Debating a Few Philosophies of BDSM - Love, Kink, Lust, Etc

[CutieMouse]

Reference BLoved's writings for the anti-"casual BDSM" view -

Casual BDSM and Emotional Abuse

... and his other writings for the "True Love" view -

Love and Respect

So... debate away my dears... debate away.

(And full disclaimer - I've only briefly skimmed the writings above. I might eventually read them for the sake of debate, or I might not. I haven't decided yet.)

 

[00Syd]

If BLoved's assertions of what goes on at public parties were true, or even at all similar to the reality that I experience every time I go to a public event, I would maybe consider debating the merits of his arguments. But as it stands, whats the point? How can I debate an idea that stands on such false, and shaky foundations?

 

[eastern sun]

A question for Bloved:

You obviously have strong opinions on the safety and ethics of casual BDSM play.

How did you form your opinions? Have you taken part in casual play? Have you been part of a local scene?

Did you witness abuse? Or do you just imagine it occurring in those conditions?

Given the wide variety of experiences in the readers of this forum (how well do you know us, really?), grounding your opinions in real experience will help ground your perspective and keep your concern from being a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[00Syd]

Also, this stand against casual BDSM play as predatory implies that the only way that BDSM play isn't dangerous and predatory is if its in the context of a long standing (possibly D/s?) relationship. And that is simply incorrect.

 

[Keroin]

What struck me was his portrayal of the "Casual BDSM" scene and how eager the participants are to recruit new, female subs with no regard for safety.

How many times, on this board, has someone come on for advice and been bombarded by the regulars urging, practically ORDERING them to be safe, to take precautions, to verify identities, yadda, yadda, yadda. With the exception of a few smart arses and nut jobs, I think the majority of BDSM practitioners here, casual or otherwise, stress safety and consent, (knowing consent), above all else.

As well, what I've read about public events, from people here, is not at all consistent with how BLoved portrays them. Not at all.

 

[00Syd]

As well, what I've read about public events, from people here, is not at all consistent with how BLoved portrays them. Not at all.

Not even in the same universe. What he describes sounds like something out of the Gor books, and absolutely nothing like what I have experienced here, on planet Earth.

 

[Keroin]

Not even in the same universe. What he describes sounds like something out of the Gor books, and absolutely nothing like what I have experienced here, on planet Earth.

SB wrote a report recently about an event she attended and it sounded like a heck of a time - which she enjoyed with her beloved spouse. From what I know of her from her writings on here, I doubt she would have been so pleased if the event was even remotely similar to what was described in that essay.

 

[CutieMouse]

Okay, I'm going to hit this stuff point by point [personal perspective, of course].

From the essay "Casual BDSM and Emotional Abuse"

For the casual community, the question is: How do you convince people to give up Love and teach them to prefer lustful, loveless one night stands?

This assumes that Love is somehow automatically void of emotional abuse, one night stands are void of love, and nothing exists between those two diametrically opposed plains of existence.

The answer is the same: you make it look "cool", and you silence anyone who would issue a warning about the dangers.

Kinda similar to how society pushes marriage and 2.5 kids while glossing over all the negative issues associated with the institution of marriage?

The reason so many female submissives quit is because they learn of the dangers for themselves, usually as a result of being abused.

Or maybe they quit because they realize that being a submissive isn't all flowers and rainbows. Or maybe they decide they'd rather be dominant. Or maybe they were never in the "community" to begin with.

By ensuring they are in positions of control: site owners, group owners, moderators, etc they are in a position to ensure only the message they want others to hear will be heard, and no other.

From this position they can make any claim, and as they have the authority to control what is heard, dissent is never heard.

Literotica is a Free Speech site... Your argument holds no water here. I would argue that your views on the subject of BDSM are a minority, yet here you have a place to freely express them. I even offered you an entire thread in which to offer them (bringing a heck of a lot of attention to your writings BTW; yes, you're welcome). Disagreement from members of the forum is not censorship - it is the equality of Free Speech.

We hear that everything is perfect in the casual community.

I have never, not once, heard this.

Ever.

I have been pulled aside at munches and warned about XYZ. I have been on forums where common sense and gut instinct are encouraged as tools of protection. I have sat in seminars discussing personal safety, safe words, safe calls, escape routes, and witnessed the ass-chewing submissives and dominants alike have gotten for taking dangerous risks in meeting someone new. I have seen stories of scenes gone bad spread like wildfire as a warning that the world is not as safe as people want to believe.

Safe, fun, and self-indulging, this is the appearance of casual play in public.

What could appeal more to a young female novice submissive?

Lower Their Guard

And what could be more effective than a munch?

Gives the newbies a chance to meet the local play party crowd under controlled conditions.

Gives the local play party crowd a chance to determine which of the attendees will make for cooperative recruits.

After all, you didn't think they were there out of the goodness of their hearts, did you?

Keep in mind these are self-indulging people seeking recruits for lustful, loveless encounters.

Just as the lady selling tupperware may come across as wanting to be your best friend, so too do those seeking fresh meat.

"I can do anything I want, its my life."

And as one who was once a young[er] female novice submissive, guess what? I still had the backbone and balls to decline invitations to public play spaces and parties (locally held after munches)- it simply wasn't/isn't my thing.

I was also perfectly capable of saying no thank you, I'm not interested; yes please, I would like an escort to my car from the munch (through the dark parking lot);when I say I'm willing to have a cup of coffee in a public place - I mean a cup of coffee in a public place.... yeah you keep bringing up sex and I don't discuss my sex life with strangers.

And I don't know about you, but I went to munches for dinner and conversation. Anyone who thought they were going to talk me into a one night stand, public play space, flogging, spanking, or anything else was sorely mistaken.

Again, one might wonder, what happened to the old "new friends"? How many munches a year does a casual community have, and how many attend, and how many more next year, and the year after that, and what of the years past?

Surely these communities must be packed like sardines in any given room at a play party by now.

It's been a while, but the last munch I attended had about 150 people there, had been active for years, and the long term members far outnumbered the newbies.

 

[CutieMouse]

"Parties"

I will admit I have never been to a public or private play party - as I said, not my thing. However -

The public parties are usually money-making in nature. A hall is rented, tickets are sold, anyone walking by along the street can get in for the price of admission.

Ummm... most Dungeons/BDSM clubs I know of are in permanent locations, pay their taxes, and have to pass city inspections.

Anyone can enter the premises.

No weapons or bottle check is made. No sobriety check is made. Those who come in can be high on anything, and packing anything.

All they need is the price of admission.

It is most likely the event itself is illegal. If busted there will likely be charges. If someone with kids is charged, Social Services may get involved.

For this reason it will be with the greatest of reluctance paramedics would be called in the event of an emergency.

The police with even more reluctance.

True, there are Dungeon Monitors, volunteers who are to keep the peace.

But how much of themselves are they willing to risk for the sake of others if they are not even performing a weapons check at the door to protect themselves?

It's called covering one's ass to avoid losing one's business license. I dont' know of anyplace that allows the situations you've described.

"Adultry/etc"

It is not unusual I see an advertisement from a woman claiming to be attached seeking discreet encounters.

Here all safety concerns are cast to the wind. No one must know they are meeting, so no one knows where she goes, or who she is with.

Anything can happen, and no one would know.

Except for the whole thing about how I've repeatedly heard BDSM communities openly discuss the fact that adultery is not kosher, lying isn't okay, and cheating is inappropriate... to the point that I know of people at Lit who have had an affair, yet refused to comment publicly (or been fearful of being outed) for fear of begin ostracized. Yeah 'cause you know those perverts - they totally circle the wagons and support unethical behavior.

"Partner Exchange"

There are those who form close friendships with others and with whom they share sexual intimacy. These are not casual, loveless relationships, tho' it is unlikely they are full-blown romances. These are people who care for each other deeply. What they share is not a one-night stand, but part of an evolving relationship.

Sooooo this is okay. Because it's like an ethical gray area thing.

These are couples where the dom wants to watch his submissive with another woman, or a couple, or for whatever reason finds his sexual arousal enhanced from such situations.

There is little or no contact with each other except for these events.

The submissive might well find herself involved to show her love for her dom, or because she's promised to do anything, etc.

The risk for her is mostly the emotional damage done to her.

But this isn't okay. And we are (of course) to assume that the woman involved is fucking someone other than her One.True.Love because she's being forced to, because there can't possibly be any other explanation than the testosterone driven asshole of a selfish bastard dominant "ordering" her to do so, right?

It kind of reminds me of Henry Spencer Ashbee - he wrote several definitive bibliographies of erotic literature during the reign of Queen Victoria. He justified his vast collection of erotica and pornography by pointing out the flagellation pieces tended to be written with the most proper grammar possible... which nullified the fact that he got hard as a rock whilst reading it.

"Mentoring"

What I mean here are those who, in theory, act as dom for the submissive till she finds "the One" for her.

In theory, he is preparing her for her "One".

In fact, he is doing what he wants with her.

Dressing it up as another "lesson" just makes this more palatable.

He does not point out to her that he is cheating her "One" of the pure joy of being first to share any of this with her.

Nor does he make clear that what he teaches her may have nothing to do with what her "One" wants.

Indeed, what he teaches may make it more difficult for her to share herself with her "One".

By the way, this is another one of those concepts in which the online casual community unites.

... Except that if you spend any time at all in online communities, you will find 90% of their population says things similar to what you've said here - mentors aren't really necessary; if one insists on needing a mentor, find one of the same sex/submissive (or dominant) orientation as oneself.

All mentors are good. Everyone should get training. People should attend courses.

Thus, those whose sexuality, like their love, is a private matter, are urged to rush into the casual community where such concepts are alien.

Nothing is private in the casual community.

Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.

... and I'm off for ice cream with the roommate. Possibly back later; I've not yet decided.

 

[JMohegan]

Reference BLoved's writings

No thanks. From what he put up on the Primalex thread, I'd say the dude has a serious platitude fetish. Which is fine if you're in the greeting card business, but hardly conducive to meaningful discussion.

As for the general issue of casual physical encounters vs. the emotionally-bonded kind - I have a strong preference for the latter, but don't see how one gets there without a progression that begins with some version of the former. Emotional bonding takes time.

 

[00Syd]

Also the idea that the only role a young female submissive has in the public community is as a "recruit" for "loveless causal BDSM" totally discounts every individuals ability to think and act for themselves, the intelligence and awareness of young women, and implies that every young female submssive is gullible and ready to be seduced into some damaging, abusive interaction.

As a young, female submissive, this is an insulting insinuation. These ideas sound almost as sexist to me as the ideas of the predators who actually do go after young submissives.

 

[00Syd]

And yeah, ALSO, the idea that the only reason a female submissive would have a casual sexual encounter with a dominant male is because she was coerced into it is also insulting, since it completely denies female sexuality and agency. Ever think that we might, y'know, enjoy casual sex as much as the next guy? Jesus.

This is some serious pre-feminist White Knight shit. Thanks for the offer to save me and all the other young female submissives from the perils of the BDSM scene, but no thanks. I can take care of myself.

 

[CutieMouse]

I have triple chocolate cheesecake ice cream now, and the energy to continue point by point has gone "poof!"

I just... this stuff isn't black and white. I don't do one night stands. I tried it a time or two and the sex was horrible because there wasn't any connection. But at the same time, there was a mountain of emotionally abusive bullshit thrown at me in my last D/s relationship - all in the name of "True Love".

I read all these statements, written as if Universal Truths, sitting here as a (pardon the immodesty) a seriously kick ass desirable submissive, who assesses situations from an ethical standpoint instead of a moral one... and keep thinking WTH? This does not apply. This is not reality. This viewpoint is not automatically safe just because it sounds authoritative.

 

[midwestyankee]

This viewpoint is not automatically safe just because it sounds authoritative.

Wiser words have rarely been spoken.

 

[JMohegan]

This viewpoint is not automatically safe just because it sounds authoritative.

What part of anything the guy has written here sounds authoritative to you?

I'm not convinced he's even posting straight up. Seems to me he's just trying to yank a few chains.

 

[CutieMouse]

What part of anything the guy has written here sounds authoritative to you?

I'm not convinced he's even posting straight up. Seems to me he's just trying to yank a few chains.

Possibly... maybe the tone I read into the writings set me off. I freely admit whenever someone tosses out a BDSM = Love / Love = BDSM (capital "L") blahblahblah argument I get irritated. Actually I get pissed off. Old baggage.

I want to understand where those views come from (the ones opposite of mine). I want to be able to wrap my head around them on some level, or argue the counterpoint, or reach a place of understanding or compromise or something... or maybe I'm getting worked up and having an argument that I can't have in real life.

Hmmm... how enlightening.

 

[JMohegan]

Possibly... maybe the tone I read into the writings set me off. I freely admit whenever someone tosses out a BDSM = Love / Love = BDSM (capital "L") blahblahblah argument I get irritated. Actually I get pissed off. Old baggage.

I want to understand where those views come from (the ones opposite of mine). I want to be able to wrap my head around them on some level, or argue the counterpoint, or reach a place of understanding or compromise or something... or maybe I'm getting worked up and having an argument that I can't have in real life.

Hmmm... how enlightening.

This makes sense, if you're dealing with a relatively reasonable person who actually does hold an opposing view.

He was so totally full of shit on Keroin's thread, and chock full of platitudes on Primalex's. I just don't take the guy seriously at this point, but of course I could be wrong about him; who really knows?

 

[Keroin]

CM, this guy pinged all my radars - yes, there I go getting judgmental again. Is he merely yanking chains or a does he actually fancy himself a modern day missionary man? Hard to say. He definitely ducked all the hard questions - such as JM's challenge to him in my thread - and he likes to wrap his own insults and mudslinging in a cloak of "enlightenment and education".

In any case, I think you've done a wonderful job of dissecting some of his nonsense.

Kudos.

 

[00Syd]

I'm looking forward to reading the rebuttal

 

[Soumis]

As someone who regularly participates in "casual play" I may end up addressing a lot here, but the first thing I want to counter is this:

It is most likely the event itself is illegal. If busted there will likely be charges. If someone with kids is charged, Social Services may get involved.

For this reason it will be with the greatest of reluctance paramedics would be called in the event of an emergency.

The police with even more reluctance.

I've been at parties where the police have shown up and where the paramedics were called, both situations were nothing like what you represent.

I was at a private party in someone's house when the police were called. They were concerned with one thing, the number of cars outside. The officers were polite, we were polite. Everyone that needed to move a car was given plenty of time to get presentable and the officers did not overstep by any means. Despite what I imagine was a surprise when the door was answered.

I've been at a party at a public dungeon when the paramedics were called. There was no "reluctance" on anyone's part other than the injured party who didn't want to inconvenience people. People were given fair warning the paramedics had been called and those who wanted to avoid them left. Everyone else made themselves presentable and stuck to the main room out of sight of the entrance. Paramedics have seen odder things I'm sure.

 

[Soumis]

Good heavens. I'd seen BLoved's posts on the board, but those essays are something else. I think that everyone is welcome to define bdsm as they will, but the misconceptions presented in these essays are offensive, silly, and defensive to the point that I wonder if something happened to the author or someone close to them to have such a narrow view of what is generally a many varied kink.

 

[Stella_Omega]

He's a bowl of fruit, IMO.

And a lousy writer -- which is even worse by my standards.

 

[BLoved]

A question for Bloved:

You obviously have strong opinions on the safety and ethics of casual BDSM play.

How did you form your opinions?

My first exposure to casual 'bdsm' was through conversations with the victims, of which there were quite a few. Their stories were remarkably similar and always involved casual players taking advantage of their naivete.

My wife was one of those victimized, as was my current beloved.

Through participation on forums such as this I witnessed the players in action first-hand. It did not take long to determine their disinterest in ethical considerations of any kind, and their willingess to victimize anyone to get what they want.

Their immaturity and disregard for the well-being of others is obvious.

Their inability to tolerate those with opposing views, their insistence that everyone must condone their practice, their need to silence opposition and the manner in which they achieved this have been demonstrated to my satisfaction far too often. This thread itself is essentially an effort to demonize me, hidden under the guise of a 'debate'.

~shrug~

Casual players are intent on portraying casual 'bdsm' as the "One True Way" and anyone who disagrees with casual 'bdsm' should be publicly eviscerated as an example to anyone with similar views.

You will note, for example, this thread is not properly labelled, nor does it occur in BDSM Cafe where CM made the suggestion of starting a "discussion":

"This is a whole thread topic in and of itself... actually we haven't had a good meaty discussion of this sort of thing (without derailing another thread) in a while.

I won't post my views of the opinions expressed here, and am off to work out before going into the shop, but I for one would be willing to discuss "casual BDSM/predators/True Love/etc" in a separate thread. And by separate thread I do not mean a posting of links of BL's writings. I mean a discussion."

Obviously what CM had in mind was a 'let's bash BLoved because he doesn't agree with us' and those whose immaturity has already been noted in threads in BDSM Cafe have demonstrated their eagerness to participate.

~shrug~

Have you taken part in casual play?

No.

Have you been part of a local scene?

When my wife and I first met she wanted me to accompany her to a public party, so as to obtain my reaction from a first-hand experience. We attended a munch (where everyone was quite aloof) and a public party in Toronto which was the basis for the claims made in my essay on casual 'bdsm'.

Did you witness abuse?

I've witnessed the consequences of abuse in far too many people to ignore it. The emotional damage has crippled more than a few.

Or do you just imagine it occurring in those conditions?

I have found that a lengthy interview process is required before determining whether someone is capable of sustaining a bdsm relationship. Such processes do not occur in casual 'bdsm', and thus the potential for damage is much greater. The ethics of players in public venues such as discussion forums demonstrates their disregard for others and their inability to tolerate dissent.

If they are so unconcerned in public, it is not difficult to imagine how unconcerned they are for others in private where there are no witnesses to their abusive behaviour.

If they are in such need to stamp out any and all opposing views such that they rely on censorship to achieve a situation where their point of view is the only point of view heard, they are aware of how weak their position is.

It won't stand up to scrutiny, which is why they do not argue the ethics but rather resort to character assasination as their weapon of choice to convince others and silence anyone who would object.

This 'discussion' is a fine example.

 

[intothewoods]

This has not been my impression of my local scene. If you go to a party in my town, it's a bunch of people chatting, hanging out, and doing s&m scenes. There are some creepy guys at any event, but in person those folks are more socially awkward than predator. As rida said in the other thread, predators are a bit more tricky than that.

 

[00Syd]

So: One munch where people were 'aloof', one party (not described, which is the basis of all of your claims), a couple second hand accounts of abuse (also not described, and also not hard to find in either the BDSM or the vanilla dating scene), and opinions formed based on the people who populate (unnamed) internet discussion forums.

Right. I stand affirmed in my first impression: opinions formed on shaky foundations.




ETA: It's easy (and annoying) to talk about how everyone wants to "stomp out your opposing views" and difficult (and admirable) to actually try and make an argument for your case.