commanders to shoot anything that moved.”He reported that he and his fellow conscripts were provided deadly ammo and gatling gun. The households of the victims were pleased when the ten-person jury returned a guilty decision. “The jury truly paid attention to us,”stated Baltazar. “I am happy that this case is an example to the entire world that it does not matter how abundant and effective you are, you cannot murder people. Nobody is untouchable.”  The 2003 killings braked with a long-established pattern of demonstration in Bolivia where, for years, people blockaded streets and roadways versus a federal government policy, grinding the nation to a stop. This pressed the federal government to work out, typically with the help of the Roman Catholic Church. In a nation that had actually been ruled by a small white elite for centuries, this ended up being the accepted manner in which the working class, native and bad got their voices heard. Massacres happened, but they were the exception.

They’re technically called small unmanned airplane systems, or “UAS,”but to the majority of people, they’re merely drones. They’re multiplying in the United States and worldwide, as business owners put them to progressively complicated and useful usages. Regrettably, terrorists and bad guys are making use of the technology, too. And U.S. police and nationwide security firms do not have the capability, and clear legal authority, to successfully counter new air-borne risks. Congress ought to act so that vital facilities, delicate centers, and the general public are not left susceptible.

What do these dangers appear like?

In Iraq and Syria, ISIS fighters and other terrorist groups are using UAS as tools to collect intelligence and provide dynamites, as well as to strike military targets. In 2015, FBI Director Chris Wray affirmed in Congress that “the expectation is that [terrorist use of drones] is coming here, imminently. “Other risks have actually currently emerged in U.S. skies. Global drug cartels have actually used “narco-drones”to transport drugs throughout the southern border, over Border Patrol representatives who are mainly helpless to step in. Bad guys have actually used UAS to fly contraband, consisting of drugs, weapons, and other products, into state and federal jails. Just one occurrence at an Ohio reformatory caused a 75-inmate brawl.

UAS are significantly appearing in airspace where it is prohibited to fly.

In 2015, a UAS dropped brochures– the good news is, absolutely nothing else– over crowds at 2 NFL arenas. Pilot reports of drone sightings are increasing, and while crashes and near-collisions stay very unusual, in just the last couple of months one low-flying helicopter in South Carolina crashed while averting a drone, and an Army Black Hawk hit a drone while supplying security for the U.N. In 2015, one inebriated federal worker crash-landed a drone on the White House yard. These occurrences have actually exposed 2 things: public and personal centers are amazingly susceptible to careless or hostile drones; and police and nationwide security companies deal with substantial drawbacks in their abilities to manage access to delicate airspace and interdict threatening drones. Conquering that shortage will need the implementation of robust counter-UAS (CUAS) platforms developed to identify, track and determine hostile or threatening drones, and deal operators a variety of countermeasures to interdict them. A number of economic sector companies are currently establishing these systems, consisting of experienced birds-of-prey; interceptor drones with webs; software application created to hack a drone and take control of it; jamming gadgets implied to obstruct control or navigation signals; and laser or projectile weapons to damage threatening UAS.

U.S. police will quickly have the means to interdict UAS, but they do not have clear legal authority to stop hostile drones from threatening the general public. In truth, only 2 firms in the whole nation– the Departments of Defense and Energy– have specific authority to participate in CUAS operations, as well as that authority is restricted. All other federal, state, and local law enforcement companies are hamstrung by numerous federal laws that forbid important CUAS functions. For instance, 18 U.S.C. § 32 makes it a felony to damage or damage an airplane and, according to the FAA, drones are “airplane”for the functions of federal law. Other laws restrict making use of hacking and jamming tools, and taking control of airplane, to name a few barriers. Congress started to resolve this issue in the 2017 and 2018 National Defense Authorization Acts, by approving DOD and DOE particular statutory exemptions for CUAS activities. Legislators ought to now take 2 more actions. Initially, they ought to extend CUAS authority to federal law enforcement firms. Second, authorities must be offered wider authority to take part in counter-drone operations to safeguard nationwide security, secure manned air travel, assistance police activities, cops the border, and even more other crucial federal objectives.

This authority needs to be connected to the advancement of suitable “guidelines of engagement”to guarantee that CUAS platforms are used legally and regularly while reducing the risk of civilian casualties. All at once, Congress needs to prepare for state and local police authorities to ultimately embrace and use CUAS innovations. History and experience teach that local authorities, not federal authorities, bear the impact of police and public security objectives, even when terrorism strikes. For that reason, legislators ought to develop a pilot program to deputize officers from varied state and local firms to establish core proficiencies and best practices under federal guidance, with an eye towards the ultimate extensive adoption of CUAS. The Department of Homeland Security’s 287( g) migration enforcement program offers a design. These procedures are just a few of those that would develop a legal structure for counter-drone operations as a required action towards opening the prospective advantages of UAS while protecting America’s skies.