Escapology challenge - Outcome

[chainedsissyfeet]

Torso/Arms/Etc.: Plastic Full-Length Hostess Apron (neck-to-ankles)

Like it for its heat retention, the noise it'll make as she struggles, and its "complicatedness"

rubberevashop.com/en/Aprons/101/11_75_92/long-frilly-apron

[Aurelie.Catena]

Torso: White, tight T-shirt

[Aurelie.Catena]

Feet: Metal, locking, high-heeled sandals. A little bit like those ones, but with a shiny chrome look.

[chainedsissyfeet]

Those are gorgeous! We'd love to see you in them all the time once you're pedicured into harmlessness. (Heck, may this one have a pair, as well?)

Feet: Metal, locking, high-heeled sandals. A little bit like those ones, but with a shiny chrome look.

[Aurelie.Catena]

OOC: Unfortunately, the new site has lost "thanks". We can't use them anymore for this purpose. Any idea how we should proceed?

[Aurelie.Catena]

Nobody wants to amend rule #3, or rule #5 ?

[gagged_Louise]

#3 sounds reasonable to me (perhaps we could add "metal wire" as in barbed wire or uncoated low-current electric wiring?)

#5 is a bit vague. Technically many bondage tools can endanger the wearer's life or future health if one is not attentive or if an accident happens. If you're hooded, gagged and hanging upside down and you suddenly sneeze heavily (not implausible), that might choke you because the nose is the only air canal you have and if it's all blocked by mucous snot (urgh!)... There are certain spots near the collarbones that, if pressed, will make you go unconscious: sometimes people in agent books kill that way. And obviously breasts can be damaged for good by being treated the way they have been in the main thread. What if we say: the applying of a restraint or a "stimulant" must not have as a clear key goal to risk killing the performer or impairing her body for good?

[Aurelie.Catena]

Good idea for #3
As for #5, it means that killing and impairing would be OK if that was not the intended goal. Is that what you meant?

[gagged_Louise]

Good idea for #3
As for #5, it means that killing and impairing would be OK if that was not the intended goal. Is that what you meant?

That's ultimately up to what the participants are up to doing in the moment, once the challenge gets started. I'm not turned on by death or "snuff" within this kind of thing and I find it hard to integrate into a written or played out role play. But if one excludes everything that *might* lead (in real life) to death or permanent maiming, a whole range of things would be put off limits, even things less obvious than being hung on a sturdy meat hook cutting deep into your back.

I suppose it would be okay within the current game if someone brought on a device that would dip Felina's and Louise's heads underwater twice a minute and keep them down for let's say fifteen seconds? A kind of waterboarding, but more kinky (the hoods might be left on or removed). Waterboarding, done the right way, is not lethal and won't leave permanent damage, but it definitely gives the sensation of being drowned, and with a few mistakes - deliberate or due to ignorance - it can lead to death. So, the risks that are brought into play might actually involve death, in extremis, but we don't want them to be pushed to anyone actually being unable to respond except by dying or taking permanent harm. Does that make sense? Even if the challenge might sometimes be frightening to you as if you were about to die, it should not be pushed to the point where the star is actually killed or permanently damaged. Even if she doesn't do her absolute best.

[Aurelie.Catena]

That makes sense.

I'm all for the amended fifth rule.