The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'

[BLoved]

From Weakness:

[hijack]

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.

(Posted publicly as BL apparently has PMs turned off.)

[/hijack]

As CM herself has admitted, her effort (Debating a Few Philosophies of BDSM - Love, Kink, Lust, Etc) to engage anyone with an opposing view was a failure, and since I've removed all of my writing contributions as it would appear they were just too much of a distraction for anyone to discuss anything else, perhaps now she will demonstrate her sincere and serious desire to participate in a real "discussion" on the subject of ethics.

Thus far, advocates of casual 'bdsm' have demonstrated an overwhelming need to shout down all opposing points of view. Wherever they dominate an online discussion board, here and on other sites, all those whose views oppose casual 'bdsm' are chased off. By examining a considerable number of these encounters it is clear advocates of casual 'bdsm' revert to a form of behaviour reminiscent of school-yard bullies, bereft of content but lots of static.

I consider this a demonstration of the degree of immaturity required to advocate casual 'bdsm'.

Clearly, over and over, the message is made: "I want what I want and I'll do whatever it takes to get it."

You see this in the discussion forums whenever they face serious opposition.

You see this whenever you look over the vast number of male dom personal advertisements on any site where personals exist.

You see this in the ubiquitous complaints made by many female submissives regarding form letters and men who do not bother to read their ads.

You hear this whenever you talk to the submissives victimized by casual players.

Clearly it is part of the casual 'bdsm' paradigm to use deceit, subterfuge, bullying, and any other tactic they believe will get them what they want, without concern or consideration for anyone else.

Dog-eat-dog.

Used or be used.

Concepts such as "consent", "competence", "responsibility", "commitment" and "maturity" are meaningless in the casual community.

The only 'ethic' is "do whatever it takes to get what you want".

In what way does this distinguish casual 'bdsm' from date rape, assault, forcible confinement, abuse and other forms of predatory behaviour?

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

From Weakness:



As CM herself has admitted, her effort (Debating a Few Philosophies of BDSM - Love, Kink, Lust, Etc) to engage anyone with an opposing view was a failure, and since I've removed all of my writing contributions as it would appear they were just too much of a distraction for anyone to discuss anything else, perhaps now she will demonstrate her sincere and serious desire to participate in a real "discussion" on the subject of ethics.

Thus far, advocates of casual 'bdsm' have demonstrated an overwhelming need to shout down all opposing points of view. Wherever they dominate an online discussion board, here and on other sites, all those whose views oppose casual 'bdsm' are chased off. By examining a considerable number of these encounters it is clear advocates of casual 'bdsm' revert to a form of behaviour reminiscent of school-yard bullies, bereft of content but lots of static.

I consider this a demonstration of the degree of immaturity required to advocate casual 'bdsm'.

Clearly, over and over, the message is made: "I want what I want and I'll do whatever it takes to get it."

You see this in the discussion forums whenever they face serious opposition.

You see this whenever you look over the vast number of male dom personal advertisements on any site where personals exist.

You see this in the ubiquitous complaints made by many female submissives regarding form letters and men who do not bother to read their ads.

You hear this whenever you talk to the submissives victimized by casual players.

Clearly it is part of the casual 'bdsm' paradigm to use deceit, subterfuge, bullying, and any other tactic they believe will get them what they want, without concern or consideration for anyone else.

Dog-eat-dog.

Used or be used.

Concepts such as "consent", "competence", "responsibility", "commitment" and "maturity" are meaningless in the casual community.

The only 'ethic' is "do whatever it takes to get what you want".

In what way does this distinguish casual 'bdsm' from date rape, assault, forcible confinement, abuse and other forms of predatory behaviour?

I just think (irregardless of anything else said) that it's hard to find anyone who would have argued this opposing viewpoint simply because they have not had any of the experiences that you're claiming are rife.

It's hard to raise a point of view you don't see, and thus have a solid knowledge or opinion on.


The only thing I can think of, popped into mind when you talked about the male dom personals. A lot of those people are not actually dominant. They either think they are, or they think that slapping a girl and getting head when you want it is easier than actually putting any effort into a relationship.

And it seems, to me, that you're lumping those unfortunates in with the casual community, and tarring the community unnecessarily.

A lot of your points *could* be raised against those people. But they're just players, not casual bdsm players.

They're different things.

And that's where the bdsm community comes to the fore. Because people become *aware* of these individuals. And they make sure these people get educated or gtfo before they cause any damage to anyone.

 

[the captians wench]

Okay, I did not participate or even read the other thread, but comments about it made me curious when I saw this one pop up.

I just want to point out that I have been "victimized" by both casual players and with in relationships. In Fact, the one that I was hurt most by (both physical and mental scars) was with in a relationship.

I personally don't see casual BDSM as any different than casual sex. I don't see any problems with either as long as both parties know exactly what they are getting into. When I was looking for casual play, the problem I faced most often was that the other person would make promises and proposals for a deeper relationship, when in fact that wasn't their intention. This always confused me as I was always clear I was not interested in anything more than a little fun.

 

[chy_girl]

Clearly it is part of the casual 'bdsm' paradigm to use deceit, subterfuge, bullying, and any other tactic they believe will get them what they want, without concern or consideration for anyone else.

Dog-eat-dog.

Used or be used.

Concepts such as "consent", "competence", "responsibility", "commitment" and "maturity" are meaningless in the casual community.

The only 'ethic' is "do whatever it takes to get what you want".

In what way does this distinguish casual 'bdsm' from date rape, assault, forcible confinement, abuse and other forms of predatory behaviour?

Would you please define "casual BDSM"?

 

[unregistered]

 

[intothewoods]

Would you please define "casual BDSM"?

That would be helpful.

Are we discussing the ethics of casual relationships versus long term, comitted relationships? Is the premise that any casual relationship is unethical?

 

[CutieMouse]

That would be helpful.

Are we discussing the ethics of casual relationships versus long term, comitted relationships? Is the premise that any casual relationship is unethical?

The best I've been able to discern is that in his opinion any relationship that isn't defined by/based upon "True Love" (as defined by BL) is unethical, wrong, abusive, etc.

 

[chy_girl]

Yes, this.

Much of these statements or accusations targeted at "casual BDSM practitioners" can be generalized to any casual sexual relationship.
*snip*

Personally, I'd like to know if he's discussing BDSM and sex as one in the same. Although factors of BDSM can be very sexual BDSM doesn't have to be synonymous with sex.

It isn't uncommon for one PYL(1) to "loan" their ply to PYL(2) because PYL(2) has specialized knowledge in certain types of play the the ply wishes to try. I've seen this numerous times and there was no sex involved between PYL(2) and the pyl.

Frankly, I think it's a sign of maturity and responsibility if a PYL says "You know, this is something you want to try and I'd love to see it done on you but I simply don't have the training to do this safely. Lets go talk to this friend and see if they'd be willing or could recommend someone who is..."

The best I've been able to discern is that in his opinion any relationship that isn't defined by/based upon "True Love" (as defined by BL) is unethical, wrong, abusive, etc.

From what I've read, you are probably correct. Either way he needs to spell it out... Casual BDSM is:

This edging around what he's trying to say and refusing to just say it but still getting offended and worked up is what's causing all the damned problems. If he's ready to discuss it and have an actual discussion about, he needs to start spelling shit out. We're not mind readers.

 

[eastern sun]

Concepts such as "consent", "competence", "responsibility", "commitment" and "maturity" are meaningless in the casual community.

The only 'ethic' is "do whatever it takes to get what you want".

In what way does this distinguish casual 'bdsm' from date rape, assault, forcible confinement, abuse and other forms of predatory behaviour?

I am also curious how you define "casual 'bdsm'."

I have been in a loving relationship for 25 years. I have participated in public events with him. And I have engaged in various acts with people other than him in private settings - perhaps "casually," the equivalent of one-night stands - though I frequently met with them regularly and felt genuine affection, respect and "love." I have also participated on this discussion board and others, making friends, and meeting a few people, for both sexual and non-sexual purposes.

Which part of my experience is relevant to this argument?

 

[Primalex]

Dance, monkeys, dance!

 

[rosco rathbone]

Dance, monkeys, dance!

You'd think they'd have learned.

 

[Netzach]

Is it in bad taste to love your new av, sig, look etc?

 

[rosco rathbone]

Is it in bad taste to love your new av, sig, look etc?

Not at all. Perfectly expresses a gut feeling, doesn't it?

 

[BLoved]

Casual 'BDSM'

Any relationship, no matter how brief (such as a one-night stand) wherein it is expected that an individual will engage in intimate (bdsm with or without sexual) behaviour without love.

It is based on the premise that healthy mature adults can engage in intimate behaviour without intimate emotional bonding. It requires one to believe that a healthy mature adult is capable of compartmentalizing emotions from behaviour and remain emotionally healthy.

It is readily recognized by its antipathy towards love, those who are victimized by the casual community, novices in general, and its inability to discuss its own short-comings. A degree of fanaticism attends its defense, an insistence that whatever anyone calls "bdsm", we must all respect said definition (otherwise we are free to judge what is and is not "bdsm" and questions about the abusiveness of casual players will bring into question the casual paradigm).

Ethical considerations like honesty and personal responsibility play little if any role in casual 'bdsm', as the transcience of the relationships, the lack of commitment, and the ease with which partners are replaced precludes any requirement for ethical behaviour.

Couple this with the casual community's reliance on reputation and considering that the reputation of a novice (assuming said novice wished to complain to the community) compared to that of an established individual means little or nothing, established individuals within the community are immune to the consequences of abusing novices.

Ethics plays little if any part in the community.

As for those less patient, I am now in the third week of my life together with my beloved. Our relationship takes priority over everything, including this forum.

 

[BLoved]

The only thing I can think of, popped into mind when you talked about the male dom personals. A lot of those people are not actually dominant. They either think they are, or they think that slapping a girl and getting head when you want it is easier than actually putting any effort into a relationship.

And it seems, to me, that you're lumping those unfortunates in with the casual community, and tarring the community unnecessarily.

A lot of your points *could* be raised against those people. But they're just players, not casual bdsm players.

They're different things.

And that's where the bdsm community comes to the fore. Because people become *aware* of these individuals. And they make sure these people get educated or gtfo before they cause any damage to anyone.

Your insistence these are not casual 'bdsm' players denies them the same right you claim for yourself: to define 'bdsm' any way you wish.

They consider themselves casual 'bdsm' players. By your own standard, that is what they must be.

 

[BLoved]

Okay, I did not participate or even read the other thread, but comments about it made me curious when I saw this one pop up.

I just want to point out that I have been "victimized" by both casual players and with in relationships. In Fact, the one that I was hurt most by (both physical and mental scars) was with in a relationship.

Love is not abusive.

If it was abusive, it was not love.

If it was not love, it was casual.

A casual relationship does not require all participants to agree. All it takes is deceit from one of the participants.

I personally don't see casual BDSM as any different than casual sex. I don't see any problems with either as long as both parties know exactly what they are getting into.

And how likely are novices going to be in such a position, and how often are they encouraged to trust the casual 'bdsm' community?

 

[BLoved]

Yes, this.

Much of these statements or accusations targeted at "casual BDSM practitioners" can be generalized to any casual sexual relationship. By the way, vanilla people hurt each other, too. All the damn time.

Agreed.

But in the vanilla community discussions on abuse and predators are much more open than they are when said discussions involve advocates of the casual 'bdsm' community.

Abuse within the vanilla community is amply discussed.

Abuse within the casual 'bdsm' community, almost never without the discussion being disrupted.

As for the personal ad bit, one doesn't have to be searching for a dominant or PYL to receive ridiculous responses from those who clearly haven't bothered to read their personal ad.

Agreed.

So what can be said when these desperate individuals are abused by the casual 'bdsm' community?

The community isn't too concerned about competence when it comes to consent?

 

[infinity706]

Casual 'BDSM'

Any relationship, no matter how brief (such as a one-night stand) wherein it is expected that an individual will engage in intimate (bdsm with or without sexual) behaviour without love.

It is based on the premise that healthy mature adults can engage in intimate behaviour without intimate emotional bonding. It requires one to believe that a healthy mature adult is capable of compartmentalizing emotions from behaviour and remain emotionally healthy.

It is readily recognized by its antipathy towards love, those who are victimized by the casual community, novices in general, and its inability to discuss its own short-comings. A degree of fanaticism attends its defense, an insistence that whatever anyone calls "bdsm", we must all respect said definition (otherwise we are free to judge what is and is not "bdsm" and questions about the abusiveness of casual players will bring into question the casual paradigm).

Ethical considerations like honesty and personal responsibility play little if any role in casual 'bdsm', as the transcience of the relationships, the lack of commitment, and the ease with which partners are replaced precludes any requirement for ethical behaviour.

Couple this with the casual community's reliance on reputation and considering that the reputation of a novice (assuming said novice wished to complain to the community) compared to that of an established individual means little or nothing, established individuals within the community are immune to the consequences of abusing novices.

Ethics plays little if any part in the community.

As for those less patient, I am now in the third week of my life together with my beloved. Our relationship takes priority over everything, including this forum.

So, basically our definition will pretty much come down to casual sex or bdsm = abuse. Yes, there are unethical people that practice casual bdsm, but there are unethical people in every field. There are others, though, that take great care to be open and honest with all their partners. It's also well worth someone's while to treat even casual partners well. Even though you're not 'in a relationship,' being a high quality partner can certainly win you more contacts through recommendations of those you worked hard to satisfy. Seriously, being a good partner counts just as much in casual sex as it does in relationships. It's just a commitment to being a quality friend and partner to many rather than one exclusively. It's not like everyone in the casual community replaces their partners at all. I've had some of mine for years and I have partners that have had some of theirs since before I was born.

It also doesn't exclude love (or emotion). It just means you have to change the definition of love to include loving many different people at once. If you have 5 children, you can love them all, right? Why can't the same apply to your sex/play partners?

 

[BLoved]

Are we discussing the ethics of casual relationships versus long term, comitted relationships?

Without trying to prejudice responses, I suspect that is what this discussion will boil down to.

Is the premise that any casual relationship is unethical?

No. Friendships, working relationships etc that do not include an intimate component are not included in my definition.

I am only speaking of relationships where intimate behaviour (bdsm with or without sex) is involved without a committed, intimate, emotional relationship based on love.

It is my understanding that intimate behaviour and love are linked, and that to deny one in the presence of the other is emotionally unhealthy.

 

[BLoved]

It isn't uncommon for one PYL(1) to "loan" their ply to PYL(2) because PYL(2) has specialized knowledge in certain types of play the the ply wishes to try. I've seen this numerous times and there was no sex involved between PYL(2) and the pyl.

Frankly, I think it's a sign of maturity and responsibility if a PYL says "You know, this is something you want to try and I'd love to see it done on you but I simply don't have the training to do this safely. Lets go talk to this friend and see if they'd be willing or could recommend someone who is..."

An example of the belief that intimate behaviour can be compartmentalized from intimate emotions.

Any stranger will do as long as he says "I know how to do X".

Why would any domly type risk the well-being of his or her beloved submissive with a stranger based on a recommendation?

Why would any submissive of such a domly type feel their well-being was important to his or her domly type?

Why not learn together, safely, and cut out the middle-man?

 

[BLoved]

I am also curious how you define "casual 'bdsm'."

I have been in a loving relationship for 25 years. I have participated in public events with him. And I have engaged in various acts with people other than him in private settings - perhaps "casually," the equivalent of one-night stands - though I frequently met with them regularly and felt genuine affection, respect and "love." I have also participated on this discussion board and others, making friends, and meeting a few people, for both sexual and non-sexual purposes.

Which part of my experience is relevant to this argument?

All of it.

In what way did you assess the competence, health risks and emotional/psychological risks of those with whom you shared one-night stands?

 

[BLoved]

That's all for now. I'll be back.

 

[infinity706]

An example of the belief that intimate behaviour can be compartmentalized from intimate emotions.

Any stranger will do as long as he says "I know how to do X".

Why would any domly type risk the well-being of his or her beloved submissive with a stranger based on a recommendation?

Why would any submissive of such a domly type feel their well-being was important to his or her domly type?

Why not learn together, safely, and cut out the middle-man?

It's not so much just some random stranger making a claim. It usually comes from a recommendation made by someone that's trusted.

All of it.

In what way did you assess the competence, health risks and emotional risks of those with whom you shared one-night stands?

Having a one night stand doesn't always mean that you didn't know the person in advance. It just means you only played with them/had sex with them once. You can even have one night stands with friends and remain friends afterward. Not everyone considers sex an exclusive thing to monogamous relationships.

 

[the captians wench]

Love is not abusive.

If it was abusive, it was not love.

If it was not love, it was casual.

A casual relationship does not require all participants to agree. All it takes is deceit from one of the participants.



And how likely are novices going to be in such a position, and how often are they encouraged to trust the casual 'bdsm' community?

Oh, so when I spent the night locked in the bathroom afraid that my husband/high school sweetheart was going to beat the shit out of me in a non fun way, that showed me that after 9 years we were never in a loving relationship it was all just casual.

I call Bull shit.

I have never heard any one tell any one to trust the "casual bdsm community". Shit when I got involved in this I was told "don't trust anyone" more often than not.

And your argument could be put to use in a description of those who have not experienced anything sexual in the first place. And how many of them stick to the "wait until you're in love?" And how many young teen guys tell girls they love them to bed them?

I actually thought both of your thread titles held potential for great topics, but you have a bit too much prejudice in your tone for my interest.

Good day to you.

 

[eastern sun]

In what way did you assess the competence, health risks and emotional/psychological risks of those with whom you shared one-night stands?

I spoke to the people I was involved with. I watched them interact with others. And then, at a certain point, I took a risk.

I won't argue that it isn't risky to engage in bdsm activities and/or have sex with someone you don't know well. It is. That is precisely why it needs to be discussed.

But, practically everything of interest in my life has included a certain degree of risk. And I imagine your search for Love included a certain degree of risk-taking, as well.

How did you communicate your competence to your beloved? How did you evaluate the physical, emotional and psychological risks in your coming together?