The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'

[Seurat]

I actually had a somewhat cohesive theory/belief that would have supported some of BLoved's statements. The I was informed of some 'unethical' behavior on the part of somebody I would consider a casual acquaintance (i.e., a person here on the board I have no 'loving' relationship with), , and realize my actions would then be hypocritical. Funny how that worked out.

 

[graceanne]

Dance, monkeys, dance!

You'd think they'd have learned.

Seriously!

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

Oh, lucky, LUCKY us.

 

[Bandit58]

I've avoided commenting in these threads but this time I'll give it a go.

Sir and I have been in a loving BDSM relationship for over 6 years, and married for half that time. This is my first D/s relationship. It is more loving and caring than the 23 year vanilla first marriage I was in.

I'm not a casual player. In the past we have gone to a couple of play parties and to a sub friend's house where she lived with her Dom who was poly.

There was nothing sexual involved in any play that took place. At my friend's house for example I had my first experience of breast bondage and shibari. Sir was there and kept a watchful eye on me the whole time. He has arthritic fingers and is dyslexic so has trouble tying knots. He was happy for me to have this experience at someone else's hands, the Dom was respectful and did not overstep the boundaries even though I was totally nude

I am not comfortable with one night stands. I have had a couple of experiences in the past (with women) and it just left me feeling used. Maybe it is because I'm 51 and have led a relatively sheltered life when it comes to sex. I married my first sexual partner at 19 (big mistake that was!) and since I left him I've had 4 male partners including Sir but several experiences with other women some of which were threesomes. I now have a regular friend I see alone two or three times a month. We've known each other nearly 4 years and she is friends with both of us although nothing sexual takes place between her and Sir I guess you could call this "casual" because it's only off and on and the only relationship she and I have is as good friends

 

[intothewoods]

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



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.

Ok, so casual sex of any kind is unethical, but sex or bdsm within a committed relationship is ok? The reason I ask is that I am wondering how dating falls into this mix. In order to find love, you need to get to know people. Sometimes relationships don't work out after a few weeks, a few months or after a few years. You can fall in and out of love.

Now, let's take sex or bdsm without love. If we have two consenting adults who are engaging in a mutally enjoyable experience, how is that unethical? I don't personally have any desire to sleep with anyone else but my husband at the moment. So I don't. But I know people who are perfectly happy in their lives, and partake in casual sex. As long as I see them behaving in consensual behavior, I fail to see how it's unethical. Is everyone suited to casual sex? No. Those people who do it, and then are filled with shame and self-loathing, should stop. It's not for them.

This reminds me of a debate I recently had with a devout Christian. She belives that men are supposed to be a certain way -- protective, strong, etc., and women are supposed to be another -- gentle, submissive, etc. Essentially, she believes that traditional notions of what it means to be a man and a woman are divined by God. Ok. Everyone is free to believe as they wish. But what I don't understand is that simple observation of a wide sampling of people will tell you that -- divined by God or not -- all men and women don't fit this bill. And in the same way, you, Bloved, must have come across some people who are into casual sex and are happy. Haven't you? I have nothing to gain from this observation. If casual sex always leads to misery, I would happily tell you. It has no bearing on my life. But I just haven't found that to be the case.

Let's take it a step further - while I am the first to caution against (i.e., nag about) what I perceive to be emotionally unhealthy behavior, I don't think it's always unethical. Two consenting adults can participate in unhealthy behavior. And sometimes, some people need to experience a crappy relationship in order to realize what they need in life and go after it. I don't think it's possible to go through life without making some emotionally unhealthy decisions. The question is can you learn from them.

 

[CutieMouse]

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.

I don't do one night stands.

I won't even kiss a man until I've spent enough time with him to understand his character. (this is not an hours, days, handful of conversations sort of decision, BTW.)

I don't believe I am capable of having an intimate relationship without feeling an emotional connection, which is one of the reasons I am not a fan of one night stands (for myself).

Yet you've decided I am the champion of Casual BDSM.

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).

I don't feel an antipathy towards love; I hold it in great respect. I hold it in such high regard, in fact, I I refuse to throw the term around lightly, or believe it is possible to "love" someone without spending a significant amount of time together under both perfect and imperfect conditions. I don't believe one can know if their lover/partner/boyfriend/whatever is "The One" or a "True Love" until months or years have passed... and sometimes not even then.

Again (gods but I feel like a broken record) - every person I have spoken to in "the community" has freely discussed issues of abuse, emotional and physical risks, how to identify abusers, etc.

Again (broken record here!) neither "Love" nor long term relationship dynamics protect one from abuse.

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.

Or maybe instead of being helpless little subbies, people who choose to engage in relationships (BDSM or not) need to accept the responsibility of being an adult and demand honesty and respect. They should also educate themselves re: safety, their needs, their limitations prior to engaging in BDSM activities or relationships. How about instead of blaming "the community" we strive to educate and strengthen submissives and dominants alike, so each individual is capable of standing on their own two feet, recognize unacceptable behavior, and demand better?

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.

Except that many people (myself included) don't bother looking for partners in "the community". We also don't ask for, expect, or utilize the "references" system to ascertain a potential partner's suitability.

The Grand Poobah of all Submissives could tell me Johnny Dom over there is the most fabulous Dominant in the group, and I should trust him because he's just perfect for me... and I wouldn't give her opinion an ounce of weight. What if she thinks the perfect Dominant is a micro-manager (which I hate)? What if her idea of a perfect Dominant lover is someone who is open to being poly (I'm not)? Or someone who loves bondage (yawn)?

It's called personal responsibility. Owning your own shit. Being strong. Using your brain. Trusting your gut. And every time I've seen a "novice" on a BDSM board worry about coming across as "not submissive enough", the response has been how to make wise decisions, and to not worry about "acting submissive".

Ethics plays little if any part in the community.

Which is why there are weekend workshops with classes on the subject, local organizations that discuss personal safety, how to weed out the idiots from the trustworthy, etc...

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.

Again - quite happy for you, and relationships should take priority over websites.

May I ask a few question?

How long the two of you have known one another, in total? Since "intimacy" appears to be the deciding factor for you, how long did you know one another before deciding you were one another's "True Love" and did your relationship avoid intimacy prior to that decision?

I ask because you have publicly stated my current relationship is abusive, since I do not define it as having a foundation in "True Love".

I do not utilize this term for my relationship because we have known one another for 2-3 months, and I do not believe it is possible to know someone well enough to "Love" them within that time frame. So we have a developing friendship. We are learning one another, discovering ways to show our care and respect for one another. Enjoying the journey of finding out what makes one another tick and the various areas of enjoyment that overlap... In fact, I just got back from a 3 day trip with him, in which we held hands, laughed, I met some of his friends, we hunted for cool architecture and art galleries, met locals, listened to music, snuggled, kissed, talked almost non-stop - and never have sex (nor engage in activities that anyone could classify as BDSM). We were in more of a cuddly mood and enjoy one another so much both sexually and non-sexually that the lack of sex didn't even bother us.

It is an intimate relationship that is still to new [IMO] to define as "Love". But I guess since I do things differently from you that's all that's necessary to bump it into the "abusive/unethical" category?

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.

Or maybe there are mature ethical people in the world who have lived long enough to just tell things like they are. And maybe there are people for whom things aren't so black and white as only "casual" or only "True Love".

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

And why are you blaming "the community" instead of worrying about how to make these women (and men) strong, smart, responsible people, capable of telling assholes to buzz off? Where in your tale of woe are those who are novices, yet perfectly capable of declining invitations to play casually, or publicly? What about the ones who aren't active in "the community"?

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.

Wait - it is? Where? I have heard far more discussion about abuse, predators, assholes and domineering men disguising themselves as "dominants" in the last 6 years of BDSM conversations here and elsewhere, than I did in the previous 20 years in the "vanilla" community.

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

When a weak argument is being presented, expect the audience to not take it seriously.

By the way - the above statement isn't to say the discussion of abuse in BDSM, abusers in BDSM, players/wannabes/users in BDSM, or how to spot the above is weak. It is to say that BL's argument is presented in a weak manner, and thus difficult to take seriously.

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?

Anyone who is "desperate" is at risk to be abused. I have been telling women (and men) for years to get their shit together before doing the BDSM thing. I cannot force them to follow my advice.

The competence thing? My current lover doesn't have a hell of a lot of "BDSM" experience, but it's not an issue as A) stereotypical BDSM bores me to tears and B) I'm not part of a "community, nor do I look to anyone else to assess the suitability of my lover. Who gets to judge his "competence"? Oh that's right - I do.

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. [/quote]

Yet I consider those (friendships, working relationships) to all be areas in which intimacy exists, even if it is not of a physical nature. I find holding hands to be intimate... by your rules it would be unethical of me to do so. Is it? If so - why? If not so - why not?

Intimate behavior and emotions are often linked, not just love. I allow myself to have and express any emotion felt re: my relationship, and make a point to discuss them with him as they occur (he does the same), yet we don't describe our relationship as "Love". We like each other a hell of a lot, and have discussed that, there is a lot of compassion, care, concern, support, respect, etc - so what exactly is unethical, abusive and emotionally unhealthy here?

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".

Mmmm... no.

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

Again - don't bother with them and personally find "recommendations" to be bullshit. I'm also not likely to do such a thing.

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

Not applicable to my situation, yet you still lump me into the unethical, casual BDSM crowd...

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

Because sometimes, believe it or not, there are assholes out there who will say "Here, let me teach you. Lets explore this together... We are true soul mates and anyone else won't understand you the way *I* do..." and end up being abusive.

"Learn together, safely" is not an automatic pass to abuse-free land. And what if the Dominant in question doesn't know what he's doing? What if the couple wants to explore something that can't be safely learned from a book or a website? I'm not saying the submissive should get handed over to some random stranger, but what happens? Or say either one doesn't know what are or aren't interested in - how do you propose they find out? And if they do find out, what happens if interests are vastly mismatched? Does Love fix that too?

 

[eastern sun]

Let's take it a step further - while I am the first to caution against (i.e., nag about) what I perceive to be emotionally unhealthy behavior, I don't think it's always unethical. Two consenting adults can participate in unhealthy behavior. And sometimes, some people need to experience a crappy relationship in order to realize what they need in life and go after it. I don't think it's possible to go through life without making some emotionally unhealthy decisions. The question is can you learn from them.

I've always loved the questions you ask, and I'm genuinely interested in this question: Is it unethical to engage in "unhealthy" behavior?

I had to look up "ethical," because I'd lost sight of what it meant in the midst of this discussion.

"ethical" - of or relating to moral principles; morally correct

Then I had to look up "moral," because I couldn't remember what it meant either.

"moral" - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character; concerned with or adhering to the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society; holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct

I've certainly seen unhealthy manifestations of morality. And how do we determine when our moral principles have become unhealthy when they provide the yardstick we use to judge others? (Look at the Taliban. They certainly believe in the "rightness" of their views.)

And is unhealthy behavior inherently unethical? I have to admit, I'm inclined to say "yes," but I'm not sure why.

If everyone who exhibits unhealthy behavior fails to meet the standard for ethical behavior, we are all lost.

 

[eastern sun]

You'd think they'd have learned.

I claim my right to do whatever I want!

(Wow that's what it feels like, hunh?)

 

[warrior queen]

by what BLoved has attempted to explain as the basis for abusive casual BDSM encounters, i too am a victim.

we are in a long-term relationship, but because we incorporate some BDSM practices into our sex life only some of the time, and because we have yet to decide - even after a few years - whether or not this is 'TRUE LOVE', that puts us into the 'casual' category.
we also engage in casual encounters (threesomes, etc.) where sometimes BDSM is a big part of the individual sexual experience.
and casual sex and BDSM, as defined by BLoved, is abusive.
(assuming there is little distinction between 'casual' as it referred to one-night stands, and 'casual' as in only occasionally or very rarely.)

so i guess i'm being abused.
but only sometimes.

 

[intothewoods]

I've always loved the questions you ask, and I'm genuinely interested in this question: Is it unethical to engage in "unhealthy" behavior?

I had to look up "ethical," because I'd lost sight of what it meant in the midst of this discussion.

"ethical" - of or relating to moral principles; morally correct

Then I had to look up "moral," because I couldn't remember what it meant either.

"moral" - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character; concerned with or adhering to the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society; holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct

I've certainly seen unhealthy manifestations of morality. And how do we determine when our moral principles have become unhealthy when they provide the yardstick we use to judge others? (Look at the Taliban. They certainly believe in the "rightness" of their views.)

And is unhealthy behavior inherently unethical? I have to admit, I'm inclined to say "yes," but I'm not sure why.

If everyone who exhibits unhealthy behavior fails to meet the standard for ethical behavior, we are all lost.

Funny, I was thinking about looking it up myself. It's an interesting question. Maybe an unhealthy relationship is unethical, and we all behave unethically at times.

I'm pondering the unintended consequences of unhealthy relationships.

 

[Keroin]

I'm pondering the unintended consequences of unhealthy relationships.

http://visualtherapy.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/hybrid-animals-hybrid-ani-007.jpg

This?

 

[rida]

(I'm re-posting from the other thread - new comments at the bottom)

Public Play and Casual BDSM play: breading ground for Emotional Abuse?

When I used the expression Casual BDSM with my Sadist, during our preliminary e-mail exchange, he pointed out that "casual" in relation to BDSM relationships is somewhat a misnomer. When we are talking "relationship", whether it is vanilla or BDSM, same sex, monogamous, poly or open, the point is that they are relationship and they all need the same things to success: communication, honesty and the balls to take responsibilities for your own actions and emotions.

Emotional abuse can happen in any relationship. I personally do not see BDSM as a factor that automatically increases the odds of it.

So I'm going to focus on causal play, or what can be called bottoming or Topping outside of an established relationship.

I'm sure there are plenty of Doms and wannabes that are dieing to put their hands on any willing female body. But at the same times, there plenty of subs and wannabes that are eager to be that willing body. Personally, I do not see any problem in it. It is the same as in any vanilla situation where you have men looking to hook up with any willing woman and woman ready for it.
The risk of emotional abuse come, in both situation from misplaced expectations and deceit, not at all prerogative of the BDSM world.

As for physical safety, I'd think that public play in a well run public space is going to be safer than going off for a one night stand with a guy that picked you up in a bar. I confess I've not been in any US dungeon or play space, but if my local experiences are any indication, I'm sure they are.

However nobody can prevent a sub from falling for the wrong Dom/Top/Wannabe due to the endorphins released from play. Same as nobody can prevent a woman to develop a chemical bonding and a crush on a man that fucks her (disclaimer: it does not happen to each and every woman, but it can happen, and it did happen to me). And if the Dom/Top is indeed a wannabe, the sub is going to end up emotionally hurt.

Predators, the dangerous kind (highly verbal, charismatic, able to discuss and dissect and easily confuse people, often the first to insist on all the right buzz-words that lowers a sub's defenses) are a risk whether vanilla or kinky.
Personally I believe that they would go for a relationship rather then casual BDSM play. In that way they can groom their victim, make her trust them, before closing on on her with the most devastating consequences.

So what about Love?

If there was an easy answer, the music industry and many other entertainment ones would go out of business.
Smart assed answer aside, where does love fit in BDSM seems to be a question that many a novices ask themselves.

For ease of discussion, there seems to be two broad group of people: the one that view BDSM relationship as impossible in case of Love as they view love as reciprocal and PYL/pyl as not, and the ones that without love cannot have any relationship and as such Love is a must in their PYL/pyl arrangement.

It is a question of personal needs, boundaries and choices. There is no inherent "better" or "true". It is what works for each individual. Problem arises when the two sides of the relationship have different views and goals. But this is true for any human interaction, not specific to PYL/pyl.

Casual 'BDSM'
*snip*

With the premise than anything but True Love based relationship are unethical, and the definition of True Love is something that never abuses and abuse is everything but True Love, we can only say that until "death does you apart", you cannot know whether your relationship was True Love and as such ethical or not.

If the measure of it is its eternal longevity, only the end will tell. And until the end, do you suspend judgment or call it unethical?

 

[CutieMouse]

I'm pondering the unintended consequences of unhealthy relationships.

I was thinking a little about this earlier...

Sometimes the unintended consequence is an experience that teaches you what you DO want and need in a healthy relationship.

My marriage wasn't a healthy relationship, but it taught me a lot; every attempt I've made at relationships since then (healthy or not) has taught me something.

And all of those lessons got squished together into life-skills I've used to date, meet people, and learn to invite wonderful people into my life - and un-invite the not so wonderful ones.

So thinking about it, I'm not totally convinced that it's all that fabulous to only have perfect "abuse free" relationships...

 

[rida]

I've always loved the questions you ask, and I'm genuinely interested in this question: Is it unethical to engage in "unhealthy" behavior?

I had to look up "ethical," because I'd lost sight of what it meant in the midst of this discussion.

"ethical" - of or relating to moral principles; morally correct

Then I had to look up "moral," because I couldn't remember what it meant either.

"moral" - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character; concerned with or adhering to the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society; holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct

I've certainly seen unhealthy manifestations of morality. And how do we determine when our moral principles have become unhealthy when they provide the yardstick we use to judge others? (Look at the Taliban. They certainly believe in the "rightness" of their views.)

And is unhealthy behavior inherently unethical? I have to admit, I'm inclined to say "yes," but I'm not sure why.

If everyone who exhibits unhealthy behavior fails to meet the standard for ethical behavior, we are all lost.

Ethical/unethical; moral/amoral as used in daily speech, are concept that refer to outsider defined values, as Eastern-Sun defined above.

Healthy/Unhealthy has more, for me, of a internally defined connotation. Some elements of a relationship can be unhealthy for someone but not for someone else.

(As an aside, Ethics, as a branch of Philosophy, is the study of the rational and objective reasons that make actions inherently good or bad. )

I'm pondering the unintended consequences of unhealthy relationships.

From lessons learned to crushed soul.

 

[Homburg]

Dance, monkeys, dance!

It makes me happy to see this.

--

I've always loved the questions you ask, and I'm genuinely interested in this question: Is it unethical to engage in "unhealthy" behavior?

I had to look up "ethical," because I'd lost sight of what it meant in the midst of this discussion.

"ethical" - of or relating to moral principles; morally correct

Then I had to look up "moral," because I couldn't remember what it meant either.

"moral" - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character; concerned with or adhering to the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society; holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct

Thousands upon thousands of books have been written on morals and ethics. They are different concepts, yet are exceedingly difficult to define independently.

Morals tend to roll back to some sort of religious belief more often than not. Ethics are somewhat more humanist, and are related to such concepts as the "greater good". Bentham did some really interesting work on mathematical ethics, where he broke ethical questions down mathematically to come up with answers. It was a neat system that focused on maximising 'good' and minimising 'evil', or, more to the point, more 'happy' and less 'sad/angry'.

Unhealthy actions can be perfectly ethical so long as they are internally consistent. Ethics, unlike morals, is much more individual. An unhealthy relationship can be seen as immoral very easily, whereas calling it unethical might be more difficult. Simply put, if it only harms yourself, it is difficult to call it unethical, as the happy/sad thing may well be balanced for you. The godawful bad moments may be countered with shiny happy ones at other times, yet the overall effect is still unhealthy. Well, if they are truly balanced, and it is affecting no one but yourself, it is not unethical per se.

--

And, as an aside, the whole "Love is not abuse, thus your relationship was not love" post was a great example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It goes something like this:

Person A: Scotsmen don't put sugar on their porridge.
Person B: Angus MacDougal puts sugar on his porridge.
Person A: Well, no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, so Angus is not a TRUE Scotsman. So my statement stands.
Person B: You're a dipshit. You know that, right?

Person B is obviously the correct party here.

 

[FurryFury]

It's funny. The abuses I've suffered didn't occur due to casual anything. They were always private one on one abuses, usually by someone I trusted. This had nothing to do with BDSM however.

Hmm . . .

 

[chy_girl]

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?

Because a responsible Dom/me isn't just going to light their subbie on fire because they've seen it a few times. It involves learning the tricks and assisting someone who is experienced. The same as suspension. And needle play. And a half dozen different things. Not to mention that every Dom/me I've met in the local community don't do anything to another that they haven't tried themselves. And that even goes for something as basic as a new flogger. But by your definition, the responsible Dom/me who wished to learn a new area of play wouldn't be able to unless they stepped outside of "true BDSM".

Hearing you talk makes me wonder exactly what your local community is like. You keep referencing abuse of noobies, and "abuse" not being reportable in the community if the person is established... how the community is full of predators waiting for the new blood. That is SO not how my local community works.

Everyone watches everyone and if there's an issue with someone's behavior (top or bottom) then it gets addressed. Hell, one of the first questions I asked was about predators in the community. The answer I recieved was this: very rarely do we get one and as soon as there is enough evidence the Doms get together and and "uninvite" them to functions and play dates. The word is passed and people don't play with them. If someone is hurt in a criminal sort of way, then the victim has the choice of filing charges, but we police our own. And this came from no less than 7 people, two of which are my Mistress and Sir who I trust with my life. And subs are strongly encouraged to not only make friends with each other, but to network... hence the subbie/slave support group.

I'm sorry that you've had such a poor experience with your local community and it sucks that there are people who don't acknowledge the importance of not breaking the toys... but that's not how it works everywhere.

 

[Soumis]

sleeeepy brain, so pardon my grammar

I'm probably going to come off as naive and silly, but c'est la vie.

I'm not really sure why there is a need to call casual play ethical or unethical. Especially here, where most people are practitioners on one level or another. Obviously we decided it meshed with our ethics well enough to continue on our journeys. I see it as a potato/potato thing. For some people bdsm is a rare indulgence, for others a steady routine, neither is wrong provided it's meeting the needs of the relationship and those involved.

To speak to casual bdsm specifically, I have found the casual community meets my needs for the moment. Even when I have been in more serious relationships I have enjoyed the casual community. Mostly because it is in fact a community: a place to learn from others, a place to share your experiences, a place of discussion without fear of judgment, a place to find acceptance, a place where you can watch vanilla movies while making inappropriate bondage jokes, a place to find welcome when you're new to the area, a place to explore new techniques with an excessive number of helpers if you get in a bind, a haven.

I like to think of the casual community like a village. There's craftsmen, rope junkies, stable owners, inn keepers, and old wise folks. Are there vagrant people who were just passing through the groups for a "quick fix?" Of course, but a village also defends the sheep against poachers, provides rules for safe governance, and polices accordingly.

Am I romanticizing it a bit? My glass may be on the half full side, but nothing I've said hasn't held true in the years I've been involved in public groups.

For example, when I first moved back to Dallas and started looking into new groups and attending munches I found a group that matched my vibe and eventually attended a play party. Referencing the community aspect from earlier, I've found most public parties are places to socialize, to exchange the village gossip, and show off new toys. Fewer than 25% of any given attendance participates in public activity. More often than not, people are congregated around food, and seating, and comfort, not scenes.

I was nervous about going, but it was generic social anxiety nervous (which can turn delicious in the right bdsm context on a side note), not - oh dear the Doms are going to attack me and something unseemly and unconsensual is going to happen - nervous. I had zero intentions of playing and with that understanding no one asked. I said I'm here just to get to know people, the group, and it was left alone.

Late in the evening a Dom who I knew from a previous group in this small state of Texas noticed me and we started talking. When the conversation got more in depth than pleasantries and I began to get uncomfortable the village folk, who I had only begun to get to know, stepped in to diffuse the tension. I've no idea what tipped them off to my unease, but there was no drama, no heroics, just a friendly addition or two to the conversation that made it clear that while I was there alone, I wasn't unobserved. I didn't so much as go to the bathroom the rest of the night without someone from the group inviting themselves along. When I left for the evening it was with a borderline absurd escort to my car and multiple safe call numbers from people in the group.

I'm sure someone can make the argument that without the casual community he would have not had an opportunity to prowl. I think of it as, without the casual community, I would have met him without someone at my back.

The casual bdsm community has definitely given me far more than it has taken.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

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?

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

I wouldn't even trust a recommendation like that.

We'd have to see with our own eyes, and make a judgement call on that person's skill.

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

And how are you going to learn some of these skills without some outside instruction? A few pictures and instructions on the internet are not enough.

What if the above mentioned situation included an instructional for the domly type? The realistic way to see it in action and learn it is *on* someone.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

But by your definition, the responsible Dom/me who wished to learn a new area of play wouldn't be able to unless they stepped outside of "true BDSM".

But chy, if you love your person, it'll work out just fine. Because you love them. And love is not abusive. Love knows all and forgives all. Even those shocking scars, and broken bones.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

I had to look up "ethical," because I'd lost sight of what it meant in the midst of this discussion.

"ethical" - of or relating to moral principles; morally correct

Then I had to look up "moral," because I couldn't remember what it meant either.

"moral" - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character; concerned with or adhering to the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society; holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct

That point "concerned with or adhering to the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society" is key.

As people/societies are entitled to their own set of ethics/morality that differ from the next society, then where is the justification for an outside party to state that those ethics are wrong?

Does the bdsm community have a different set of morals than other societies?

If so, is this whole argument null and void because these casual relationships and non love based play dates do meet the ethics of the community?

If that's a yes, then really, if you don't like it, then you don't be a part of it. But you also don't have the right to claim the other party is wrong. You only get to claim that you don't agree with it.

 

[Homburg]

For example, when I first moved back to Dallas and started looking into new groups and attending munches I found a group that matched my vibe and eventually attended a play party. Referencing the community aspect from earlier, I've found most public parties are places to socialize, to exchange the village gossip, and show off new toys. Fewer than 25% of any given attendance participates in public activity. More often than not, people are congregated around food, and seating, and comfort, not scenes.

Stop trying to inject reality into this. It's unethical.

...

 

[00Syd]

I would love to write a big long paragraph about my personal experiences within the scene, my very loving relationship, my experiences at parties, events, classes, my experiences playing with and having sex with people outside of my primary relationship, etc, as examples of why this fellow is completely wrong in his assumptions about the BDSM community... but I won't.

I know that I am not in any way abused in my relationship, and I know that my relationship is not at all unethical, and I couldn't give two shits whether or not this guy on the internet agrees.



I am, however, starting to think that his definition of abuse is different than ours, so I'm curious to know how exactly he would define abuse, and in more detail than just "abuse is a relationship without love" or something equally as meaningless, I want a concrete definition of what constitutes abuse for BL.

 

[chy_girl]

But chy, if you love your person, it'll work out just fine. Because you love them. And love is not abusive. Love knows all and forgives all. Even those shocking scars, and broken bones.

Again, love is all fine and dandy till someone ends up in the burn unit because their PYL was a little too arrogant for their own good and "it sounded easy enough."

Call me unethical, but just because I love someone doesn't mean I trust them with rubbing alcohol and a lighter. Or a hand full of needles. Or a brand. Hell, now that I think about it, I'd trust the inexperienced with flash cotton and a sparkler before I'd trust them to use St. Bartholomew on me...

Yeah, love has little to do with whether someone's experienced enough for the more dangerous kinds of play.

 

[Soumis]

Stop trying to inject reality into this. It's unethical.

...

Heretic! The world is flat I say!


As to what I posted above, I was tired and didn't quite finish the tie to this conversation: that was the single most "predatory" situation I've ever been in with relation to the public scene. And whether it was due to my own fierceness *cough* or the support of others it was very much a non-incident.

 

[Etoile]

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.

Thanks for explaining. I think the problem I have with your definition is that while most of the people I know practice BDSM without love, it is not BDSM without caring. There is a whole lot of play that goes on in the gay leather community, and one need not assume that play partners love each other. But neither are they anti-love: they are simply engaging in kink (which, as you say, may or may not include sex) with people they do not consider their primary partners.

The other problem I have is your assumption that this is a "community" as if there was a group of people who act this way. You refer to "the casual community" repeatedly but I have never seen any evidence in more than 10 years of BDSM involvement that what you define as a "community" really exists. There are definitely individuals who practice what you describe, but the idea that there is this "community" out there is flawed, IMO. I have never seen such a community, which to me calls your whole concept into suspicion.

Put it this way: you are 100% sure that these people exist and are evil. I'm not 100% sure they exist, and even if they did, I wouldn't consider them evil.