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

[Seurat]

And here I thought "Casual 'BDSM' and Emotional Abuse: The Case for Love" was a cohesive expression of my opinions.

It probably is, or else you wouldn't have expressed it as so. However, I think the point that you are missing is that chy_girl was asking you to start a thread, not refer to your post. That way, all responses could be kept together in a single area, instead of spread out.

Just an observation from a lurker.


-Seurat

 

[BLoved]

It probably is, or else you wouldn't have expressed it as so. However, I think the point that you are missing is that chy_girl was asking you to start a thread, not refer to your post.

~smile~

And deny them the opportunity to show one and all just how intolerant they are towards those who oppose the lack of ethics in casual 'bdsm'?

The fact they cannot encourage anyone with opposing views to participate in this 'debate' demonstrates more clearly than my words just how intolerant they are.

So why should I be the one who starts a thread where their intolerance will be just as obvious?

The number of "5" ratings my essays and stories have received amply demonstrate there are more than a few in agreement with my views. I do not see anyone stepping forward to be publicly eviscerated by the fanatics of casual 'bdsm' in this thread.

To date I'm the only one to go public with my views, and for this I'm called "coward". Why should anyone participate in a 'debate' whose sole purpose is character assasination?

~smile~

It is quite obvious from the weapons they use that the casual advocates are more than aware they have no ethical basis upon which to stand. To shut down discussion and discourage all dissenting points of view the casual advocates use character assasination as their weapon of choice. Thus we have a 'debate' where only one point of view is heard.

That's the casual community's idea of 'diversity': One True Way.

Anyone who disagrees with them is ridiculed.

Would that there were mature adults within the casual community with whom one could debate. Instead there are immature fanatics seeking to silence any and all opposing views by staging a sham 'debate' amongst themselves where only their viewpoint is worthy of praise.

~smile~

They discredit themselves by their inability to demonstrate an openness that encourages participation from opposing points of view.

 

[Keroin]

~smile~

*howls*

 

[midwestyankee]

~smile~

And deny them the opportunity to show one and all just how intolerant they are towards those who oppose the lack of ethics in casual 'bdsm'?

The fact they cannot encourage anyone with opposing views to participate in this 'debate' demonstrates more clearly than my words just how intolerant they are.

So why should I be the one who starts a thread where their intolerance will be just as obvious?

The number of "5" ratings my essays and stories have received amply demonstrate there are more than a few in agreement with my views. I do not see anyone stepping forward to be publicly eviscerated by the fanatics of casual 'bdsm' in this thread.

To date I'm the only one to go public with my views, and for this I'm called "coward". Why should anyone participate in a 'debate' whose sole purpose is character assasination?

~smile~

It is quite obvious from the weapons they use that the casual advocates are more than aware they have no ethical basis upon which to stand. To shut down discussion and discourage all dissenting points of view the casual advocates use character assasination as their weapon of choice. Thus we have a 'debate' where only one point of view is heard.

That's the casual community's idea of 'diversity': One True Way.

Anyone who disagrees with them is ridiculed.

Would that there were mature adults within the casual community with whom one could debate. Instead there are immature fanatics seeking to silence any and all opposing views by staging a sham 'debate' amongst themselves where only their viewpoint is worthy of praise.

~smile~

They discredit themselves by their inability to demonstrate an openness that encourages participation from opposing points of view.

Neither you nor I nor anyone else here has the power to prohibit someone from posting in this thread. Therefore, anyone who has any interest in posting here has probably already done so. The openness that you fail to see is as plain as the nose on your face. Choose to ignore it if you wish, but the rest of us know that your complaints are unwarranted.

That no one has arrived to defend your pablum is a reflection on you and your posts alone and not on anyone else. To suggest otherwise is both delusional and disingenuous.

 

[BLoved]

That no one has arrived to defend your pablum is a reflection on you and your posts alone and not on anyone else. To suggest otherwise is both delusional and disingenuous.

"Love and Respect"
4.25 8 votes

"Love, Part I: Endings"
4.22 46 votes

"Love, Part 2: Introductions"
4.60 45 votes

"Love, Part 3: Winter Interlude"
4.25 32 votes

"Questing for a Beloved"
4.33 12 votes

"The Little Things"
4.40 15 votes

I seriously doubt I'd have obtained these ratings if my point of view was not shared by many others.

That I am the only one with the courage to voice my point of view in public and thus subject myself to the ridicule of casual advocates in no way demonstrates that I am the only one to challenge the lack of ethics of casual 'bdsm'.

 

[midwestyankee]

"Love and Respect"
4.25 8 votes

"Love, Part I: Endings"
4.22 46 votes

"Love, Part 2: Introductions"
4.60 45 votes

"Love, Part 3: Winter Interlude"
4.25 32 votes

"Questing for a Beloved"
4.33 12 votes

"The Little Things"
4.40 15 votes

I seriously doubt I'd have obtained these ratings if my point of view was not shared by many others.

That I am the only one with the courage to voice my point of view in public and thus subject myself to the ridicule of casual advocates in no way demonstrates that I am the only one to challenge the lack of ethics of casual 'bdsm'.

Perhaps so. But it also does not demonstrate that others here are preventing those people from posting on your behalf. as you have been whining.

What those numbers tell me is that you attract a lot of the whack-jobs who scream bloody abuse at the writers in the Loving Wives category.

 

[BLoved]

Perhaps so. But it also does not demonstrate that others here are preventing those people from posting on your behalf.

What those numbers tell me is that you attract a lot of the whack-jobs ...

~smile~

You really don't see anyone here preventing "whack-jobs" from participating?

~smile~

And deny them the opportunity to show one and all just how intolerant they are towards those who oppose the lack of ethics in casual 'bdsm'?

The fact they cannot encourage anyone with opposing views to participate in this 'debate' demonstrates more clearly than my words just how intolerant they are.

To date I'm the only one to go public with my views, and for this I'm called "coward". Why should anyone participate in a 'debate' whose sole purpose is character assasination?

It is quite obvious from the weapons they use that the casual advocates are more than aware they have no ethical basis upon which to stand. To shut down discussion and discourage all dissenting points of view the casual advocates use character assasination as their weapon of choice. Thus we have a 'debate' where only one point of view is heard.

That's the casual community's idea of 'diversity': One True Way.

Anyone who disagrees with them is ridiculed.

Would that there were mature adults within the casual community with whom one could debate. Instead there are immature fanatics seeking to silence any and all opposing views by staging a sham 'debate' amongst themselves where only their viewpoint is worthy of praise.

They discredit themselves by their inability to demonstrate an openness that encourages participation from opposing points of view.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

~smile~

You really don't see anyone here preventing "whack-jobs" from participating?

Not at all. You're not being prevented from participating, are you?

~smile~

 

[BLoved]

"Love and Respect"
4.25 8 votes

"Love, Part I: Endings"
4.22 46 votes

"Love, Part 2: Introductions"
4.60 45 votes

"Love, Part 3: Winter Interlude"
4.25 32 votes

"Questing for a Beloved"
4.33 12 votes

"The Little Things"
4.40 15 votes

"Love and Respect"
3.80 10 votes

"Love, Part I: Endings"
4.15 47 votes

"Love, Part 2: Introductions"
4.52 46 votes

"Love, Part 3: Winter Interlude"
4.15 33 votes

"Questing for a Beloved"
4.08 13 votes

"The Little Things"
4.19 16 votes

Considering how long it actually takes to read all of the above, how likely is it anyone actually read the material they just down-rated in the last 30 minutes?

~smile~

I see the fanatics of the casual community are not above using the rating system to express their own personal animosity towards a writer, regardless of what he writes or how well he writes.

 

[subish2009]

Not at all. You're not being prevented from participating, are you?

~smile~

LOL!!

 

[Netzach]

I've never seen anyone try and dick swing a writing rating in here. Congrats, there's always a first time.

 

[BLoved]

"Love and Respect"
3.80 10 votes

"Love, Part I: Endings"
4.15 47 votes

"Love, Part 2: Introductions"
4.52 46 votes

"Love, Part 3: Winter Interlude"
4.15 33 votes

"Questing for a Beloved"
4.08 13 votes

"The Little Things"
4.19 16 votes

Considering how long it actually takes to read all of the above, how likely is it anyone actually read the material they just down-rated in the last 30 minutes?

~smile~

I see the fanatics of the casual community are not above using the rating system to express their own personal animosity towards a writer, regardless of what he writes or how well he writes.

And you wonder why you cannot attract anyone with an opposing point of view for your sham 'debate'.

 

[00Syd]

And you wonder why you cannot attract anyone with an opposing point of view for your sham 'debate'.

Talking to yourself?

 

[rida]

And you wonder why you cannot attract anyone with an opposing point of view for your sham 'debate'.

Talking to yourself?

haha!
You might be onto something 00Syd It would not be the first time (or the last)

And for the record: I tried to engage you (BLoved) with my posts and have not received a single direct post ... I'm not worthy of salvation!!!!


ETA: on a second and more balanced thought, please continue to ignore me. Thank you.

 

[00Syd]

haha!
You might be onto something 00Syd It would not be the first time (or the last)

And for the record: I tried to engage you (BLoved) with my posts and have not received a single direct post ... I'm not worthy of salvation!!!!


ETA: on a second and more balanced thought, please continue to ignore me. Thank you.

He can't actually engage anyone in a discussion of his ideas because if he did he wouldn't be able to talk about how this is a sham of a debate anymore, since he would be, you know, debating.

 

[rida]

He can't actually engage anyone in a discussion of his ideas because if he did he wouldn't be able to talk about how this is a sham of a debate anymore, since he would be, you know, debating.

Yeah, I've noticed. Also, have you noticed that he goes for the men he hopes to get on his side or for the women he can either intimidate in a corner or he is hoping to get for himself?



I have a major question though: can anybody define "ethic" for me?
I studied it back in the days, and I could never pint point a clear definition of it.


It might be the brainwashing I suffered ...

 

[Soumis]

I have a major question though: can anybody define "ethic" for me?
I studied it back in the days, and I could never pint point a clear definition of it.


It might be the brainwashing I suffered ...

One of the many words I'm not sure is being used correctly in this debacle.

Then again, I really don't see what is unethical about getting tied up and beaten by a friend with expectations of mutual satisfaction rather than happily every after. Guess I'll keep practicing until I figure it out!

 

[BLoved]

"Love and Respect"
4.25 8 votes

"Love, Part I: Endings"
4.22 46 votes

"Love, Part 2: Introductions"
4.60 45 votes

"Love, Part 3: Winter Interlude"
4.25 32 votes

"Questing for a Beloved"
4.33 12 votes

"The Little Things"
4.40 15 votes

I seriously doubt I'd have obtained these ratings if my point of view was not shared by many others.

That I am the only one with the courage to voice my point of view in public and thus subject myself to the ridicule of casual advocates in no way demonstrates that I am the only one to challenge the lack of ethics of casual 'bdsm'.

"Love and Respect"
3.80 10 votes

"Love, Part I: Endings"
4.15 47 votes

"Love, Part 2: Introductions"
4.52 46 votes

"Love, Part 3: Winter Interlude"
4.15 33 votes

"Questing for a Beloved"
4.08 13 votes

"The Little Things"
4.19 16 votes

Considering how long it actually takes to read all of the above, how likely is it anyone actually read the material they just down-rated in the last 30 minutes?

~smile~

I see the fanatics of the casual community are not above using the rating system to express their own personal animosity towards a writer, regardless of what he writes or how well he writes.

"Love and Respect"
3.55 11 votes

"Love, Part I: Endings"
4.08 48 votes

"Love, Part 2: Introductions"
4.52 46 votes

"Love, Part 3: Winter Interlude"
4.15 33 votes

"Questing for a Beloved"
4.08 13 votes

"The Little Things"
4.19 16 votes

The casual community continues to demonstrate their idea of 'ethical' use of the ratings system.

~smile~

When public character assasination, ridicule, and vote-rigging are considered 'ethical' by a community, what do they consider 'ethical' when it comes to bdsm?

When they are willing to display their lack of ethics in public, what kind of 'ethics' do they practice in private, where there are no witnesses?

And how do they treat their victims when their victims object to being abused?

"Casual 'BDSM' and Emotional Abuse: The Case for Love"

 

[subish2009]

<snip>
The casual community continues to demonstrate their idea of 'ethical' use of the ratings system.

~smile~

When public character assasination, ridicule, and vote-rigging are considered 'ethical' by a community, what do they consider 'ethical' when it comes to bdsm?

When they are willing to display their lack of ethics in public, what kind of 'ethics' do they practice in private, where there are no witnesses?

And how do they treat their victims when their victims object to being abused?

[urel="http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=469262"]"Casual 'BDSM' and Emotional Abuse: The Case for Love"[/url]

I mean, it's actually starting to get funny in its repetition...like when you stare at a word too long and it starts to lose meaning? Does anyone else wonder if he even makes sense to himself or if he's just trying to see how long he can keep this going? I'm beginning to find myself a little amused. It's hard to stay riled up at such... It's gotta be a joke, right? Right?!?

 

[BLoved]

or for the women he can either intimidate in a corner or he is hoping to get for himself?

~smile~

I have a beloved. She lives with me. We are both quite happy and neither of us is looking.

 

[BLoved]

I mean, it's actually starting to get funny in its repetition...like when you stare at a word too long and it starts to lose meaning? Does anyone else wonder if he even makes sense to himself or if he's just trying to see how long he can keep this going? I'm beginning to find myself a little amused. It's hard to stay riled up at such... It's gotta be a joke, right? Right?!?

Only the casual community finds abuse "funny".

Those of us who practice an ethical form of bdsm see things differently.

 

[chy_girl]

~smile~

And deny them the opportunity to show one and all just how intolerant they are towards those who oppose the lack of ethics in casual 'bdsm'?

The fact they cannot encourage anyone with opposing views to participate in this 'debate' demonstrates more clearly than my words just how intolerant they are.
*snip*

Just out of curiosity, are you trying to imply that since I'm waiting for you to actually join the discussion in a meaningful manner that I lack ethics and participate in casual BDSM?

And for the love of god, would you please look up "discussion" in the dictionary? Because that's typically what we shoot for here... Discussion. And we aren't intolerant of opposing views. We're intolerant inanity masquerading as substance and of those simply wishing to pull chains and push buttons. You're doing a fabulous job of that, by the way.

~smiles~

 

[00Syd]

Yeah, I've noticed. Also, have you noticed that he goes for the men he hopes to get on his side or for the women he can either intimidate in a corner or he is hoping to get for himself?



I have a major question though: can anybody define "ethic" for me?
I studied it back in the days, and I could never pint point a clear definition of it.


It might be the brainwashing I suffered ...

The only time he engages someone is when it will lead to a superficial off shoot of the main discussion, or if it will allow him to further explain how much of an embattled minority he is. He never responds to anyone who has a genuine question, or brings up any concrete issues for discussion. He only responds to what he perceives as personal affronts, so that he can talk about how he is being publicly "eviscerated" (talk about kinks, right?), or people who try to call him out on his lack of response to the genuine discussion (but never to the genuine discussion itself).

 

[BLoved]

We're intolerant inanity masquerading as substance and of those simply wishing to pull chains and push buttons. You're doing a fabulous job of that, by the way.

What a revealing way in which to describe those with opposing views.

Is that your idea of 'encouragement'?

 

[BLoved]

The only time he engages someone is when it will lead to a superficial off shoot of the main discussion, or if it will allow him to further explain how much of an embattled minority he is. He never responds to anyone who has a genuine question, or brings up any concrete issues for discussion. He only responds to what he perceives as personal affronts, so that he can talk about how he is being publicly "eviscerated" (talk about kinks, right?), or people who try to call him out on his lack of response to the genuine discussion (but never to the genuine discussion itself).

Character assasination.

Ridicule.

What else you got?