as I outline above in the Klark example. Or even quicker, as for example with the hand- squeeze system, where the participants agree ahead of time that you can squeeze another person's hand twice and expect two squeezes back -- and if there aren't two return squeezes, it's time to stop and figure out what's going wrong. (Squeeze system: also very helpful when gags are involved.) Thomas MacAulay Millar: There are all kinds of safesigns when nonverbal communication is necessary; one being to give the bottom an object to hold and to drop when at a limit. It has the disadvantage of being binary, so it loses the middle step that the stoplight system provides. Clarisse Thorn: Sometimes submissives will have a hard time safewording -- whether out of pride, inexperience, or eagerness to please -- and that's another reason check-ins can be good even when there's a set safeword. If you aren't sure how to read your partner's reactions and you suspect ze may be uncomfortable with what you are doing, then you might consider checking in even if ze hasn't safeworded, because your suspicion may be right. Thomas MacAulay Millar: This can't be emphasized enough. Tops Can Never Be On Cruise Control! A safeword gives the bottom a tool to communicate, but it does not ensure safety. The top has at least as much information that the bottom doesn't have, as the bottom has information the top doesn't have. Therefore, the top has to be a full participant in making sure the scene is working and the risks are under control at all times. Anyone who thinks ze can ignore safety as long as the bottom has a safeword is dangerous. This post was edited to add: In the comments on this article, Dw3t-Hthr made a powerful point that for some people, safewords are unavailable in scene. She said, in part: [I]f I am in a place where a safeword might be necessary, a safeword is not possible. Not just because I am someone who is regularly nonverbal, but because the altered consciousness state that I achieve m