The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'

[eastern sun]

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.

There was a guy in Pennsylvania who electrocuted his wife during loving play.

news report

I may be romanticizing the situation . . . but I would bet that he loved her, and felt awful when things didn't go as planned.

 

[Etoile]

There was a guy in Pennsylvania who electrocuted his wife during loving play.

news report

I may be romanticizing the situation . . . but I would bet that he loved her, and felt awful when things didn't go as planned.

Fucking idiot. Don't mess with electroplay. If you're into electro, buy a violet wand. If you can't afford one, wait until you can, don't fuck around.

 

[graceanne]

Fucking idiot. Don't mess with electroplay. If you're into electro, buy a violet wand. If you can't afford one, wait until you can, don't fuck around.

QFT..

 

[chy_girl]

There was a guy in Pennsylvania who electrocuted his wife during loving play.

I may be romanticizing the situation . . . but I would bet that he loved her, and felt awful when things didn't go as planned.

Yes, well... even love has it's limits.

Fucking idiot. Don't mess with electroplay. If you're into electro, buy a violet wand. If you can't afford one, wait until you can, don't fuck around.

QFT(x2)

 

[BLoved]

Only had time to look over a few of the responses from page 2. I'll be back later today to address the questions and serious contributions.

~smile~

It does appear a genuine discussion is taking place. I look forward to my return.

 

[Seurat]

I'll get to page two's responses in a bit also.

My penny first, before I go for the pound. I think that since BLoved has seen fit to present this thread with an interesting topic of discussion, I would like to have some clarification from him before going further.

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 anythingelse, perhaps now she will demonstrate her sincere and serious desire to participate in a real "discussion" on the subject of ethics.

This is called 'Argmentum Ad Misericordiam': the attempt to bolster ones argument through the arousal of pity. you attempt to defend your opinion by saying that it must be correct simply because there was opposition to it. Your decision to remove your writings was your own, and can be affirmed by other threads in this forum. You were not ordered, asked, cajoled, or in any other way required to remove your works. Your position that they were a distration to the discussion is an exercise in circular logic: the most recent thread was based on your works, which you continued to defend after he removed them. But by removing them, you prevented anybody that had not made copies from being able to propose accurate and opposing arguments.

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'.

This is called 'Argumentum Ad Hominem': attacking the person rather than the argument. By making both personal and generalized statements regarding the personal character of the members in opposition, you seek to gain support for your argument.

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.

Again, Argumentum Ad Hominem, the use of personal attacks instead of adressing the argument.

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.

This is called 'Converse Fallacy of Accident' : argues from a special case to a general rule. An example is:
/Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white/.
Since there is no way that you could be knowledgeable of all instances of 'casual BDSM', as can be seen by responses from others in this thread, your generalizations undermine your position instead of supporting it.

It would be better to state that you have seen this negative side, cite references, and work on your position from there.

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".

This is another Argumentum Ad Hominem again.

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

This is called the 'Fallacy of Accident' : a generalization that disregards exceptions. An example of this is:
/Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals/.
Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.
Your statement becomes 'Fallacy of Accident' when you dimiss the possibility that two consenting adults can enter into a one-time or short term relationship, without love, where both people are willing participants, limts are set and followed, and both persons are content with the result. The argument that this is 'abuse' could only be supported by a definition of abuse that is not recursive. If any behavior which can be seen as harmful to another is 'abuse', then it doesn't matter if 'love' is present or not. If the presence of 'love' no longer makes abuse, that what has it now become?

BDSM is, by definition, Bondage, Domination, Sadism, and Masochism.
Sadism: sexual gratification gained through causing pain or degradation to others.
Masochism: the condition in which sexual gratification suffering, physical pain, and humiliation.
Abuse: (v) to use wrongly or improperly; misuse. To treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way. wrong or improper use; misuse.

The question then becomes twofold: If a sadist taking action upon somebody who is an unwilling participant, I think we would all agree that would be abuse. An example would be a parent who visits physical or mental cruelties upon an innocent child. But what if the participant was fully willing, such as a masochist? If both participants enter the situation with foreknowledge and set limits, then the actions between the two can't be defined properly as abuse, can they? They key setup in the definition is the word 'improperly'.

'Abuse' and 'love' are not mutually exclusive terms; the presence of one does not preclude the existence of the other. A parent, sibling, or child can love and still abuse, whether it is intentional or not. People can treat loved ones inproperly in many instances, and it can be considered 'abuse'.

Abuse can preclude or eliminate love, though. Whether it is a single action or multiple instances, abuse of what one would consider a loved one can turn the returned love into many other things: hatred, anger, disrespect, etc.
Now, on to the second major post:

Casual BDSM is:

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.

A nicely stated definition of your term.

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.

Again, nicely stated and identified as a premise. Easier to work with.

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).

You lost me to the 'Argumentum Ad Hominem'. Once you start with the 'victims', 'fanaticism', and, what I see as unsupported and unfounded comments such as, 'an insistencethat..we must all respect" you again undermine my willingness to be see your theories as viable, regardless os of how my own belief structure may align with yours.

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.

'Fallacy of Accident' once again. Example: my friend asks me over to his house in order to help bind his wife in a Japanese rope setup, and also to watch her while he runs to the store. She gets off on being tied up, and he knows that when he gets home they are going to have some great sex.

This falls into the realm of BDSM, as there is bondage involved. It also falls into your definition of casual BDSM, as there is no love involved. Howevever, I would have to argue that simply because I tied her up, what I did could not be considered abuse. It was at her insistance, and with bounds agreed upon beforehand. Now, if I were to take advantage of her heightened sexuality and defensiveness, then you would certainly be correct in labelling me as an 'abuser'. However, I would find such a think both morally and ethically reprehensible.

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.

Unfortunately, while you may be stating this from what you see as a position of authority, there are enough people willing to have a civil discussion of the matter (myself included) that have seen or participated in what you have termed 'casual BDSM' without the Dom/me taking advantage of the situation to make this a moot statement. The generalization here is undermining your argument.

Ethics plays little if any part in the community.

Maybe this is due to your personal experience and observations but, again, there are plenty of people (myself included) that can attest to the contrary.

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.

Grats, and well it should. I am curious (this has nothing to do with this discussion, I should hope): you talk of your position as a master in some of your relationships. If this current relationship has elements of BDSM in it, at what point did you introduce the concept and at what point did you introduce the actuality? If you feel this would be too personal a matter to bring up on the board, please pm regarding it. It's for a story concept I am helping a friend with.

 

[TypicalDeviant]

I'll get to page two's responses in a bit also.

My penny first, before I go for the pound. I think that since BLoved has seen fit to present this thread with an interesting topic of discussion, I would like to have some clarification from him before going further.


This is called 'Argmentum Ad Misericordiam': the attempt to bolster ones argument through the arousal of pity. you attempt to defend your opinion by saying that it must be correct simply because there was opposition to it. Your decision to remove your writings was your own, and can be affirmed by other threads in this forum. You were not ordered, asked, cajoled, or in any other way required to remove your works. Your position that they were a distration to the discussion is an exercise in circular logic: the most recent thread was based on your works, which you continued to defend after he removed them. But by removing them, you prevented anybody that had not made copies from being able to propose accurate and opposing arguments.

This is called 'Argumentum Ad Hominem': attacking the person rather than the argument. By making both personal and generalized statements regarding the personal character of the members in opposition, you seek to gain support for your argument.

Again, Argumentum Ad Hominem, the use of personal attacks instead of adressing the argument.


This is called 'Converse Fallacy of Accident' : argues from a special case to a general rule. An example is:
/Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white/.
Since there is no way that you could be knowledgeable of all instances of 'casual BDSM', as can be seen by responses from others in this thread, your generalizations undermine your position instead of supporting it.

It would be better to state that you have seen this negative side, cite references, and work on your position from there.


This is another Argumentum Ad Hominem again.

This is called the 'Fallacy of Accident' : a generalization that disregards exceptions. An example of this is:
/Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals/.
Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.
Your statement becomes 'Fallacy of Accident' when you dimiss the possibility that two consenting adults can enter into a one-time or short term relationship, without love, where both people are willing participants, limts are set and followed, and both persons are content with the result. The argument that this is 'abuse' could only be supported by a definition of abuse that is not recursive. If any behavior which can be seen as harmful to another is 'abuse', then it doesn't matter if 'love' is present or not. If the presence of 'love' no longer makes abuse, that what has it now become?

BDSM is, by definition, Bondage, Domination, Sadism, and Masochism.
Sadism: sexual gratification gained through causing pain or degradation to others.
Masochism: the condition in which sexual gratification suffering, physical pain, and humiliation.
Abuse: (v) to use wrongly or improperly; misuse. To treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way. wrong or improper use; misuse.

The question then becomes twofold: If a sadist taking action upon somebody who is an unwilling participant, I think we would all agree that would be abuse. An example would be a parent who visits physical or mental cruelties upon an innocent child. But what if the participant was fully willing, such as a masochist? If both participants enter the situation with foreknowledge and set limits, then the actions between the two can't be defined properly as abuse, can they? They key setup in the definition is the word 'improperly'.

'Abuse' and 'love' are not mutually exclusive terms; the presence of one does not preclude the existence of the other. A parent, sibling, or child can love and still abuse, whether it is intentional or not. People can treat loved ones inproperly in many instances, and it can be considered 'abuse'.

Abuse can preclude or eliminate love, though. Whether it is a single action or multiple instances, abuse of what one would consider a loved one can turn the returned love into many other things: hatred, anger, disrespect, etc.
Now, on to the second major post:

Casual BDSM is:


A nicely stated definition of your term.



Again, nicely stated and identified as a premise. Easier to work with.



You lost me to the 'Argumentum Ad Hominem'. Once you start with the 'victims', 'fanaticism', and, what I see as unsupported and unfounded comments such as, 'an insistencethat..we must all respect" you again undermine my willingness to be see your theories as viable, regardless os of how my own belief structure may align with yours.


'Fallacy of Accident' once again. Example: my friend asks me over to his house in order to help bind his wife in a Japanese rope setup, and also to watch her while he runs to the store. She gets off on being tied up, and he knows that when he gets home they are going to have some great sex.

This falls into the realm of BDSM, as there is bondage involved. It also falls into your definition of casual BDSM, as there is no love involved. Howevever, I would have to argue that simply because I tied her up, what I did could not be considered abuse. It was at her insistance, and with bounds agreed upon beforehand. Now, if I were to take advantage of her heightened sexuality and defensiveness, then you would certainly be correct in labelling me as an 'abuser'. However, I would find such a think both morally and ethically reprehensible.



Unfortunately, while you may be stating this from what you see as a position of authority, there are enough people willing to have a civil discussion of the matter (myself included) that have seen or participated in what you have termed 'casual BDSM' without the Dom/me taking advantage of the situation to make this a moot statement. The generalization here is undermining your argument.




Maybe this is due to your personal experience and observations but, again, there are plenty of people (myself included) that can attest to the contrary.



Grats, and well it should. I am curious (this has nothing to do with this discussion, I should hope): you talk of your position as a master in some of your relationships. If this current relationship has elements of BDSM in it, at what point did you introduce the concept and at what point did you introduce the actuality? If you feel this would be too personal a matter to bring up on the board, please pm regarding it. It's for a story concept I am helping a friend with.

QFT and thank god for logic class.

 

[rida]

'Argmentum Ad Misericordiam':
'Argumentum Ad Hominem':
'Converse Fallacy of Accident' :
'Fallacy of Accident' :

I think I just had a Logicgasm




I think I discovered a new personal fetish ...

 

[Homburg]

I think I just had a Logicgasm




I think I discovered a new personal fetish ...

I see how you are. I mention the "Not a true scotsman" fallacy and I get no love.


(I really, really dug the above-referenced post as well.)

 

[midwestyankee]

I see how you are. I mention the "Not a true scotsman" fallacy and I get no love.


(I really, really dug the above-referenced post as well.)

So where were you when we needed you in the "love is unethical" thread, my man?

 

[celticsunspiral]

I have been following both this thread and the previous one and one of the main thoughts that keeps popping up is, How is a casual BDSM relationship any different than a vanilla casual relationship? There are abusers out there who will take advantage of people who can't protect themselves for whatever reason. It doesn't matter whether it is Internet cam sex, a one night stand after to many drinks or a meet at a munch. Abusers are there just as those who do not have the knowledge or force of will to protect themselves are out there.

In my limited experience (6 months of munches, so yes I am a noob at real life) I have found that I have have more deep and meaningful conversations with people about many topics, this doesn't happen at a bar. I have NEVER been pressured to play. When I have had the few uncomfortable experiences someone has been there to say, "Hey are you ok? Do you need me to talk with him?" Then at a later date they have checked in with me to make sure everything was still ok. I do not see any of these examples as being a community of predators intent on abuse.

I am currently in a casual BDSM relationship with someone. We do not love each other, and probably never will. Before we began the relationship we both sat down together and discussed what we were looking for. We each looked at what the other was putting on the table and said, "Yes," I agree. How can this be abuse? He gets a play partner on occasions, and I get the real life experience that I have been craving. Am I still looking for something more? Yes, but for now we are both content in where we are. Mutual Consent and follow through on the agreement this is NOT abuse any way you look at it.

Anyway that is just my opinion.

 

[BLoved]

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.

And how do you tell the difference when you are only interested in a one-night stand?

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.

And considering the individual you worked so hard to satisfy is unethical, selfish, what is to prevent said individual from using his or her power to threaten a bad report unless the novice (whose word means nothing in a recommendation-based system) ignores abuse caused by the one whose recommendation is being sought?

Keep in mind that there are priests whose reputations for abuse were kept secret so as to not harm the reputation of the Catholic Church.

Are we to believe the casual community would do any less?

What stops an abuser from simply jumping on collarme and finding new victims?

I've seen both many times and have yet to see the casual community do anything to prevent it.

Indeed, according to the casual community's code that none of us should judge another's "bdsm", both of the above are practicing "bdsm".

Seriously, being a good partner counts just as much in casual sex as it does in relationships.

Considering casual players do not need recommendations (or can manufacture their own) to fin noivces, you've provided no reason to believe there are any consequences for abuse in the casual community.

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.

And how likely is it any of the above is going to believe a complaint made by a novice against one of those so highly recommended? How easy is it for one of these to abuse a novice with impunity? How essential is a recommendation when thousands of casual players seek one night stands through a variety of online personals?

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?

Are you comparing the commitment you feel for your own children with the commitment you feel for a one-night stand?

 

[BLoved]

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

So any complaint made by a novice about abuse can be ignored. And how easy is it to abuse novices when you know none of them will be believed if they should complain about abuse?

How likely is a novice to complain when they know they will not be believed?

How likely is it a novice will even know the difference between abuse and "bdsm" when the individual involved comes so highly "recommended"?

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.

Neither do I. Closed poly relationships based on love are just as valid as monogamous relationships based on love. The difference between them and casual 'bdsm' is the commitment to a life-long loving relationship.

There are consequences to abuse in such a relationship. There are no consequences to abuse in a transient casual affair.

 

[BLoved]

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.

Abusive behaviour betrays a casual attitude towards the relationship.

Abusive behaviour demonstrates that whatever you thought the relationship was, it wasn't "loving".

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.

You mean "don't trust anyone but me".

I have yet to see the casual community discuss in public abuse within the community. Having started more than a few threads along those lines all such discussions are disrupted and/or censored.

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 of them are abused?

And how many young teen guys tell girls they love them to bed them?

Casual players can't lie about love?

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.

~smile~

And another attempts to disrupt a discussion about abuse within the community.

 

[BLoved]

apologies, duplicate post.

 

[BLoved]

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.

So you observed them for the beginning of the evening and then played with them the rest of the evening?

In what way does that rule out a health risk? In what way does that rule out emotional/psychological risks to the person you chose?

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.

And you see nothing wrong with the casual community seeking to avoid that discussion at every turn? Disruptive behaviour to de-rail any conversation started, discredit any report of abuse provided, demonize anyone who raises a concern about the lack of ethics?

We've seen all of this here in the past week.

And then there are the ubiquitous threads about how wonderful it is.

If indeed it needs to be discussed, why isn't the online casual community spear-heading the effort? Why all the effort to avoid any serious discussion on the topic of abuse in the casual community?

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?

My essays and stories conveyed my competence to my beloved. Weeks of conversation allowed both of us to assess the risks. Spending days together without involving bdsm or sex allowed us to confirm the impressions we'd obtained from those conversations.

Even so, trust issues can arise when trust is put to the test.

 

[BLoved]

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

How is it "loving" to want something as intimate as bdsm from someone other than your beloved?

In what way does it reflect on your self-esteem to give your body to one who does not love you?

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

When my wife and I first started dating she had a lady friend with whom she shared a relationship much like yours. Because my wife loved the lady, I did not interfere, nor did I participate. About a year after we started dating the lady found a boyfriend and dumped my wife.

My wife was heart-broken.

In what way does a casual affair address the emotional attachments that arise as a result of engaging in intimate behaviour?

 

[BLoved]

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.

In such cases I would not rule out the possibility the relationship was always casual, and that one or more participants used the word "love" to make it more palatable.

Denial plays a big role in casual affairs, denying the need for love while seeking the illusion of love through intimate behaviour.

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.

Because it ignores the link between intimate behaviour and intimate emotional attachments.

Love is a fundamental requirement for human happiness. To engage in intimate behaviour with no chance of developing intimate emotional attachments is a profoundly frustrating experience that denies the individual's loveability.

In other words, the individual is good enough to beat (or be beaten by), not good enough to love.

This is damaging to one's self-esteem.

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.

It is not for anyone.

Those who experience shame and self-loathing are responding to the reality of the situation where they recognize the behaviour is contrary to the needs of self-esteem, self-respect.

Those who do not experience shame and self-loathing have already reached a point where their self-esteem is sufficiently damaged they feel they deserve no better ... they feel they do not deserve love and so settle for something that creates the illusion of love without hope of ever being loved.

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.

I think those who rely on the bible for their wisdom while ignoring human nature are just as blind as those who say they can engage in intimate behaviour without the need for intimate emotional attachment.

I know no one who is proud they are unloved, or that they can convince any man to sleep with them as long as love and commitment isn't required.

Neither is viewed as an accomplishment, as near as I can tell.

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.

The question is, do you respect yourself enough not to engage in emotionally unhealthy behaviour.

And if you do not respect yourself that much, in what way does casual 'bdsm' become less abusive when it is seeking partners whose self-respect is so low they can engage in emotionally unhealthy behaviour?

 

[Bandit58]

How is it "loving" to want something as intimate as bdsm from someone other than your beloved?

In what way does it reflect on your self-esteem to give your body to one who does not love you?

Actually the experience boosted my self esteem. As I said Sir was there and was happy for me to have the experience. I believe that was a "loving" thing that He did, for me.

When my wife and I first started dating she had a lady friend with whom she shared a relationship much like yours. Because my wife loved the lady, I did not interfere, nor did I participate. About a year after we started dating the lady found a boyfriend and dumped my wife.

My wife was heart-broken.

In what way does a casual affair address the emotional attachments that arise as a result of engaging in intimate behaviour?

I should have mentioned that my friend is married and what she and I do is a separate thing from our relationships with our husbands. Both our men are straight but they understand that we bi women have some needs that neither of them can fulfil.

I consider this another expression of His love for me. He knows I love and am in love with Him. We are both secure in the relationship, as my friend's husband is secure in her relationship with him.

She is my good friend. Nothing more. I love her as a friend, but I'm not in love with her

 

[BLoved]

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.

You said:

For example, he believes my relationship to be abusive because I don't believe in the concept of "True Love"/"The One"/etc. The fact that it's a very give & take, mutually rewarding, respectful, supportive, communicative, monogomous intimate friendship that makes both if us ridiculously happy is irrelevant.

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.

According to the above quote, you don't believe in the concept at all. In what way does that reflect that you hold love "in great respect"?

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.

But any discussion on the topic is disrupted or censored when conducted online.

You yourself couldn't even honestly address it in your op for Debating a Few Philosophies of BDSM - Love, Kink, Lust, Etc, despite your claim here that you wanted such a discussion.

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

Love does prevent abuse. A life-long commitment to a bloved does indeed protect one from abuse.

You continue to try to portray love as capable of abuse. They are a contradiction in terms.

If there is abuse, it is not love. If there is love, there is no abuse.

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?

Yes, let's not blame the abusers. Let's not blame the abusive behaviour.

Let's blame the victims of abuse for not being telepathic enough to detect abusers.

Considering the fact that even agencies as paranoid and as resourceful as the CIA cannot detect moles, is it reasonable to argue that victims have only themselves to blame for trusting abusers?

Whom are you protecting with this drivel?

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".

Can you point to a discussion that was not disrupted wherein such advice is given?

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...

By whose standards? Those who cannot love? Those who have a vested interest in portraying casual 'bdsm' as "safe"? Are the victims of casual abuse on hand to offer a counter-point? Does the casual community even know who the victims are? Does the casual community conduct exit surveys to determine why people are leaving casual 'bdsm'? Can they account for all those victimized by casual players through one-night stands?

May I ask a few question?

How long the two of you have known one another, in total?

Two months.

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"

Five weeks.

and did your relationship avoid intimacy prior to that decision?

Yes.

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".

You've stated you do not believe in the concept of "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.

I do not suffer from your history with abuse.

And again, it is my understanding that you do not use the term because you do not believe in the concept.

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?

You appear to be contradicting your previously quoted statement:

For example, he believes my relationship to be abusive because I don't believe in the concept of "True Love"/"The One"/etc.

And why are you blaming "the community"

Because the online community is responsible for all the efforts to disrupt and censor discussions about abuse within the community. Without an open and unfettered forum wherein such discussions can occur without disruption, novices are left uninformed about the dangers.

instead of worrying about how to make these women (and men) strong, smart, responsible people, capable of telling assholes to buzz off?

Every discussion I've started with that goal in mind has been disrupted/censored by advocates of casual 'bdsm'.

Where in your tale of woe are those who are novices, yet perfectly capable of declining invitations to play casually, or publicly?

I have heard from many of them over the past two years, thanking me for validating their choices and wondering why anyone would seek to censor me.

What about the ones who aren't active in "the community"?

Those seeking one-night stands are just as casual as those within casual communities. None are excluded.

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.

Can you point to one such discussion that was not disrupted and/or censored.

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.

Considering you do not believe in the concept of "true love", and that no one here appears interested in addressing the issue of abuse in the casual community (Debating a Few Philosophies of BDSM - Love, Kink, Lust, Etc), it would appear you are simply attacking the only man who has raised the subject in order to disrupt the effort to discuss the issue.

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.

I am well aware there are casual players who use "love" to lure in victims.

"Learn together, safely" is not an automatic pass to abuse-free land.

If the relationship is based on love, it is.

If it is based on a lie, you are correct.

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?

If they cannot find a safe way to explore it together, it will not become any safer by involving a stranger.

Indeed, involving a stranger makes it less safe, emotionally.

I'm not saying the submissive should get handed over to some random stranger, but what happens?

My beloved is free to request anything. If I cannot render the activity safe, I refuse the request and we move on to something less dangerous.

You seem to be arguing that the activity trumps the partner, that one in love will want an activity so much as to no longer care who the partner is.

One in love cares more about the partner than the activity. The activity is a metaphor for the love shared between the partners. The activity is irrelevant (providing it can be done safely), what matters is the love that inspires it.

Or say either one doesn't know what are or aren't interested in - how do you propose they find out?

They discuss the matter and come to a mutual agreement that reflects their love, respect and commitment to themselves and each other.

And if they do find out, what happens if interests are vastly mismatched? Does Love fix that too?

It is not a loving relationship if the activity trumps the relationship.

If the activity mattered that much, it should be discussed before the relationship begins in earnest. If it is something discovered, discussed, no agreement is reached and the need is still strong, then the relationship has come to an end and it becomes obvious that the relationship was not based on love.

Why would one partner in a loving relationship insist that the other participate or sanction that which would be emotionally damaging?

 

[BLoved]

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.

Is it ethical to undermine your own self-esteem, to render yourself incapable of giving or receiving love, to subject yourself to abuse because you believe you deserve no better?

Is it ethical to inflict abuse upon another, to deceive another so as to satisfy your need for kink/sex, to abuse the self-esteem of another so as to feel powerful?

 

[BLoved]

(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.

Incorrect.

If it is the intent of the individual to obtain a kinky one-night stand after which he will look for new prey (assuming you do not want to be abused again) then none of the above are required.

"Success" is a subjective term and depends very much on the intentions of the individuals involved.

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

"BDSM" is a nebulous term that is used to cover a lot of very different activities. It is much easier to hide abuse under the name of "bdsm" than it is to hide abuse in a vanilla relationship.

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.

And deceit is far more likely in a transient situation involving virtual strangers than in a committed loving relationship.

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.

So sight-unseen you are "sure" these places are "safe".

Are you aware it is frowned upon to call 911 while attending these dungeons, mostly because they're illegal and involving paramedics or police has consequences, regardless of how much they are needed?

The function I attended in Toronto was open to the public, anyone off the street could walk in and buy a ticket. There were no weapons checks, no check for sobriety, drugs, hypodermics, etc. No sanity checks. Strangers unknown to anyyone were sold tickets.

And this was a regular affair.

And that is just a public affair. What of the private parties that anyone can organize?

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.

If the casual community were not so hell-bent on disrupting discussions about abuse in the community, more information about abuse and the way to avoid it could be shared.

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.

And how much more dangerous are they when they choose to abuse novices while maintaining their image for the benefit of their reputation within the community?

How much more dangerous when several of them conspire to hide the abuse from the online forums?

How much more dangerous when they are willing to offer each other recommendations?

How much more dangerous when a community of such predators take over all the online forums and disrupt any discussion about abuse, or use such discussions to promote their claims that casual 'bdsm' is safe?

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.

Predators will use whatever system works to their advantage.

Casual 'bdsm' promotes multiple partners.

Casual 'bdsm' denigrates emotional attachments.

Casual 'bdsm' can be defined any way the individual wishes, there is no standard.

Casual 'bdsm' is already the exclusive form of 'bdsm' being promoted through the online forums.

Advocates of casual 'bdsm' are willing to offer recommendations to anyone who agrees with them.

Casual communities disrupt/censor any discussion regarding abuse involving casual 'bdsm'.

For a predator, casual 'bdsm' is heaven on earth.

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.

So it is your belief one can retain one's self-esteem from such accomplishments as giving one's body to as many strange men who ask for it? That risking one's life with a series of strangers for endorphins and orgasms demonstrates self-respect?

Would this be true for the heroin junkie who prostitutes herself for her next fix?

What is the difference, if any?

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?

You do not seem to understand true love. You know you feel true love when you are willing to die if it would save your beloved.

---

Endings

The cancer wasn't diagnosed until it had spread throughout her body. All the months of fatigue finally made sense.

She was dying.

Neither was willing to admit it to the other, but they both knew it was only a matter of time.

If not for their son there would be no reason for this operation. Without the operation death would come sooner, but the operation itself came with risks of its own.

But there was the chance the operation could buy her more time to spend with their son, and that was worth any risk.

Such a young child, mildly autistic and unaware of what was happening to his mother. He only knew of her absences, and his joy when she'd return.

The surgeon had been in to discuss the operation once more, to be sure they understood what was to occur. The nurses had finished preparing her, and for the moment the three of them had been granted some time alone.

They looked upon their son as he played with his blocks on the end of the bed. Aware of their gaze he looked up and smiled, like a cherub.

His mother closed her eyes, squeezing out the tears. His father's arm around her shoulder pulled her in gently, reassuring her.

"You're a good man, a good father. You'll take good care of him while I'm gone. I know."

Filled with emotion, his throat tightened and he found no words for her.

He nodded.

"It's okay." she whispered. "Everything is going to be okay."

He nodded again.

"Remember your promise." he whispered to her.

She smiled, despite her fear.

"I'll remember, master."

They were both silent, holding each other, looking upon their son as he played with his blocks.

They both recalled a time very early in their life together.

They'd been talking about the life they wished to live.

"Do you have any rules?" she'd asked.

"Yes ... one." he replied, a twinkle in his eye.

"And that would be ...?"

"No dying."

She laughed at this unexpected response.

"That sounds reasonable" she giggled. "I promise not to die."

He smiled, his blue eyes upon her that made her melt.

"I'll hold you to that promise." he'd said.

And like an echo of their shared memory, he found himself saying those words again ...

"I'll hold you to that promise."

She smiled up at him and felt such love, seeing his face etched with worry for her.

That was when they came for her.

His last words: "I love you."

Her last words: "I will always love you."

And she was gone.

He led their son back to the car, and drove them home. The dogs were waiting for them, boisterous as ever. The boy was quickly distracted with their antics, and his laughter filled the clearing, bouncing off the trees.

It wasn't for several hours before he got a call. The operation had gone well with few complications and she was resting comfortably in post-op. She wasn't expected to awaken again until the morning.

That night the usual goodnight ceremony wasn't the same. Mommy wasn't there to help their son find Daddy hiding behind the curtains.

But he did read his son a bedtime story, and cuddled with him before tucking him in for the night.

"Night night, sleep tight my little man." and with a kiss on the forehead his father turned out the light and left the room.

It was almost four in the morning when he found himself standing by the desk, the telephone in hand. He didn't really recall hearing it ring, or getting up to answer it.

It was the hospital.

During the night things had taken a turn for the worse.

She wasn't coming home again.

He fell in a heap, like a puppet whose strings are cut. Somewhere there was a voice saying "Hello? ... Hello?"

He didn't answer.

Only one word came to mind

"No."

He looked up the stairs towards the room of his son.

"No."

He thought back to the day when he was ten and his mother had received the call that his father had died from injuries sustained in a car accident. He thought of her frightening, painful cry as she had learned the news.

He knew exactly how she'd felt.

He did not weep. Didn't trust himself to weep. He was afraid if he started, he'd never stop. Afraid he'd scare his son if he should wake up.

He recalled that he was still holding the phone. He looked at it, said a few words and hung up.

When his son woke up in the morning he came out of his room. Upon seeing his father he smiled, blissfully unaware of what had transpired.

He hopped down the stairs, throwing himself into his father's lap with a big hug.

His father just held him. There was no way to explain what had happened. The son was mildly autistic, with difficulties learning language.

How does one explain death to a child so challenged?

It wasn't possible, and day after day of looking out the window for his mother showed how much he missed her, how little he understood of what had occurred.

And yet a day came when he stopped looking. When he finally accepted his mother wasn't coming home.

What he thought of her leaving and not returning his father would never know, for it wasn't many months later that the son suffered a fatal accident.

And the man's world came crashing down around him.

He felt his life ending, and he felt no need to struggle to keep it.

Epilogue

It was no lofty ideal or memory that rekindled the spark.

It was those pesky dogs and cats.

They wouldn't leave him alone.

They wanted in, they wanted out, they wanted food, they wanted water ... mostly what they wanted was to ease the pain, his and theirs.

As much as he wanted to die, he knew he couldn't. They needed him. They were the last survivors of his family, and they needed him to live.

And so he set about rebuilding his life.

---

And with that, and given it is almost 4 in the morning here, I will say my adieu for the night.

I'll be back.

 

[rida]

Predators will use whatever system works to their advantage. YES

Casual 'bdsm' promotes multiple partners. NO

Casual 'bdsm' denigrates emotional attachments. NO

Casual 'bdsm' can be defined any way the individual wishes, there is no standard. YES

Casual 'bdsm' is already the exclusive form of 'bdsm' being promoted through the online forums. NO

Advocates of casual 'bdsm' are willing to offer recommendations to anyone who agrees with them. NO

Casual communities disrupt/censor any discussion regarding abuse involving casual 'bdsm'. NO

For a predator, casual 'bdsm' is heaven on earth. Predators do not need casual BDSM to find their victims

As an aside, I've been seeing the Sadist for a bit over 2 years.
We could not know right away if we would have mashed, or developed an emotional attachment to each other. We have however always been open about the expectations and rules of the relationship. And as the relationship evolves, we discuss and re-define its boundaries.

So it is your belief one can retain one's self-esteem from such accomplishments as giving one's body to as many strange men who ask for it? That risking one's life with a series of strangers for endorphins and orgasms demonstrates self-respect?

Yes. If the person is choosing to do so on his/her own accord, I do not see why it should affect her own self esteem, if it is healthy to begin with. And there are ways to reduce risks.

I understand you do not believe that someone with a healthy self esteem could possibly want to do such a "degrading" (in your eyes) act.

I could bring myself as an example, but I'm sure that you will dismiss me as "delusional" and "too brainwashed by the casual community" to be possibly true.

Would this be true for the heroin junkie who prostitutes herself for her next fix?

What is the difference, if any?

The heroin junkie is under the influence of drugs. She is not capable of consent. And this makes the whole comparison moot.

You do not seem to understand true love. You know you feel true love when you are willing to die if it would save your beloved.

The above statement is a bit presumptuous as you do not know what I'm willing or not willing to do for my beloved one(s).

I will rephrase my question:
How do you know your current relationship is True Love? Even if you can be sure for your side of it, how can you be 100% sure that the same is true for your beloved?

With your strict definition of True Love and abuse, only once the relationship ends you will be able to asses its "trueness".

Right now, after two months, you can only "believe" your relationship is True Love. And I truly hope you are right.


However:

We do not agree on the premise that sex or BDSM outside of a True Love relationship is abuse. Further more we do not agree on the definition of True Love nor abuse (as you link them in circular reference).

You do not believe that it is possible to have a healthy self esteem and be ok sharing intimacy but not love.

And you do not accept anybody's personal experience but your own as a measuring stick for truth, moral and ethics.

Also, you have been to only one event in Toronto and generalize your limited experience to the totality of events all over the world. At the same time you dismiss my (and others) experience as too limited to be generalized.

To discuss a matter you need to be willing to step down from your personal experience and perception and accept others experiences and perception as valid as your own.

As you have already decided a priori that whomever does not agree with your views and definitions is either part of the conspiracy of "Casual BDSM" or too brainwashed by such, there is no way to have a discussion with you.


(Your Endings was very moving and I'm sorry you had to loose your wife as you did. However it is irrelevant to the present discussion.)

 

[rida]

I see how you are. I mention the "Not a true scotsman" fallacy and I get no love.


(I really, really dug the above-referenced post as well.)

shhhh! I'm luring in new meat!

 

[intothewoods]

In such cases I would not rule out the possibility the relationship was always casual, and that one or more participants used the word "love" to make it more palatable.

Denial plays a big role in casual affairs, denying the need for love while seeking the illusion of love through intimate behaviour.

To quote Dan Savage, every relationship fails until one doesn't. People fall out of love, decide they are not compatible for practical reasons, etc.

Because it ignores the link between intimate behaviour and intimate emotional attachments.

Love is a fundamental requirement for human happiness. To engage in intimate behaviour with no chance of developing intimate emotional attachments is a profoundly frustrating experience that denies the individual's loveability.

In other words, the individual is good enough to beat (or be beaten by), not good enough to love.

This is damaging to one's self-esteem.



It is not for anyone.

Those who experience shame and self-loathing are responding to the reality of the situation where they recognize the behaviour is contrary to the needs of self-esteem, self-respect.

Those who do not experience shame and self-loathing have already reached a point where their self-esteem is sufficiently damaged they feel they deserve no better ... they feel they do not deserve love and so settle for something that creates the illusion of love without hope of ever being loved.



I think those who rely on the bible for their wisdom while ignoring human nature are just as blind as those who say they can engage in intimate behaviour without the need for intimate emotional attachment.

I know no one who is proud they are unloved, or that they can convince any man to sleep with them as long as love and commitment isn't required.

Neither is viewed as an accomplishment, as near as I can tell.

The people I am referring to are in loving relationships, but they also engage in casual play, with the full knowledge and consent of their partners.

The question is, do you respect yourself enough not to engage in emotionally unhealthy behaviour.

And if you do not respect yourself that much, in what way does casual 'bdsm' become less abusive when it is seeking partners whose self-respect is so low they can engage in emotionally unhealthy behaviour?

People can either learn from that behavior or they can be stuck in it.