The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'

[BLoved]

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.

In what way did it boost your self-esteem to allow a stranger to have intimate contact with you?

In what way did it boost your husband's self-esteem to allow a stranger to be intimate with his wife?

In what way did it boost your husband's self-confidence to know you wanted intimacy he couldn't provide within the relationship?

In what way did turning to a stranger make your husband feel special and loved?

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

Are you saying you feel a loving commitment to her?

 

[intothewoods]

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.


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.

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

Some groups have open happy hours -- not play parties -- where you can meet other kinksters. You will not be immediately invited to a party, because there is a concern about inviting people who may be predators or unwilling to follow safety rules. Who makes those decisions? The leaders of that particular group. But if you don't like their rules, you are free to start your own bdsm community, and many in this town have. I have been to a few different groups' parties, and some do consist of more public sex than others. I didn't go back to those. No one begged me to stay or asked why I haven't been around. I think those groups make little secret of what their parties are all about. You can attend or not. It's a free country.

 

[BLoved]

And I'm back to Rida's post (#73).

As I've been at this for a while, added a new page, the sun is shining and my beloved is painting it is time for me to take another break.

I'll be back.

 

[rida]

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.
*snip*
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.

But what if you were a delusional psychopath with a god complex? You would truly believe that you know what is best for your beloved, and you would truly believe that you love her. And if, in your believe you thought that it is in the interest of her happiness and well-being for her to be dead for whatever reason, who would protect her from your love?

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?

The "you are either with me or against me" argument. Or the martyr complex.

Just so that you know, Seurat, anything you say has no validity as you have proved yourself brainwashed by the Casual BDSM Community.

However please do another of your highly logic posts, I don't care how unhealthy it is to engage in such casual interaction but ... I want another Logicgasm

 

[CutieMouse]

By the way, BL, in another thread you implied that I started the discussion to give the forum a chance to gang up on you, and that I *knew* that would happen because I've been hanging around these parts for several years.

Shocking as this may seem (really, you might want to sit down for this) - I suggested you start the thread because I do know this board and thus understand that people who start their own threads are more likely to end up with a real discussion.

You're welcome.

 

[CutieMouse]

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

I do not wish abuse upon anyone - although I believe we categorize abuse differently.

I believe there are plenty of people who walk through life without experiencing difficulties of any sort and go on to have happy, productive, fulfilling, enlightening experiences.

However, I also believe that "abuse" (as you define it) doesn't automatically have to be a negative thing. A lot of strength and wisdom can be found in living a less than perfect life...

 

[Keroin]

So thrill-seeking trumps love-making?

"Hey! You got your thrill-seeking in my love making!"

"No, you got your love making in my thrill-seeking!"

"Mmmm, wait a minute...this is pretty yummy!"


Thrill-seeking and lovemaking, two great tastes that taste great together!







*Brought to you by the Horny Stunt Person's Association of Canada

 

[CutieMouse]

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?

See this is another one of those interesting assumptions (IMO)... the assumption that it's all about thrill seeking. I for one am all about people learning stuff. And I acknowledge that there is some stuff that gets incorporated into certain people's love lives that needs a little skill. And I am not so arrogant as to assume I can figure those things out all by myself while keeping a lover's safety and security paramount. (Nor would I enter an intimate relationship with someone who didn't view things similarly.)

So I'm the kind of person who can approach such things from a clinical, technical standpoint. When in that head space I am not turned on, kinked out, or otherwise grokking on the person providing the instruction. I am "in class" (and I don't mean the kinky schoolgirl outfit kind of class).

Out of curiosity, where does that fall on your abuse scale?

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.

Who says you can't have some sort of emotional bonding without True Love?

Oh yes, you do.

I dearly love my best friend; we've been friends for 13 years, roommates for the last 3 years. We have a very intimate, loving, supportive relationship - yet sex/BDSM isn't a part of any of it, and True Love doesn't even ping the radar (neither of us is gay enough).

My work is incredibly intimate; I deal with clients in very vulnerable situations and I do my best work when we are able to form a brief emotional bond... yet True Love (or love period) never ever comes into play.

Yes humanity needs to feel intimately and emotionally connected; not every emotional connection needs to involve Love .

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.

A hug forms an emotional bond. Chatting about what just happened forms an emotional bond. Pen pals form an emotional bond. There are a few members of this forum with whom I have an emotional bond (not love), having never laid eyes on them. I hate to break this to you, but the world is not black and white.

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

From your writings I have formed the impression that the only person with whom you have a deep emotional loving connection is your Lover. And that other than your deceased wife (my condolences) you have never had another deep loving emotional connection. *To me*, that is dysfunctional and unhealthy. *shrug*

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

Just like no one has denied you the right to keep your writings up, nor discuss your views.

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.

The funny thing about this argument is that there are a lot of people who find self-resepect in embracing themselves, sorting out their demons, turning the norm on it's head, etc...

I have done a shitload of therapy throughout my life. My current Lover says he has never met someone who has benefited more from it. (Yes I know BL will blow off that statement.) My last therapist knew of my curiosity about BDSM & submission and we actually spent time acknowledging my need for such things, and teaching me to engage in such a dynamic while maintaining my personal integrity and core-self strength.

So now I'm this whole, grounded, smart, introspective, strong, emotionally healthy, stable woman - who happens to be submissive and finds intimacy and fulfillment in being treated like a personal fuck toy. Without demanding a life-long commitment.

How contradictory!

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"

This sounds like the old "they're only submissive because they've been abused/don't know any better/are broken/etc" argument.

Yawn.

(A concept, BTW, which many submissive persons find highly offensive.)

 

[chy_girl]

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?

How much self-respect and self-esteem is s/he demonstrating when s/he is willing to give up risk life and limb because the pyl's top decides they can 'figure it out.'

And this doesn't just apply to the heavier play. Have you ever been on the receiving end and had a single tail fall just a little off? Those fuckers can flay you, but they're readily available for purchase and with the right implements you can make a wicked dragon's tongue in about 15 minutes.

Not to mention bondage... That can permanently mess someone up simply because the wrong rope was tied wrong in the wrong spot. And books aren't helpful at standing over someone's shoulder and saying "Feel this right here... That extra tension mean there's a twist here and this is how you fix it. If the ropes don't feel like this here then it's going to start hurting about three minutes after you lift them and you'll end up doing an emergency release."

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?

They don't have to be synonymous. Nor do they have to be exclusive of one another. There is a time and place for both situations.

And I can't possibly be the only one who gets in that mood where I just want someone to flog the hell out of me.

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?

Who ever said I'm not good enough to love?!?

Everyone is "good enough" to love. That doesn't mean my Mistress and Sir Love me or that I Love my Mistress and Sir. But there are many other aspects that are just as important, if not more so, than "Love" in our relationship. Things such as caring regard, respect of the individual as well as the various personal boundaries, shared interests, friendship, acknowledgment of personal responsibility to the relationship, open and honest communication, a willingness to learn and expand, and affection. On top of which, we actually like each other.

Forgive me if I'd rather have the above instead of waiting around for my "One True Love." My mama always said I was too practical for own good.

 

[00Syd]

I'm getting the impression that BL doesn't actually know what BDSM is. He thinks that physical or emotional degradation automatically equals abuse, he thinks that if a specific act is impossible to learn on ones own than one can just do without it, etc, etc. I mean, what? Does he even know what a fetish is? Does he not realize that degredation is a fetish in itself (and a HOT one)?

When BL says "BDSM," I get the impression that he really means "D/s" because he doesn't seem to understand the B/D and S/M parts of the acronym.

Also, I would LOVE to know what he thinks of polyamoury.

(And by "love" I mean it in the "fascinated by a train wreck" sense of the word)

 

[Etoile]

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

I don't think I can even dignify this with an answer. If you don't have room for this in your worldview, we have nothing to talk about.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

See this is another one of those interesting assumptions (IMO)... the assumption that it's all about thrill seeking. I for one am all about people learning stuff. And I acknowledge that there is some stuff that gets incorporated into certain people's love lives that needs a little skill. And I am not so arrogant as to assume I can figure those things out all by myself while keeping a lover's safety and security paramount. (Nor would I enter an intimate relationship with someone who didn't view things similarly.)

So I'm the kind of person who can approach such things from a clinical, technical standpoint. When in that head space I am not turned on, kinked out, or otherwise grokking on the person providing the instruction. I am "in class" (and I don't mean the kinky schoolgirl outfit kind of class).

Out of curiosity, where does that fall on your abuse scale?

That pings his abuse radar heavily.

He's mentioned elsewhere that to engage in an intimate act without that intimate connection is tantamount to emotional abuse. He seems to unable to see the varying shades of grey between the two absolutes, no matter how often they're pointed out.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

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?

Who ever said I'm not good enough to love?!?

Everyone is "good enough" to love. That doesn't mean my Mistress and Sir Love me or that I Love my Mistress and Sir.

He *did* rather blatantly disregard celticsunspiral's comment that she didn't love her Dom either... yet apparently him 'not deserving love' isn't a mortal blow to his self esteem. Must be because he's a big badass, tough Domtype.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

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?

How much self-respect and self-esteem is s/he demonstrating when s/he is willing to give up risk life and limb because the pyl's top decides they can 'figure it out.'

I agree with chy.

I'd be very wary of a sub who would blindly risk so much of their own physical health simply by requiring love in return.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Quite the Puritan isn't he?

 

[Seurat]

~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?

Argument: a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true

I see your entire first post as a listing of statements meant to provoke a thoughtful discussion by assuming a specifice stance, bolstered by your assertions that what you propose is 'truth'. Therefore, I would consider it an argument. If it was not meant as such, then I don't think it should have been offered as a starting point for discussion. It would have been better to say that it was simply an announcement of your beliefs and, if it were not to be discussed by the forum (both those that have 'bought in' and those who have not), it would have most likely been more effective to have posted this as an 'essay' and turned off the comments and voting.

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.

Then wouldn't it be logical that a poster that only seeks to clarify your position could be seen as a supporter or, at the least, somebody that would prefer to support an open discussion, instead of just as another member of the 'casual community'?

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'.

And as I pointed out in that thread, your 'downrating' on the majority of your writings was the result of a single person. I don't feel that your accusation that the posters here, as "part of the community", downgraded your writings. And without formal proof of the person or persons connections to this forum being the voter in question, I think your accusation is unfounded. Personally, I found that my entire library here was tanked in a simlar fashion the other morning. If you are basing your statement on the timeliness of the votes, I could also note that when I compare the time the tanking of my stories occurred to those timestamps on your earlier posts, it would be just as easy for me to say that you were upset at my posts and downrated all of my stories out of spite just because you thought our positions were opposing and you were on at the same time as when the tanking occured. However, that would be an unfounded accusation; I figure that I just pissed off some anon and let it ride.

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

Where there any supporting comments which defined why the voter in question did what he did, or is this an assumption on your part?

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

True, even if that worth can only be seen by the author. I tend to be egotistical with my works, and think that they all deserve five stars across the board. But I know that isn't what others may think, which is why I allow both voting and comments. However, the judgement of any work cannot be made, at all, if the work is not available.

"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.

See above. Did smoebody actually say or comment that they were downrating your posts? Without such a supporting fact, your statement undermines your proposition in my mind.

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.

That would be your perogative, to both post and remove stories at your whim, and to accuse who you will if your writings are not received in the manner you prefer. As I said, by making such accusations without proof or connection, I think that you are undermining your position.

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?

First, I don't believe that the members of the board (as a whole) here subscribe to any tenants similar to those of the KKK; they have not, to the best of my knowlege, committed hate crimes (including rape and murder) in support of of what they think of as a superior race and religion. If there were members of such a group here, and they took the time to view every single one of the user profiles in order to search out those that do not fit their definition of acceptable just so they could 'downrate' their stories, then so be it. That is part of the risk you take when you allow your stories to be voted and commented on. I've gotten negative feedback from people who said they 'figured out' my story halfway through. So be it.

And if you think that those people do not exist here, then you need do nothing more than view a few stories in the LW section to see how some of the readers here feel about any race other than caucasian. As for fundamentalists: If they are here, I hope that whatever kink they are pursuing is within the guidelines of the board and, as I have just said, they are free to vote on stories just like anybody else. If the canter of the writing bothers them, or the punctuation, or the fact that dinosaurs and the existence of earth for millions of years, are the cause behind them posting a negative score, then that is their perogative. There is nothing here (meaning Literotica) that says the what is posted can be voted on based on merit alone.

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.

Then, hey! How about a few examples, put in a fashion that people can talk about, and let them discuss? My early post, the 'logicgasm' as one replier put it, was an attempt to have you post your thoughts in a way in which people could discuss them, without extraneous associations, generalized accusations, or inappropriate references. If you will look at the post, I was simply attempting to help your post technique, and there was nothing directed towards agreement or disagreement of your views.

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

Well, since the KKK has demonstrated as whole that their core belliefs are based on, in part, on racial factors, we would agree to that. They, as a group and as individuals, have made their viewpoint on racism quite clear in action and publication. And bringing them up would be pertinent if our discussion had anything to do with the KKK, but it doesn't. Your comments about the casual community,

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.

and

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'.

are, however, without support. Your continued use of these generalized statements detracts from the point(s) I believe you are trying to make.

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.

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

This falls to your presentation. By stating a 'special case', in this instance your personal experience, as a general fact, the position you make becomes a 'Converse Fallacy of Accident'. A more effective presentation (and accurate, since I don't think you are omniscient) would have been to elimnate the 'all or nothing' factors of your statements, and present them as personal observation. I.e., The majority of the discussion forums I have visited have, in my personal experience, denoted casual BDSM as a "I want what I want and I'll do whatever it takes to get it", and therefore I think it is indicitive a serious problem in the BDSM community. Casual BDSM, it seems, is taking on or has already taken on persona in which selfish and personal desires by the inexperienced and possibly uneducated are given precendence over the personal and humanitarian rights of those placed, willing or unwilling, into the submissive roles. I feel, therfore, that the community's reputation is being undermined as some of these 'casual BDSM players' are substituting selfish acts of abuse for possible positive relationships, which would be beneficial to all parties involved.

Yeah, a little drawn out, but I think that it states your position (as I see it) in a bit more palatable and therefore discussable fashion.



I can continue with the analysis of your posts, and why I think that your presentation (and not necesarily your position) is the basis for the lack of support your are looking for (and would most likely receive), but I think that I am detracting from the discussion at this point.

As for the rest, re: my 'attempts at buying in':

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

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

Link 1

I asked that you you see that her post was asking for a new thread. If you interpret this an attempt to 'buy in', you are free to do so. I only sought to correct what I saw as a misinterpretation on your part.

Link 2

So, saying that you should have the right to defend your position is another attempt at a 'buy in'? If so, send me the form and let me write out a check. I'm all for free speech; I just thin that it should be done in a manner which allows other people to offer dissenting opinions. I prefer logic, and not emotion, when attempting to make points.

Link 3

If I do or say something improper or incorrect, I'll man up to it, as I did there. Checking out the bars in a new place is a good way of seeing what the town is like. I also check out the local game shops and book stores, but they don't have the former here, and the latter is plainly marked. No need to ask.

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.

There's that Ad Hominem fallacy again. You attack me by attempting to make an association which you feel is negative, and thereby undermine my reputation. Me, I would say that you have the right to say almost anything and, while I may not agree with it, I will defend to the death your right to say it. Of course, I am not so supportive when the comments are about me personally. Especially when I feel they are unfounded and intentionally derogatory, though that may not be the effective outcome.

I do very well at besmirching my own reputation, and have no real need of assistance.

~Smiles~

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

*sigh*

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?

Bescause I won't generally comment on anything I don't have first hand experience with, or at least things with which I not very familiar with. I won't comment on munches, meets, personal ads, or the slyrocketing prices in Greece because they are all things I have not experienced. I have been a moderator on another forum for more than a decade, and an administrator for nearly that long, and I can see when people are presenting what could be a coersive argument in such a way as to actually disuade their possible supporters.

And if faced with facts, seen by myself or presented properly by others, I have no problem in changing my opinion and saying so. I've seen "Twelve Angry Men" far too many times to be afraid to change my stance.



Different subject now, altogether.

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.

[/quote]Do tell.[/QUOTE]

She entered into a long term relationship, only to discover that one partner was an unrealized dominant, while the other was not submissive. We are working out a way to put it all down in words. As said, it's a bit off topic.

 

[00Syd]

Quite the Puritan isn't he?

Ain't that the truth

 

[Netzach]

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?

How the HELL do you justify yourself handing out emotional abuse to people over the internet as being the spokesperson of True Love?

This is emotionally abusive, verbally abusive language, to assault people's self esteem based on their choices. It has no part in civil debate. It has no part in helping someone.

Let's argue for a second that you are right about everything,which I absolutely don't believe.

Is this how you "help" people?

Go look up "harm reduction" or check your Tao Te Ching and come back when you're ready to be a human being.

 

[Stella_Omega]

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

I did not vote on the piece of yours that I read.

But if I had, I would have downvoted for unreadability, completely apart from your views. You write lists, not prose.

 

[chy_girl]

Some groups have open happy hours -- not play parties -- where you can meet other kinksters.
*snip*

Our local munches are held in public places and don't involve play. Depending on the "open house" depends on if one needs an invitation, and one of the houses has a room where people just hang out and chat. Now, the local dungeon requires an application and a paid membership... They have cool furniture though.

And in no way is play "required" if one attends any of the gatherings and get togethers.

*snip*
Yes humanity needs to feel intimately and emotionally connected; not every emotional connection needs to involve Love .

QFE&T.

I'm getting the impression that BL doesn't actually know what BDSM is. He thinks that physical or emotional degradation automatically equals abuse, he thinks that if a specific act is impossible to learn on ones own than one can just do without it, etc, etc. I mean, what? Does he even know what a fetish is? Does he not realize that degredation is a fetish in itself (and a HOT one)?

When BL says "BDSM," I get the impression that he really means "D/s" because he doesn't seem to understand the B/D and S/M parts of the acronym.

Also, I would LOVE to know what he thinks of polyamoury.

(And by "love" I mean it in the "fascinated by a train wreck" sense of the word)

I think you've hit the nail on the head... or the subbie on the butt. The D/s component is different from the B/D component.

As for the polyamoury aspect... we shall see soon enough.

I agree with chy.

I'd be very wary of a sub who would blindly risk so much of their own physical health simply by requiring love in return.

If I remember correctly, the thread on such subs would be here.

And I'd toss the emotional well being in with the physical, as well.

 

[Soumis]

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.

You can't say that without the casual community I wouldn't have met him at all. He could just as easily been my neighbor, a member of lit, or and ad responder.

I was seeking neither love, nor thrills. I was there to meet people and feel out the group. I was there to watch and have conversation. You say I should have "spoken with this person extensively," well that's exactly what I was doing with him. That he made me uncomfortable was unpleasant, but it certainly wasn't tragic. There was definitely no "abuse" of any kind.

While I doubt I confused, "their desire to include you in their thrill-seeking with a concern for your well-being," I suppose it's possible, but I have to think then that they wouldn't have stepped in. That they would have left me to untangle myself or not at all.

I'm curious how you would suggest meeting people within the community without actively participating in some aspect of it. It's nice to imagine that we all stumble across "Love" in the day to day, but rather absurd to assume so. You have to put yourself out there in some form or fashion to meet someone. No it doesn't have to be in public groups, but every form of introduction has potential for abuse.

Another point of concern for your "Love" theory, is that if I practiced it, I wouldn't try any aspect of bdsm until I was in a committed relationship. How many people approach the lifestyle thinking they want one thing, but actually hate it, or wanting something else? So often those new to the scene think they want to be a 24/7 slave when after exploration they are actually a bi-curious switch with a bondage fetish (for instance). I'd hate to figure that out after I was in Love with someone.

 

[BLoved]

If the person is choosing to do so on his/her own accord ...

... if it is healthy to begin with.

And isn't that the issue? Is the individual making such decisions based on their pre-disposition towards abuse due to past abuse, or is the individual making a rational choice free from any past influence?

How much concern will the casual player show towards finding an objective answer to this question, and how likely is the player to assume there is no history because such an assumption serves his or her purpose to find a partner for a no-strings attached one-night stand?

And there are ways to reduce risks.

Which risks are you speaking of? Risks to life and limb? Risks to one's self-esteem? Risks of emotional abuse?

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.

You have not demonstrated how the casual players rule out low self-esteem as a cause for someone who agrees to such behaviour.

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

And the person who agrees to the behaviour I described is addicted to self-destructive behaviour as a result of low self-esteem. In what way is it ethical for a casual player to take advantage of someone's dysfunctional low self-esteem?

In what way is it ethical for a casual player to ignore the symptoms of low self-esteem just to get another victim into the dungeon?

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?

In a strict sense, one can never be "100% sure" of what the other feels. That would require telepathy.

I trust her to be honest with me. Her deeds are consistent with her words.

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

~smile~

Part of the challenge of love is to breathe love into our choices, to act on our love and to share it openly with each other. In this sense our capacity and willingness to love is measured by the minutes of our lives that we spend giving our love to each other.

In this sense love can be assessed anytime, as the question to be answered is "am I well and truly loved?"

In the long-run, what you say is true. There is no certain measurement than at the end when one of the two has died. Did the survivor run away, or betray the trust of the one dying?

It is a little late for the one who dies to then assess the love within the relationship. But the one who survives knows whether he or she was true to their love.

It is a comfort to me that I passed those tests when my wife was dying. It tells me that I truly loved my wife, and that I am capable of such love.

Having felt true love for another, I am in a position to know whether I am feeling that love again or not.

(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.)

On the contrary. It is a description of true love.

 

[BLoved]

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.

Then I would say they are in denial regarding their "loving relationships".

Casual play does not demonstrate love or concern for the emotional well-being of the beloved.

In the example you describe casual play is thrill-seeking at the expense of a partner's emotional well-being: an act of selfishness and a betrayal of one's partner.

 

[Etoile]

How the HELL do you justify yourself handing out emotional abuse to people over the internet as being the spokesperson of True Love?

This is emotionally abusive, verbally abusive language, to assault people's self esteem based on their choices. It has no part in civil debate. It has no part in helping someone.

Let's argue for a second that you are right about everything,which I absolutely don't believe.

Is this how you "help" people?

Go look up "harm reduction" or check your Tao Te Ching and come back when you're ready to be a human being.

This wins so hard, I award Netzach 15 Internets.

 

[BLoved]

I appreciate your willingness to elaborate on your original essays. I think you make many valid points. Though I'd like to clarify a few points where I think you may have misunderstood me.

Actually, the way I've set up my BDSM "one-night stands" mirrors the way you met your beloved - corresponding over a period of months and even years through written stories, email, phone conversations - which included sexual stimulation - observing their interactions with others online or in public settings, and then meeting one-on-one. Frequently those initial meetings were for a meal and did not include sexual or BDSM activities. And on more than one occasion, if the initial meetings did not feel "right" in my own judgement, our physical contact was discontinued.

I have crossed multiple state lines to meet people, flown across the country alone, and value each experience that I've had. In fact, I've only met one person who used my interest in submission as an opportunity to express his hatred of women. He never touched me, took me out for an extremely expensive lunch, made me feel like shit in the most subtle of ways, after which I went home, took out a pair of scissors, cut off all my hair, and decided I would never see him again.

You are risking life and limb to offer yourself to people you know have no compelling reason to live up to your trust/expectations. They know as you know that whatever arrangements you work out are transient and that there is no future for the two of you, so why should they feel compelled to live up to your expectations when this is their one and only chance to get what they want?

In what way does that reflect a high-degree of self-esteem?

Love and a need for life-long commitment provides a compelling reason to live up to your trust, for without it there will be no life-long commitment, no love, no future.

I think you're right in saying that casual BDSM offers opportunities for predators. I also know from my own experience that BDSM excites "novices" into reckless behavior and/or frequently takes on an escalating pattern, in which greater and greater risks are taken to achieve the same emotional/physical experience.

Numerous discussions have taken place in this forum on the potential dangers of BDSM practice. And this discussion is now one of them.

I am a sober addict/alcoholic. In all my experience in working through addiction and abuse, though, I've never found success in trumpeting others' failures. Or of having my own failures pointed out to me. It doesn't enhance anyone's self-esteem, except for the one who can see the others' shortcomings, I suppose. It doesn't really offer a way out of habitual patterns, either. It suggests that I must abandon all that I am in order to find salvation - of the born-again kind.

A lot of people are in denial regarding their self-destructive behaviour.

A lot of novices have no idea that getting involved in casual play will result in emotional abuse.

My stories offered hope to those who seek love, for love as a motivator behind bdsm is a rarity, or so I've been told.

My essay on casual 'bdsm' has caused many novices to re-think their interest such that they no longer consider casual 'bdsm' as a viable choice, and chose to pursue love instead.

I have not written anything for the die-hard players who are so addicted they cannot escape the cycle of self-destruction. Their "salvation" is not in my hands, it is in theirs.

As is true for the novices.

I present the information, they make whatever choices seem appropriate to them. No one's freedom is compromised by another's point of view.

When I was getting sober, I did have to stop engaging in certain activities (drinking); and I needed to stop hanging around with people who encouraged me to do them (my drinking buddies). And I was told, by my new friends, that my relationship with my husband would not survive me getting sober. That our patterns were too deeply entwined, and that I could not make such a significant change without sacrificing the relationship.

Frankly, the fact that I was told that made me all the more determined to stay in my marriage. People draw lines around what they think they need to stay safe and happy, and they'll defend those boundaries against offense.

I don't live in a world where the concept of "True Love" exists outside of a romance novel. And I don't want to negate all the valid points you have made about how we all treat each other. It's just that because "True Love" is as empty a concept as "casual BDSM," it can be used by potential abusers as well. Precisely because it holds a promise that no real threat will ever occur.

And I don't accept that as the nature of the world.

Even in your own story, blessed with "true love," your wife broke the promise you held her to from the first days of your relationship together. (I've told my children "no dying today, please. It's not allowed.") And your son suffered a fatal accident only a few months later.

What frightens me is that "True Love" cannot save us from breaking that kind of promise. Nor keep our children alive.

Something else is required. And it is abandoning all those concepts in order to truly see what is happening in and around you. In order to accurately assess the existence of a threat. And gauge our actions accordingly.

"Novices" are frequently seduced by the fantasies and concepts they are introduced to, in whatever form they take. Being able to see the "real stuff" behind all these words is extremely important.

I think you have a lot of courage and will to present your views in this way. And, having looked at your posts last year, I also think it took a lot of guts to walk into the lions' den, so to speak.

On the other hand, you are in danger of objectifying me, and others in this forum. You are not seeing who we actually are. Language does that. It can either bring two minds together or fling them apart.

It doesn't mean you're wrong about us. But it doesn't mean you're right, either.

I see you and the others as I see everyone else: as people who were once babies, completely ignorant of abuse or low self-esteem.

We've all received life-lessons regarding abuse and low self-esteem. Some of us were better prepared to weather the storms, some of us not. I do not see this relfecting on the individual. It is not a fault or something lacking, we all started the same.

But some of us grew up in environments where abuse is more common-place, where the defenses a healthy child would learn could not be learned by others because they were not being taught.

The human psyche seeks to defend itself in whatever way works. For some it is substance abuse, for others it might be a cruel and malicious twist to their personality (abuse victims becoming abusers). There are many many ways of dealing with abuse, and not all of them are healthy.

I realize I cannot resolve this issue for everyone, and so I do not try. I present the information in the hopes that those who have not yet been abused may avoid it, and those who have been emotionally abused but not so much that they are addicted to it may better understand why they are being abused and the way in which the abuse might affect them.

In other words, I help those I can help, and hope for the best for the rest.

But the bottom line is always a matter of personal choice. It is not up to me to help others, it is up to others to help themselves.

I can only point the way ... they have to choose to walk the path.