The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'

[00Syd]

Finally, while I think people who enjoy the public scene will defend themselves, they are not out to convert anyone. In my city, there is just no need. There are plenty of people who want to be a part of it.

Yes, yes, yes. I will often recommend that people seek out their local scene and attend a munch or something, but that's only because, IMO, meeting people in person, in a group, can often be much more helpful, informative, and most of all safe - NOT because I want (or need) to convert anyone. It's just good advice.

Neither I, nor any of my friends in the scene were converted or coerced into it. We became involved of our own free will

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, yes, yes. I will often recommend that people seek out their local scene and attend a munch or something, but that's only because, IMO, meeting people in person, in a group, can often be much more helpful, informative, and most of all safe - NOT because I want (or need) to convert anyone. It's just good advice.

Neither I, nor any of my friends in the scene were converted or coerced into it. We became involved of our own free will

And may I say that there is never any need to go looking for subs, they outnumber the tops by a significant amount-- and it's actually happened, when I meet a sub I want to play with further, I had to turn other subs down.

A lot of people go into BDSM as a bottom, in my experience. Bottoming means a lot of attention being paid to us, and we all are starved for that. Eventually, some of us begin to want to give that kind of attention.

That's how it worked for me, anyway.

 

[Netzach]

And may I say that there is never any need to go looking for subs, they outnumber the tops by a significant amount-- and it's actually happened, when I meet a sub I want to play with further, I had to turn other subs down.

A lot of people go into BDSM as a bottom, in my experience. Bottoming means a lot of attention being paid to us, and we all are starved for that. Eventually, some of us begin to want to give that kind of attention.

That's how it worked for me, anyway.

No no no. You are a female bodied top. You don't get it, you don't even exist.

 

[Stella_Omega]

No no no. You are a female bodied top. You don't get it, you don't even exist.

I'm a unicorn?
I gotchya horn right here, baby.

 

[chy_girl]

I'm assuming kink incompatability can as well. It's all good and well to have an in depth discussion about what you like and don't like and want to do, but if you're going to commit to someone and then play... and if, despite all the love and everything else being perfect, it's just not right for someone or both, then what?

Frankly, I doubt that I'd be collared by my People had Sir not volunteered to flog me at my first non-munch gathering after the first Dom flaked via subspace. And there's no way we could have had the conversation about likes and dislikes at that point because I was a total noob. LOL - at that point I didn't even know what a "heavy bottom" was.

Compatibility doesn't come from theory, it comes from putting the possibilities into practice.

And toss in a dash of 'True Love would be understanding and would overcome these difficulties.'

'True Love' doesn't mean jack if you have a total pain slut trying sub to a strictly sensual top or vice-versa. Especially if those incompatible factors are in the "Important Category" and you've ruled out outside play.

Finally, while I think people who enjoy the public scene will defend themselves, they are not out to convert anyone. In my city, there is just no need. There are plenty of people who want to be a part of it.

I have NEVER heard someone in the community say "That person doesn't attend any of the events so they're not real BDSMers." If someone doesn't wish to attend any of the parties or get togethers, their choice is respected. But if there is someone who is staying on the periphery of the community and displaying certain behaviors, they are... noticed, along with the possible dangers that the signs can indicate. They aren't badmouthed and no one trots around declaring them unsafe, but if possible play partners ask they will be given the facts available. After that the decision is theirs.

Now, I people have been encouraged to try a gathering for a number of reasons - kink and vanilla. No repercussions if they don't though.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Frankly, I doubt that I'd be collared by my People had Sir not volunteered to flog me at my first non-munch gathering after the first Dom flaked via subspace. And there's no way we could have had the conversation about likes and dislikes at that point because I was a total noob. LOL - at that point I didn't even know what a "heavy bottom" was.

Compatibility doesn't come from theory, it comes from putting the possibilities into practice.


'True Love' doesn't mean jack if you have a total pain slut trying sub to a strictly sensual top or vice-versa. Especially if those incompatible factors are in the "Important Category" and you've ruled out outside play.

Absolutely. We were just playing 'pick which argument will come up against these perfectly valid points'

But given that a good relationship is built on so many factors, I don't see people who's "Important Category" stuff not matching, lasting very long, even if they *did* get together.

And even if they did at the start, people change. Their needs and wants change.

 

[chy_girl]

Absolutely. We were just playing 'pick which argument will come up against these perfectly valid points'
*snip*

I don't know... perfectly valid points tend to be ignored. Like the one I made about the safety of going to an experienced member to try/learn about certain kinds of play... That eastern sun then backed with a news article.

That was dropped very quickly.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

I don't know... perfectly valid points tend to be ignored. Like the one I made about the safety of going to an experienced member to try/learn about certain kinds of play... That eastern sun then backed with a news article.

That was dropped very quickly.

Heheheh

I know, I think I said something much the same.

But forgive him, he's honeymoonphase-ing at the moment...

 

[BLoved]

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...

So you are wishing abusive relationships for everyone because you don't think some of us can learn anything without them?

 

[BLoved]

Because a responsible Dom/me isn't just going to light their subbie on fire because they've seen it a few times.

Why do it at all?

You appear to believe that thrill-seeking is more important than love-making, and so you sanction strangers using a beloved to 'teach' a technique.

You ignore the connection between intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding: love. Thus you demonstrate the unhealthy aspect of casual 'bdsm': its need to detach intimate emotional bonding from intimate behaviour.

One is not supposed to fall in love with the 'trainer'.

And thus, by cheapening the intimate behaviour such that it can be shared with any stranger one cheapens the value of that behaviour such that it no longer expresses love and trust, but rather it expresses a need for thrills.

Why should I feel special to my beloved if she is willing to engage in intimacy with any tom, dick or harry willing to give her a cheap thrill? If she can share such intimacy without love, how loving is she when she wishes to share the same with me? What need has she for my love when she is willing to give herself for no love at all?

And just how much self-respect, self-esteem is she demonstrating when she is willing to risk life and limb with strangers for nothing more than thrill-seeking? If she is willing to risk so much without requiring love in return, just how much value does she place upon herself?

 

[BLoved]

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.

Without the casual community you would not have met this dom at all. After all, the only reason you met him was because the casual community invited him.

Were you seeking love rather than thrills you would have spoken with this person extensively, or at least to the point where you knew it wasn't going to work out at which time you'd have ended the conversation and never met the individual in question.

You seem to have confused their desire to include you in their thrill-seeking with a concern for your well-being.

 

[BLoved]

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.

So thrill-seeking trumps love-making?

We have to involve strangers in our love-making because love-making is too boring and our beloveds too ignorant to share the exploration within the loving relationship?

We have to go outside the relationship?

 

[BLoved]

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?

Because Love is a fundamental human requirement.

Babies who grow up without love are dysfunctional.

Any system that encourages intimate behaviour without the possibility for intimate emotional bonding is dysfunctional.

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

Yes: no strings attached. Engage in intimate behaviour but do not expect or feel the need for any intimate emotional bonding.

Such a paradigm is inherently dysfunctional.

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?

Encouraging dysfunctional behaviour is unethical because it is unhealthy for all involved.

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.

No one is denying the right of people to engage in dysfunctional behaviour.

The casual 'bdsm' community routinely seeks to deny novices this kind of information because inviting novices to participate in dysfunctional behaviour just doesn't produce the same results as claiming the casual community is a healthy choice.

 

[BLoved]

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.

Abuse

Abuse is the process of inhibiting self-respect.

The more one believes they are deserving of mental, physical, emotional and/or spiritual degradation, the more inhibited self-respect will be, and thus the greater the abuse done.

This is not a natural condition. Babies are not born believing this.

People are taught to believe this about themselves.

Considering we are all born with an aversion to such treatment, shunning away from it being a natural response, the fact someone believes themselves deserving of nothing better is evidence of past abuse.

At some point she was taught to expect no better treatment, to tolerate the treatment she got ... to see herself "deserving" the abuse.

Whether a submissive is predisposed to abuse because of past abuse, or whether she is unable to see that the dom she loves is incapable of giving love back, either in the hands of a Competitive dom will find his needs are met better the more they inhibit their self-respect.

The longer this goes on, the greater the damage done to their self-respect.

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

 

[BLoved]

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.

Once again thrill-seeking trumps love-making.

We must involve strangers in our love-making because love-making is boring and our lovers too ignorant to learn within the relationship.

Once again we must detach love from love-making so as to turn love-making into thrill-seeking involving strangers.

In what way is this not dysfunctional?

 

[BLoved]

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.

In what way is intimate behaviour with no chance for intimate emotional bonding not dysfunctional?

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.

A "community" is a group of like-minded individuals who subscribe to the same paradigm.

A community exists on this forum. There is a community associated with every online forum.

A community exists wherever there are regulars who hold/attend play parties, munches, etc.

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.

"Evil" is not a term I've used, nor will I.

I consider all such individuals "dysfunctional": incapable of forming truly loving relationships due to past experiences with abuse (physical and/or emotional).

Their need to involve strangers in love-making is a symptom of their inability to engage in intimate emotional bonding ... by cheapening the intimate behaviour such that any stranger can be included, thus demoting the beloved.

 

[BLoved]

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.

Look up the Darwin Awards for more examples of human stupidity.

I'm reminded of a report of a man who injured his wife when he thought a dildo on the end of a drill would make for a good toy.

I do not see this as an argument in favour of including strangers in love-making. I see this as an example of the need for research before trying anything new.

One doesn't need a casual community to know the electricity in a home is lethal and that electricity flows at the speed of light (which is a heck of a lot faster than a finger flicking the switch on a power bar).

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Once again thrill-seeking trumps love-making.

We must involve strangers in our love-making because love-making is boring and our lovers too ignorant to learn within the relationship.

Once again we must detach love from love-making so as to turn love-making into thrill-seeking involving strangers.

In what way is this not dysfunctional?

Personally, I would find it ignorant if I was interested in something my partner didn't know how to do, and we didn't research it thoroughly, including the act actually being done.

And vice versa.

Nobody said anybody was too ignorant to learn. But when you're learning such activities, it's better to learn from someone who knows what they're doing.

I mean, you didn't just jump in a car and start driving because you'd always been in one as a passenger and your intimate relationship grew and then suddenly, you learned.



And personally, I don't see it as thrill seeking. Those acts *are* our love making.

 

[Homburg]

Yes: no strings attached. Engage in intimate behaviour but do not expect or feel the need for any intimate emotional bonding.

Such a paradigm is inherently dysfunctional.

This is somehow inherent to BDSM? Do what? Have you ever been to a nightclub or bar where people meet to hook up? Or perhaps a college campus where the same thing happens? There is nothing specific to BDSM that implies, condones, or otherwise even cares about NSA sex. That concept crosses all lines these days.

You really don't get out much, do you?

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Any system that encourages intimate behaviour without the possibility for intimate emotional bonding is dysfunctional.

So intimate casual encounters NEVER lead to emotional bonding and lasting relationships?

Crap, better tell that to the dating scene as a whole, cos they're stuffed.

Encouraging dysfunctional behaviour is unethical because it is unhealthy for all involved.

It's only disfunctional/unethical by *your* standards.

No one is denying the right of people to engage in dysfunctional behaviour.

You are actually, by rabidly warning people away.

The casual 'bdsm' community routinely seeks to deny novices this kind of information because inviting novices to participate in dysfunctional behaviour just doesn't produce the same results as claiming the casual community is a healthy choice.

Just like you're denying people the right to make their own choices in life.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

And thus, by cheapening the intimate behaviour such that it can be shared with any stranger one cheapens the value of that behaviour such that it no longer expresses love and trust, but rather it expresses a need for thrills.

Why should I feel special to my beloved if she is willing to engage in intimacy with any tom, dick or harry willing to give her a cheap thrill? If she can share such intimacy without love, how loving is she when she wishes to share the same with me? What need has she for my love when she is willing to give herself for no love at all?

Because physical acts are just that, physical. No matter how 'intimate' the act, it really is just mechanics, and that's achievable with anyone.

What makes it special between 2 people is the emotional connection.

On that, you're right. But you're not right when you say that every single intimate act MUST accompany an intimate connection. Yes, love makes things better. But no, you can't not have these things without love.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Without the casual community you would not have met this dom at all. After all, the only reason you met him was because the casual community invited him.

Were you seeking love rather than thrills you would have spoken with this person extensively, or at least to the point where you knew it wasn't going to work out at which time you'd have ended the conversation and never met the individual in question.

You seem to have confused their desire to include you in their thrill-seeking with a concern for your well-being.

Contradictory statements.

Without the community, Soumis wouldn't have met that Dom.

But if they were seeking love instead of thrills, they would have spoken to that Dom at length?

Which is it?

 

[BLoved]

This is called 'Argmentum Ad Misericordiam': the attempt to bolster ones argument through the arousal of pity.

~smile~

You quote my introduction, wherein I explain why I believe this discussion will fare better than the one started by CM, and you claim I'm trying to bolster my "arguments" with pity.

What arguments?

you attempt to defend your opinion by saying that it must be correct simply because there was opposition to it.

No. I've pointed out how the casual community has difficulty with discussions regarding the lack of ethics in casual 'bdsm', and thus seek to disrupt/censor said discussions.

It is the conspiracy to silence opposition that gives weight to my arguments.

Your decision to remove your writings was your own, and can be affirmed by other threads in this forum.

I think it is clear to anyone who read CM's thread that my decision to remove my writings was a result of the casual community down-rating anything I wrote, regardless of what I wrote or how well I wrote it, simply because I oppose the lack of ethics in casual 'bdsm'.

Allowing my material to be rated on its literary merits is one thing. To be rated as a result of prejudice is another matter.

You were not ordered, asked, cajoled, or in any other way required to remove your works.

It is obvious that a work down-rated out of prejudice will not get the attention it deserves.

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.

"after he removed them"?

By removing my work I put an end to the effort to prejudice readers against my work through artificially low ratings.

I can always post them again when the casual community isnt' looking, and remove them again as soon as those inclined to vote their prejudice start abusing the rating system.

If, on the other hand, you are inclined to validate voting based on prejudice, what would happen if the KKK started down-rating anything written by a person of colour, or the fundamentalists started down-rating everything that offended their sense of morality?

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.

We've had a number of examples of the behaviour I've described, and my experience demonstrates this is not the only forum nor these the only advocates of casual 'bdsm' who engage in the practices described.

If I accused members of the KKK of being "racist" would I be guilty of an ad hominem or simply be stating the facts?

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.

On the contrary, I am demonstrating just how pervasive is the attitude described. Hardly a "special case".

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

Which is what I did.

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?

Love is a fundamental human requirement. There are no exceptions. Babies raised without love become dysfunctional.

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'.

Emotional abuse resulting from casual 'bdsm' is the effort to disconnect intimate behaviour from intimate emotional bonding. In a healthy individual intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding is linked: one leads to the other.

In dysfunctional individuals this link is severed.

Engaging in intimate behaviour (bdsm, sex) with someone with whom one shares an intimate emotional bond is not dysfunctional. Engaging in intimate behaviour with someone with whom one does not, and cannot engage in intimate emotional bonding is emotionally abusive for all concerned.

'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'.

Love and abuse are mutually exclusive.

Love is the state wherein the well-being and happiness of another is as important as one's own well-being and happiness. It is impossible for anyone who feels love to abuse a beloved.

Abuse can occur when one's own well-being and happiness is more important than that of a partner.

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.

Agreed.

'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.

If the responsibility of the dom is to protect his beloved, that would include protecting her from emotional abuse, which is what you would be engaging in if you left her tied up with a stranger.

My beloved is free to ask for anything she wants, and she trusts me to decide which of her requests are safe, and which are not.

Abdicating my responsibility by saying "she asked for it" does not excuse bad decisions on my part.

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.

That is not the point. A novice relying on the recommendation system used by the casual community places him/herself at risk because he/she does not have the reputation of the one recommended.

There are many examples of people using their reputation so as to avoid accusations of abuse: catholic priests, for example.

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.

And I would point to online, public behaviour as evidence.

In your case you are buying acceptance within the casual community:

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

As there are no complaints from you regarding the disruption, and as you fail to mention the effects a low-rating has on a story or essay, and you failed to mention the vote-rigging but tried to portray my decision to remove my work as "You were not ordered, asked, cajoled, or in any other way required to remove your works.", it is clear you will say just about anything to consolidate your gains with the casual community.

So how do we determine the accuracy of your statements when clearly you are seeking to gain acceptance within the community you are defending?

If you cannot comment on the unethical practices of advocates of said community when their abuses appear in public, how likely are you to say anything contrary to your interest in gaining acceptance within that community?

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?

I introduced the concept in my profile at collarme. The profile included my "Love" trilogy and the essay "Casual 'BDSM' and Emotional Abuse: The Case for Love".

We discussed bdsm and other topics for several weeks before meeting. My beloved came here to stay with me for a week, so that we could become more familiar with one another and confirm what we had learned about each other through our conversations.

It wasn't until we decided to make this permanent that we engaged in any form of intimate behaviour (bdsm and love-making).

It's for a story concept I am helping a friend with.

Do tell.

 

[intothewoods]

In what way is intimate behaviour with no chance for intimate emotional bonding not dysfunctional?



A "community" is a group of like-minded individuals who subscribe to the same paradigm.

A community exists on this forum. There is a community associated with every online forum.

A community exists wherever there are regulars who hold/attend play parties, munches, etc.



"Evil" is not a term I've used, nor will I.

I consider all such individuals "dysfunctional": incapable of forming truly loving relationships due to past experiences with abuse (physical and/or emotional).

Their need to involve strangers in love-making is a symptom of their inability to engage in intimate emotional bonding ... by cheapening the intimate behaviour such that any stranger can be included, thus demoting the beloved.

It's a false paradigm to define all bdsm or sex as either dysfunctional or part of a monogamous, lifelong commitment and "true love." I have seen plenty of ongoing play relationships in the public scene between friends that are very loving. Some are warm, friendly and affectionate. To answer the question above, that's how they're not dysfunctional. Your experience has been otherwise, but not all bdsm communities are created equal. In my city, there is a group that is very hedonistic and young. There is a group that is rumored to be sexless and with many tight restrictions. There is a group that tries to bring various communities together. Some groups are more queer; some are less. I mean, the variety is endless, as I've said before.

You are of course free to say that the scene is not for you (and many on this board have said similarly), but it's not accurate to characterize the public scene everywhere based on a few events. Also, it's not accurate to lump bdsm dating websites with the public scene. There is not a ton of overlap between people who seek out hookup online and people who are active in their public scene. Most people I know locally are wary of those types of casual encounters for safety reasons. Whether or not that's valid is another question. I'm simply pointing this out for the sake of accuracy.

I also can't subscribe to the belief that there is only one path to ... well, anything, but in this case, love. My observations of people have shown me otherwise.

You have raised some interesting issues, but because you paint with such a broad brush, it's impossible to get to the real substance of the issues. There is a lot I have to say about ethics in the public scene and predators. But your argument is that the entire public scene consists of predators. That everyone on this forum is in cahoots. Well, you are welcome to your opinion.

 

[BLoved]

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.

So you are good enough to beat, but not good enough to love.

In what way is that not dysfunctional?

In what way does that not affect your self-esteem?