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

[neci]

Once again, I find myself in public with my pants around my ankles, and not intentionally.

Some of those arguments remind me of the logic problems in college:

The sky is blue.
Water is blue.
Therefore, the sky is made of water.

Okay.

My jeans are blue.
Water is blue.
Therefore, my jeans are made of water.

It's catching the twists that I missed in the other thread, and I should have looked deeper and seen the foundation for this thread. Thanks for the heads up.



And thanks for the welcome. Which way is the bar, and which way are the bathrooms? Priorities first.

the bar is here, and the bathrooms are here. enjoy!

 

[Keroin]

Once again, I find myself in public with my pants around my ankles, and not intentionally.

Not to worry, someone on here likely has a fetish about that

Some of those arguments remind me of the logic problems in college:

The sky is blue.
Water is blue.
Therefore, the sky is made of water.

Okay.

My jeans are blue.
Water is blue.
Therefore, my jeans are made of water.

It's catching the twists that I missed in the other thread, and I should have looked deeper and seen the foundation for this thread. Thanks for the heads up.

Nice comparison. And no worries. You struck me as a logical type and I just assumed you didn't know the back story. Though I think, in future, you should read all of my threads. Diligently. Yes. *nods*

And thanks for the welcome. Which way is the bar, and which way are the bathrooms? Priorities first.

Bar is thataway -------------------------------------->

Just name yer poison, (answering "gin, martini, dry, with a twist" earns you bonus points, by the way).

Bathrooms are...um...here...apparently.

 

[Keroin]

the bar is here, and the bathrooms are here. enjoy!

Damn woman, you beat me to it!

 

[Seurat]

You struck me as a logical type

I get that a lot. It's probably got something to do with the Moe howard haircut, pointy ears, and, "live long and prosper" shtick.

 

[midwestyankee]

Reading over the last page or two, I was struck by something. Some described the reaction to Bloved as vehement and mean. I didn't see that. I saw some people questioning his reasoning and the stability of his evidence, but that's not mean or vehement. I think the guy received a fairly even-handed treatment. That he chose to respond with self-centered vituperation is irrelevant.

Mean or vehement is when I lose my cool and call someone a dimwitted fucktard, which I have done once or twice.

 

[rida]

(Isn't it that isolation, coupled with the fixation, that makes him feel like a predator?)

And the fact that promising eternal true love is almost a sure way to catch fresh meat.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying everybody that talk about true love is a predator.

 

[Homburg]

Character assasination.

Ridicule.

What else you got?

Wit, intelligence, and something to contribute.

As you lack these things, it is understandable why you would not recognise them in 00Syd.

--

Ironically, from an outsider's perspective, the more you persist in attacking him the more you strengthen his argument. I urge you all to step back and re-read your own posts.

His actions speak for themselves. But, so do yours.

See, this is another thing that I really dig about you. You manage to say something like this and not come off poorly, or as if you are defending him, or even being preachy. Bravo, ES.

--

I also am missing the vehemence.

As to the pre-mob ratings being high, would anyone care to troll the rape stories, or incest stories, or other truly outre stuff to see what sort of ratings they get? It's the internet, BLoved. There will always be someone as whacked out as you are that will agree with you. The rest of the world will be busy being unaware of your personal hot mess.

 

[eastern sun]

Since I'm the one using the word vehemence, I took a look back to see why.

It was based on my impression of a relatively short period of time (towards the beginning of this thread and peppered throughout a few others) in which a number of posts were written with a fair amount of contempt laced with strong emotions and some name-calling. Even though I could see how it was generated, I was surprised by the strength of the energy that was being focussed on him.

vehement - showing strong feeling, forceful, passionate, intense

 

[Homburg]

Since I'm the one using the word vehemence, I took a look back to see why.

It was based on my impression of a relatively short period of time (towards the beginning of this thread and peppered throughout a few others) in which a number of posts were written with a fair amount of contempt laced with strong emotions and some name-calling. Even though I could see how it was generated, I was surprised by the strength of the energy that was being focussed on him.

vehement - showing strong feeling, forceful, passionate, intense

I guess. I am probably comparing it to the rest of the net, where flame wars are de riguer. This thread has nowhere near the vituperation levels that I would expect in regards to the word "vehemence". Contempt, sure, but, hey, he's contemptible.

 

[eastern sun]

I guess. I am probably comparing it to the rest of the net, where flame wars are de riguer. This thread has nowhere near the vituperation levels that I would expect in regards to the word "vehemence". Contempt, sure, but, hey, he's contemptible.

I must be quite naive, then. A tender flower.

(Actually, I have very little experience of the internet beyond the range of a few well-worn paths. And flame wars have never been my favorite part of this virtual world. It's a consequence of the anonymity that has always bugged me.)

 

[Homburg]

I must be quite naive, then. A tender flower.

(Actually, I have very little experience of the internet beyond the range of a few well-worn paths. And flame wars have never been my favorite part of this virtual world. It's a consequence of the anonymity that has always bugged me.)

Don't worry.

I'll protect you.

The casual internet can be a scary place.

Full of people that will push you up against the wall and ... express themselves.

Sometimes violently.

But if you look hard enough, and be choosy, you can find true expression.

Deep expression.

The kind of expression that can only come from committed, long-term discussion.

And I can show you how.

~smile~

 

[CutieMouse]

My apologies for taking a day or two away from the thread; life occasionally does get in the way of Lit. I apologize for not responding to everyone - I only quoted the bits and pieces that stood out as I caught up with the thread.

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

I must assume research is not required on this board before flaming.

I'm trying to understand the perspective here... when I offered the invitation to discuss casual vs. loving BDSM in another thread, you agreed it would be a good subject for discussion.

Then you declined to start the thread.

Then I started the thread, but when I used your own articles to support your views (since you wouldn't start the thread and offer your opinions in a conversational manner), you got upset with me for using your writings as both a defense of your position and platform from with to discuss an opposing viewpoint.

And now you're stating that your writings are a complete expression of your views on the matter, and refuse to discuss it further, yet are offended that I'm using your writings to offer a counter argument to your position.

So I can't use your writings as a reference tool to discuss any flaws I may see in your position, but you won't offer any more information that might enable me to reach a place of greater understanding (even if I still disagree), and this somehow means I've not done enough research on your views.

Am I missing something?

By the way, I notice no one here has managed to recruit anyone with an opposing point of view to participate so as to actually have a "debate".

Wonder why so many of you find that so difficult. Surely such a 'mature' mob as is represented here can encourage discussion from various opposing points of view.

~smile~

Again... I tried to encourage you to start the thread and set the tone. Again... I tried to engage you in discussion with the only comprehensive tool I had given your silence - your own writings. If I remember correctly, I gave you a very specific example of a long term loving D/s based relationship in which emotional abuse was prevalent (here)... and you completely ignored that part of my post (here).

In that same post I also expressed that I personally do not engage in "casual" BDSM relationships, public play, munches, etc... which kinda sorta in a weird way supports your views, except that I disagree with the foundation of your argument. I guess that's why you ignored that part of my post, as well?

~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'?

I think this might be part of where I'm feeling a hiccup. I would sincerely ask you to please help me grasp what is unethical about my current relationship (for example).

We have been seeing one another for almost 3 months now. Neither one of us is married. After dating for a month or so we both decided to stop seeing anyone else (even casually). Prior to that decision, we discussed the fact that there may be other people in our lives, and made sure we each felt okay with that. On our fourth date he asked me if four dates was enough to get a goodnight kiss; I said no. If he was that interested he could wait until I felt comfortable/safe enough with him to be intimate - he was interested enough to wait until I felt comfortable and safe. Neither of us wants to marry or live together. When either of us has an emotional/mental/spiritual/physical "hiccup" - we talk openly and honestly about it. Neither one of us believes in "True Love" "The One" or anything like that. The idea of going to clubs and dungeons and such bores us to tears, so we don't. Fabulously laid back sort of thing, really... we're actually developing one hell of a fabulous friendship.

So from that description, could you please tell me what is unethical about my non-love based D/s relationship?

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.

Just as the fact that you can't find anyone to support your position (other than yourself) speaks volumes about the strength of your position.

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

Which tells me you decided this would be a witch hunt from the beginning. Gotcha.

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.

And ya know what? I can go to the Playground board and find dozens (if not hundreds) of members who get all sorts of hot and bothered about their version of BDSM - which usually involves some degree of "Oh gosh I've been a bad bad girl... I guess I have to be punished... Please! Please don't thrown me in that brier patch Master!! Wait - what do you mean clean the kitchen? I want to be punished! You're supposed to spank me!"

Which isn't BDSM *to me*; however, I learned long ago to let them do their little thing while I do mine. IMO my only ethical obligation (yes I used that word) is to point out submission is about submitting, so for the love of all that is holy make sure everyone is on the same page.

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 assassination?

~smile~

I am quite positive there are other people somewhere on the planet who have "gone public" with similar views.

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 assassination as their weapon of choice. Thus we have a 'debate' where only one point of view is heard.

Again - you have 8 pages of conversation here and have had the same freedom of speech as anyone else - you've simply not chosen to utilize it as effectively as you might have. If you would present your views, or expound on them, or answer sincere requests for information, or respond to questions or I dunno *participate*then we would see more than one point of view, wouldn't we?

Although on second thought, your posts show up, therefore your point of view is represented, which means there is more than one point of view being expressed.

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.

I encouraged you to participate and you refused at every opportunity. And the only "One TrueWay" advocate I've seen here is you - "BDSM is an expression of Love. If it is not an expression of Love, it is not BDSM."

How exactly has the discussion been "shut down"? At this point I believe there has been 7 or 8 PAGES of discussion - most of which you've refused to participate in. If you are the defender and champion of your views, and for whatever reason you are the ONLY defender and champion of yoru views, then it's your job to defend them.

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.

I am terribly sorry your writings received lower ratings. IMO automatically hitting someone's writings simply because one disagrees with them is inappropriate.

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.

I didn't read the statement by subish as relating to abuse in the BDSM community. *To me* it read as if she might be pointing out that you can't have it both ways - if your writings cover your views on the subject, and you won't discuss the subject by doing anything other than linking/quoting your own writings, you can't get offended when people use those writings against your position.

~smile~

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

I am very happy to hear that and congratulations to you both. Everyone deserves someone special in their life.

Control the medium, and you control the message.

The casual community has learned this lesson well.

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.

Except that this is a FREE SPEECH SITE and you have had (and continue to have) ample opportunity to present your position.

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

Except that this is a FREE SPEECH SITE and you have had (and continue to have) ample opportunity to present your position.

And anyone who doesn't get with the program can be made an example of for others.

Except that this is a FREE SPEECH SITE and you have had (and continue to have) ample opportunity to present your position.

Having an opinion does not obligate others to agree with it.

So now that we know what won't be heard, what do we hear?

We hear that everything is perfect in the casual community. Everything is a munch or a party. Everyone is safe, and to be doubly sure, there are dungeon monitors.

I have never, not once, EVER heard this.

Safe and fun, that is what we hear about casual communities ... because that is what the casual communities who control the medium want us to hear.

I have never, not once, EVER heard this.

We hear a lot about techniques, but no one talks about ethics.

Um... because the whole technique thing is kinda important given certain circumstances. And every weekend seminar, book, forum, etc I've ever been to, read, or participated in HAS discussed BDSM & ethics.

Those more mature than you do not need me to point out the evidence.

Hopefully those less mature will give some thought to the consequences of placing themselves at the 'mercy' of the casual community.

Please help me understand how your argument about ethics protects those who experience emotional abuse under the guise of "Loving BDSM".

Ironically, from an outsider's perspective, the more you persist in attacking him the more you strengthen his argument. I urge you all to step back and re-read your own posts.

His actions speak for themselves. But, so do yours.

I agree. I am somewhat dissapointed by the direction the thread has taken at times.

If you lack the ethics to call a spade "a spade" because your friends are responsible for the verbal abuse, what kind of ethics do you practice when it comes to bdsm and your friends are responsible for physical abuse?

Turning a blind eye to abuse because it would jeopardize your popularity has no basis in ethics.

So harsh language in a thread on a BDSM board = physically abusive assholes in personal relationships? And where did the "popularity" argument come from? If no one agrees with your position it's one huge ginormous social clique and those holding an opposing view are simply succumbing to peer pressure? Is this the 7th grade or something?

A little too late for that.

I'll be submitting delete requests for all of my material, given the degree of vote-rigging by the casual community and the effect a low rating has on material being read.

I can always re-submit when they're not looking.

I'll cite this thread as my reason for deleting the material, not that it will make a difference.

Obviously the rating system exists for this purpose: vote-rigging by the mob.

So instead of standing firm by your convictions, you're deleting your writings? How does that help anything, exactly?

As for "vote rigging" - I'll say again, *to me* slamming someone's writings simply because you disagree with them is just silly.

I fucking wish, if they'd done their job properly and silenced you, I wouldn't have been exposed to any of your mindless witterings and I'd be much happier for it.

Be nice; you can't have it both ways. Free Speech - both of you have a right to say whatever you like; however, at least BL (to the best of my recollection) isn't telling you to stop expressing yourself. He might be whining about the discussion at hand, but you are the one expressing a desire for censorship here...

I agree, but given the number of un-substantive threads on this forum that just peter out without much attention, it's rather surprising to see so much vehemence directed against him.

It happens from time to time. People just start getting really mean. I'm still sad that osg got such harsh treatment a couple of months ago. I miss her.

I don't necessarily like the tone the thread has taken off and on, but I don't see "vehemence". A touch of meanness here and there, but I always tend to throw an "internet lack of tone" into things like this.

I responded to subish's first post before I read her second one. . . .

I'm just struck by the vehemence with which the group turned on him. Either he was deeply threatening. Or a huge target. Or both.

I suggested the thread because I found the subject a curiosity and thought it might make for an interesting discussion... (IMO) I was wrong.

 

[subish2009]

<snip>
I didn't read the statement by subish as relating to abuse in the BDSM community. *To me* it read as if she might be pointing out that you can't have it both ways - if your writings cover your views on the subject, and you won't discuss the subject by doing anything other than linking/quoting your own writings, you can't get offended when people use those writings against your position.<snip>

CM, you said TONS of great stuff here, too much to comment on right now, but I just wanted to confirm because I neglected to do so earlier that YES, that is exactly what I meant. Thank you for clarifying what I was unable to in my stupefied babbling.

 

[00Syd]

Holy cow, CM. Bravo.

 

[DVS]

Do I understand the argument? BLoved thinks BDSM not within a loving relationship is considered casual BDSM and as such isn't safe for one or both of the players? and he assumes that as long as the couple are in love, their BDSM play is safe and consensual and a place where nobody will get hurt?

I don't think either situation is a sure thing. Both the casual scene and the loving scene can have their good points and bad points. A casual scene can be quite interesting, because playing with strangers or maybe just acquaintances can be very sexy. The first time with anybody and anything can be quite arousing. But, as in any SS&C scene, there should be safe words setup in advance. Without safe words, someone's safety could be at risk.

But, in a loving scene, both partners know what they like and what their partner likes. That can make it less likely for them to need safe words, Not that safe words wouldn't be necessary, because even loving players can get too involved and someone can be hurt.

Nobody means for that to happen, but we are talking about sex here, and that can often take over your mental correctness and you stop thinking rationally. Only a couple can really decide if safe words are necessary. But, there should always be a discussion about using them, just in case.

So, is someone saying casual BDSM should never exist? And is someone saying that loving BDSM should never exist? I think there is room for both. But, if someone is saying that in casual BDSM there is never a safe envirenment, that is not true.

Sure, there are obviously times when people will play without safe words or without talking over the scene before hand or without knowing someone well enough before you allow them to tie you up. But all of those situations are only exceptions to the basic rules of safety first.

In a loving BDSM relationship, I think a couple can be at risk for injury in just the same way as in casual BDSM. After you get to know your partner, you can assume to much and you can by pass the safety communication because you assume what your submissive is saying when she yells "stop" is just part of the scene. It can sometimes be too late when you find out she was really wanting you to stop.

Of course, you didn't intend to hurt her, but because you assumed you knew her very well, it wasn't necessary to talk over the scene before hand. I don't think anybody with a sane adult mind has any desire to hurt someone in a scene on purpose.

But, there is always...and I do stress the word ALWAYS going to be a chance someone will be hurt any time someone is inflicting pain on someone else.

We are all humans and whenever a human is involved, there's a chance of something going wrong. This means any time someone is engaged in BDSM play, there should be a discussion about what will happen, and what a safe word will be.

As long as the safety issue is expressed by all, I think we can all enjoy safe BDSM play. And whenever safety isn't expressed by all involved, I wouldn't advise even thinking about continuing the scene.

I've been to play parties but they have all been private with only invited guests in attendance. I've never heard of or been to a public play party, but I would guess they do exist. But, in the case of a public play party, there MUST be people in charge and standing watch during scenes to make sure nobody get out of control or get's invovled in something they can't handle.

And if someone voiced their safe word, the partner better stop dead in his tracks, or he should be evicted from the party, no questions asked. I'm sorry, but there is no room for unsafe play in any aspect of BDSM.

But, if two consenting adults want to go into their own little play area and do what they enjoy the most, because they are two consenting adults, they should have enough sense to be able to understand the consequences of their actions.

The BDSM group as a whole can not be held responsible for couples who decide to do their own thing against the basic safety first rules. Spell it out in a disclaimer and let them do as they wish. Safety first can only go so far. If someone's imagination wants to play with the obvious chance that something can go wrong, our society should allow them their space.

On another note. Some people really are into playing rough. But I don't think BDSM should ever be related to snuff or anything that can violently harm someone, physically, emotionally or mentally. I think we all want BDSM to have a good following. To hear on the news that someone was killed or physically hurt in a BDSM scene would be terrible words for the scene.

But to have someone hurt or killed in a scene means someone in charge or the top layer in the scene didn't to their job. And because of that, someone should be held responsible. I don't think there are unavoidable mistakes. I think there are mistakes, but mistakes of that nature should never happen if safety is always a part of the scene.

I hope this all made sense. I might be too tired to be posting this. If so, sorry.

 

[Keroin]

Well, just because BLoved won’t participate, I don’t see why we can’t discuss the topic in our own way?

As for me, I think “ethics” in BDSM will simply be an extension of whatever ethics a person has in the rest of their life. Maybe I’m wrong?

I had a few “casual” BDSM relationships, pre-L, though I didn’t know they had a name back then, though, lol. I enjoyed them but I think I am wired up that way. Casual relationships, (eg. one night stands, fuck buddies, non-exclusive partnerships), have never fazed me. They are no better or worse, IMO, than long term, committed relationships. There are positives and negatives to everything.

I have been with L for 11 ½ years now. I’m very happy in my marriage but I can see us delving into some kind of poly arrangement down the road. Our lifestyle, up to this point, just hasn’t allowed for it, (too much wandering), and I would be much, much fussier about other partners now, especially casual ones, simply because I value my spouse too much to risk his unhappiness.

As a couple, we are in the beginnings of BDSM together. It is most pleasing. I think, because we know each other so well, and our trust level is so high, we will probably be able to explore areas I wouldn’t have felt comfortable venturing into with casual partners. However, that doesn’t make these experiences I’m having now better or more ethical than the casual experiences I’ve had in the past, just different. That’s all.
Oh, and just to echo CM, here. The worst, most harmful relationship I have ever had was a “loving”, monogamous, vanilla one. Go figure.

 

[BLoved]

~smile~

And of course, now that I've announced I've submitted delete requests for all of my material, everyone needs to repair the damage they did to themselves in the first six pages.

So we get another four pages of semantics explaining how character assasination and other assorted verbal abuse isn't really "abuse".

Meanwhile, debts are paid off in the form of acceptance for support rendered.

What I find most intriguing is the desperation for popularity, that abusers should be chosen by newcomers to be 'friends' simply because the abusers represent the dominant clique in the forum and obviously wield the largest voting bloc when it comes to material published here.

And thus all demonstrate their investment in abusive behaviour and their need to ignore it.

Not a complete waste, CM, considering how easy it was to rip away the carefully-manicured public personae to reveal the monsters that lurk beneath the surface.

Much like a muslim appearing on a religious board, announcing his faith in Allah when everyone else is a christian.

That none of you can handle anyone whose ethics differ from yours is manifest.

That none of you can be civil with someone who does not share your belief is a trademark of the casual community and its advocates.

Thus it becomes the "One True Way".

 

[Cattypuss]

Unbelievable.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Do I understand the argument? BLoved thinks BDSM not within a loving relationship is considered casual BDSM and as such isn't safe for one or both of the players? and he assumes that as long as the couple are in love, their BDSM play is safe and consensual and a place where nobody will get hurt?

Given that it stopped making sense last week, I think you've pretty much nailed it.

Except you didn't spell it "Love"

 

[Seurat]

It may be a bit early in the day for me, and a bit late in the thread to comment on this, but I think:

What I find most intriguing is the desperation for popularity, that abusers should be chosen by newcomers to be 'friends' simply because the abusers represent the dominant clique in the forum and obviously wield the largest voting bloc when it comes to material published here.

And thus all demonstrate their investment in abusive behaviour and their need to ignore it.

Not a complete waste, CM, considering how easy it was to rip away the carefully-manicured public personae to reveal the monsters that lurk beneath the surface.

Much like a muslim appearing on a religious board, announcing his faith in Allah when everyone else is a christian.

That none of you can handle anyone whose ethics differ from yours is manifest.

That none of you can be civil with someone who does not share your belief is a trademark of the casual community and its advocates.

Thus it becomes the "One True Way".

is simply perfect. Succinct, accurate, and very accurate.

Of course, you are implying that it how you see the reactions and posts of the people in this thread, and I see it instead as a perfect description of the thoughts behind your posts.


It's nice to be the newbie; having invested little in this thread except some time to read (and defend one person earlier, before becoming aware of his previous actions), I find that fact that it has been derailed so far from it's original purpose (discussion of beliefs) into personal attacks. If the 'abusers' are being friendly, maybe it's because they are, and I haven't done anything to insult them repeatedly. From what I have seen and read, it is not so much your beliefs that has given you the role of 'victim', but your steadfast determination to defend your beliefs with personal attacks and left-handed compliments, instead of rational and supportable viewpoints.

I may or may not agree with your beliefs, BLoved, but I will fight to death for your right to have them. And I am as sure of that as I am of the fact that many of my writings, almost all of which are about 'the casual BDSM scene' or people being abused, are about to be tanked. Of course, I won't be taking my ball and going home afterwards.

Well, probably not.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

I've been to play parties but they have all been private with only invited guests in attendance. I've never heard of or been to a public play party, but I would guess they do exist. But, in the case of a public play party, there MUST be people in charge and standing watch during scenes to make sure nobody get out of control or get's invovled in something they can't handle.

Not quite, given that they can't know what a person can or can't handle.

And if someone voiced their safe word, the partner better stop dead in his tracks, or he should be evicted from the party, no questions asked. I'm sorry, but there is no room for unsafe play in any aspect of BDSM.

What they *do* do though, is make sure this happens.

And, well around here anyway, they tend to be considerably experienced in a variety of forms of play, and can also keep an eye out for someone who's technique may be a little off and stop them getting out of control.

Hell, there's one club in Melbourne that insists that if you plan on using a singletail whip on someone and you're *not* already known to the event organisers as someone with skill, then you *must* demostrate your competency on a non living target first. Even if you bring your own hardcore masochist to the party.

Now, if that isn't ethical casual bdsm, I don't know what is.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Don't worry.

I'll protect you.

The casual internet can be a scary place.

Full of people that will push you up against the wall and ... express themselves.

Sometimes violently.

But if you look hard enough, and be choosy, you can find true expression.

Deep expression.

The kind of expression that can only come from committed, long-term discussion.

And I can show you how.

~smile~

Who will watch the watchers?

 

[Homburg]

Much like a muslim appearing on a religious board, announcing his faith in Allah when everyone else is a christian.

Wait. You are equating your belief in a fantasy construct you call "casual BDSM" to a devout Muslim's belief in Allah?

How incredibly arrogant and insulting. Do you even read what you write?



--

Who will watch the watchers?

I watch myself! (It's what the mirrored ceiling is for.)

 

[Cattypuss]

I watch myself! (It's what the mirrored ceiling is for.)

 

[CutieMouse]

~smile~

And of course, now that I've announced I've submitted delete requests for all of my material, everyone needs to repair the damage they did to themselves in the first six pages.

Except that the bits and pieces I initially quoted from your writings will remain in the thread forever...

So we get another four pages of semantics explaining how character assassination and other assorted verbal abuse isn't really "abuse".

Show me where I "assassinated" your character, please. Please link examples of where I verbally abused you.

Meanwhile, debts are paid off in the form of acceptance for support rendered.

What I find most intriguing is the desperation for popularity, that abusers should be chosen by newcomers to be 'friends' simply because the abusers represent the dominant clique in the forum and obviously wield the largest voting bloc when it comes to material published here.

Or maybe more people see holes in your arguments, than not.

And thus all demonstrate their investment in abusive behaviour and their need to ignore it.

You have yet to answer my question about how your categorization of "casual BDSM = abuse" helps those who suffer abuse in long term "loving BDSM" arrangements. You have continually refused to even acknowledge such a thing even exists.

Therefore since ignoring a situation [the dangers of abuse in "casual BDSM" relationships] equates acceptance of abuse, I have no option other than to presume you support abuse in long term "loving BDSM" relationships.

Not a complete waste, CM, considering how easy it was to rip away the carefully-manicured public personae to reveal the monsters that lurk beneath the surface.

I will be sure to warn people of what a monster I am, as I dole out advice to not meet strangers in private, not jump into relationships quickly, and for submissives to demand respect as well as work to become emotionally healthy, strong, whole, independent people before even thinking about this stuff called BDSM.

Much like a muslim appearing on a religious board, announcing his faith in Allah when everyone else is a christian.

Do you have any idea how offensive that is to both of those faiths?

That none of you can handle anyone whose ethics differ from yours is manifest.

That none of you can be civil with someone who does not share your belief is a trademark of the casual community and its advocates.

Thus it becomes the "One True Way".

I was unaware that 100% agreement was necessary to "handle" anyone else's beliefs.

Please provide examples of what you found to be uncivil about my posts, so that I may reflect upon my style of communication and thus learn to communicate more effectively.

And since you ignored my previous request -

I would sincerely appreciate it if you could please help me understand what is unethical about the relationship below:

I think this might be part of where I'm feeling a hiccup. I would sincerely ask you to please help me grasp what is unethical about my current relationship (for example).

We have been seeing one another for almost 3 months now. Neither one of us is married. After dating for a month or so we both decided to stop seeing anyone else (even casually). Prior to that decision, we discussed the fact that there may be other people in our lives, and made sure we each felt okay with that. On our fourth date he asked me if four dates was enough to get a goodnight kiss; I said no. If he was that interested he could wait until I felt comfortable/safe enough with him to be intimate - he was interested enough to wait until I felt comfortable and safe. Neither of us wants to marry or live together. When either of us has an emotional/mental/spiritual/physical "hiccup" - we talk openly and honestly about it. Neither one of us believes in "True Love" "The One" or anything like that. The idea of going to clubs and dungeons and such bores us to tears, so we don't. Fabulously laid back sort of thing, really... we're actually developing one hell of a fabulous friendship.

So from that description, could you please tell me what is unethical about my non-love based D/s relationship?