#mental autonomy

Forget autopilot. Your safety doesn't depend on a "protective subconscious." It depends on you, conscious and active. Agency is something you do, not something you magically have.

Negotiate from clarity. Your first line of defense is explicit negotiation before entering trance. Limits, desires, safewords. If you can't speak clearly outside, there's no safety inside.

Train your "NO". Practice rejecting suggestions and using your safeword inside trance, from day one. It's a muscle that strengthens with use. An ethical hypnotist will celebrate you for it.

Know and fortify yourself. Work on your self-knowledge and self-esteem. Fawn responses or trauma make it harder to hold boundaries. Your psychological well-being is your fundamental shield.

Claim your power (and your responsibility). You are the person ultimately responsible for your safety. Empower yourself with knowledge, practice, and the choice to play only with people who respect your active agency, not those who promise magical protection.

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

You Are Suggestible Even When Awake

Here’s an uncomfortable truth:

Conscious, critical people are also suggestible.

Yes. And even more so when:

there is desire,

there is admiration,

there is eroticization,

there is social pressure.

This connects to something I’ve been working on for a long time:

Suggestion is not trance.

Suggestion exists all the time. The problem is that we often don’t even agree on what trance is — so everything gets mixed together.

Suggestion alone does not build trance. But it can push you into places where you need trained agency.

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

Agency Is Not a Switch, is cultivated

So what do we do instead?

First: understand this. Agency is not a switch. It’s not “on” or “off.”

Agency is cultivated. Not granted. Not assumed.

Like in games, anime, or novels:

cultivating can mean enlightenment,

becoming a badass,

or simply learning how to survive better.

An active, conscious security model looks like this:

You are the one who protects yourself.

Safety is based on your real ability to say no — even under trance.

On trust built with your partner.

On clear agreements.

This is especially vital in risky play. Not because risk is bad, but because you don’t play without tools.

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

“Subconscious” vs. “Unconscious” Is Not Just Semantics

Sometimes we forget something basic: words matter.

An orange and a mandarin aren’t the same. Both are citrus fruits. They don’t taste the same.

The same goes for the mind.

The term “subconscious” — common in classical hypnosis and self-help often becomes:

a separate entity,

an obedient child,

a computer that gets “programmed.”

That’s a problem because it:

externalizes agency (“my subconscious made me do it”),

installs passivity,

dilutes responsibility.

By contrast, “unconscious” refers to:

mental processes outside conscious focus,

that are still part of you.

It isn’t something acting for you. It’s you, operating in another mode.

Active. Not separate. Not docile.

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

Protecting yourself isn’t a nice-sounding affirmation. It’s an action.

Setting a limit isn’t a word — it’s something you do. Deciding to stop is like breaking up with your ex:

you have to say it,

hold to it,

and not “see what happens.”

Using a safeword isn’t failing. It’s exercising agency.

There’s no obligation to keep doing something you don’t want to do. Yes, it’s a game. But a game requires two people present, not one sacrificing themselves.

Here’s the important part:

There is no “backup mind.” No backup copy.

If something goes wrong, you’re the one who has to deal with it. That’s why some people say your body is your temple. This is the same idea — but with the mind.

Don’t wait until you break to learn. Learn to say enough.

There is a trained version of you ready to say stop.

✦ ᛉ ᚨ ᚷ ᛟ ✦

The Myth of the “Protective Subconscious”

Today I opened Tumblr with my coffee in hand. You always hope for a like, a friendly notification, something like that.

Nope. A mile-long text from an anonymous user. This time, it wasn’t just noise. There was an actual idea underneath, even if it was wrapped in questionable concepts.

The central claim was this: “The subconscious can be programmed to protect you.”

Okay. Let’s look at why that’s a flawed security model.

Because:

You delegate your protection to an imaginary entity, instead of strengthening the conscious person.

You assume that this “programmed” part will be more obedient to a hypnotist than to your own will.

That isn’t just false. It’s reckless.

If you’re reading this — even out of boredom — and you do or undergo hypnosis, don’t put your safety in the hands of others. Not a hypnotist. Not a poorly understood idea of the subconscious.

So I made a decision a while ago, told my family and everything, that I wasn't going to put anymore hate into the world. We have plenty of it already, so I willfully decided that I just wasn't going to add to it anymore.

What that means for me is: No angry responses to things I see, No coming up with stories(I'm a writer) about people hurting eachother for revenge, no villianizing characters or people I don't like, and no barging my way into other people's opinions or choices with angry or hurtful comments or words just because I disagree.

Because, you know, I might not agree with them, I might dislike them, I might think they made the 100% wrong choice...

But that's the key word there: Choice

Their Choice

You see, I think everyone, as a sentient, developed human being, has the right to make their own choices. Mental autonomy is a big thing here. And people make choices based on what they see, and know, and understand, and those choices go into shaping their opinions. Someone's opinion might be something trivial, or completely and utterly wrong (For example: their opinion might be that the sky's natural color is brown) Yes they're wrong, but they always have a reason they believe what they believe, a reason they are making the choice to hold fast to their opinion, they've run the numbers through what they know and have decided that thir choice is worth the potential consequences.

All choices come with consequences, good or bad, and when someone makes a choice they are agreeing to accept whatever they may be. A person who chooses to like rock-and-roll accepts that they might have to look for friends with similar interests, a person who thinks the sky is brown (despite the many sources that show otherwise) has to accept most people wont agree. Controversely, a person who believes it is alright to remove people's right to choices from them, thereby accepts to have theirs removed as well.

A murderer choses to take someone's life, their by removing their choice and ability to choose, and as consequence their choices are now forfit, including their choice to continue living. To remove someone else's ability to choose and make their own opinions is a crime of the highest magnitude, in that it robs them of their individual self. Tit-for-tat, why should you have those rights to choice and opinion, if you're going to take away someone elses? The internal right of self is ours from birth to death, and is one of the only things we can ever completely claim to own. Even in situations with hard choices, or impossible choices, there are still choices, and that sanctity is to be respected.

How can you love someone if they can't truely be their own self? You can't love someone if there isn't a someone to begin with.

Now back on wrong opinions: yes there are wrong opinions. The Sun is not made of ducks, air isn't solid, and the sky's natural color is not brown. Someone can have an opinion, and someone can be wrong, but it'ss their right as an individual to have that opinion. However, it's also on the individual to consider everything they know before they make their choice. It is their job to observe, ask questions, and to learn. That's what teachers are for, after all, the entire profession is dedicated to helping people gain the knowledge they need to make the best choices. Willfully choosing to ignore outside information, knowledge, is also on the individual, that is also a choice, and thereby they must realize they accept the consiquences.