The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'

[chy_girl]

30,000 years of evolution hard-wiring intimate behaviour with intimate emotional bonding and no one can explain either:
*snip*

So am I the only one that wonders what his point is if after "30,000 years of evolution" there's only something like 3% of all mammals that are sexually monogamous? And social monogamy among mammals doesn't have a whole lot to do with sexual monogamy? Because that kind of seems to disprove the point he's trying to make.

Misquoting me isn't going to help your credibility.

Says the voice of experience... On misquoting people, that is.

 

[Primalex]

So am I the only one that wonders what his point is if after "30,000 years of evolution" there's only something like 3% of all mammals

3% of all mammal species!

 

[chy_girl]

3% of all mammal species!

Thank you. My bad for missing the word. Hast makes wast and all that.

 

[Etoile]

Thank you. My bad for missing the word. Hast makes wast and all that.

*giggles*

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

Spread the word folks...CollarMe is the new eHarmony!

I can't wait to see the TV commercials.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

Doodles, it is pretty obvious the only person trying to be "controlling, manipulative, and abusive" is you.

How so?

Doodles? Is that some sort of passive aggressive way of calling me a name? Can't say an actual bad word because then your abusive side would show more, huh?

It's ok. Passive aggressive is one of the many tools in the manipulators trade. And you are the expert in manipulating after all.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

Misquoting me isn't going to help your credibility.

I was going to quote where you refuted or even denied being a manipulative, controlling, possessive, and abusive Dom, but....I can't see to find it.

Hmm. Interesting.

I guess you subscribe to the thinking, 'If the shoe fits...'

 

[intothewoods]

I can't wait to see the TV commercials.

Actually, my husband and I have joked that we'll be starring in those. We met on CollarMe and we're each other's beloveds. At least that's what our rings say.

Not everything that BLoved does needs to be attacked. He's hardly the first person here whose posts are manipulative, filled with false information, or incredibly insulting. I'm fine with the vigorous debate, but wading through all of the bullshit is a little tedious.

On the other hand, we have the discussion about whether we're all assholes or too mean around here periodically, and then we move on and forget about it. That's really neither here nor there, just noting that I've clearly been here too long.

 

[BLoved]

Me neither.

It can be very distressing when somebody keeps telling me that I am.

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

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

Which part of my experience is relevant to this argument?

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

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

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

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

In other words, you asked me for my opinion, and stated a willingness to discuss the risks you take.

You might recall I was asked to start this discussion, just as I have been asked to voice my opinion regarding your relationship and the relationships of several other participants in this discussion.

Is it fair to ask me for my opinion and then attack me for giving it to you?

Did my beloved ask anyone for an opinion about her relationship?

Have I?

 

[Stella_Omega]

...
Did my beloved ask anyone for an opinion about her relationship?

Have I?

You should apologise to her for talking about your relationship and about her problems to people after you've pissed them off.

 

[Etoile]

This thread could do with some copious amounts of marijuana. Chill out dudes...peace...that kind of thing!

 

[Stella_Omega]

This thread could do with some copious amounts of marijuana. Chill out dudes...peace...that kind of thing!

The sun's not yet over the yardarm for me, blast it!

 

[eastern sun]

In other words, you asked me for my opinion, and stated a willingness to discuss the risks you take.

You might recall I was asked to start this discussion, just as I have been asked to voice my opinion regarding your relationship and the relationships of several other participants in this discussion.

Is it fair to ask me for my opinion and then attack me for giving it to you?

I don't believe that I have attacked you (though I'll have to go back over my posts to see if I inadvertently did). I have only expressed my opinions, which include interpretations of your behavior. And you have expressed your opinions, which include interpretations of my behavior.

Are we attacking each other?

 

[BLoved]

I've always thought the development of emotional bonding had more to do with the maternal instincts in mammals than our sexual instincts.

Too many instances of real behavior across all cultures contradict the True Love paradigm for it to be hard-wired in the species.

I've always thought that romantic love and monogamy were cultural developments in response to the actual behavior that most humans exhibit.

You are not looking back far enough.

Consider the odds a single pregnant mother has of defending herself from Pleistocene predators.

Consider her odds while giving birth to offspring, or afterwards while trying to provide for a helpless infant. How is she to travel from food source to water source and back to the cave while holding an infant whose hands have lost the ability to clutch the mother's hair as is done in chimps? How is she to gather food, hunt, handle predators with an infant in one arm?

How is she to do this with an infant who screams when alone?

Without pair-bonding to a male, her odds of survival are much too small, which is why no other mammal has made a similar attempt with offspring so helpless.

Without a pair-bonded male to hunt for and to defend herself and her offspring there is little chance she will be able to accumulate the protein needed to sustain her child's brain development, just as there is little chance of her avoiding predators.

Without pair-bondng there would be no humanity.

30,000 years into the evolution of this survival strategy big-brained humans developed culture, and to handle the increasing population with the concommitant demand for members of the opposite sex for mating, cultural standards were developed to facilitate pair-bonding.

In cultures where the mortality rate amongst males was disproportionately high, rules developed to protect the orphans.

In all cases the rules developed were to minimize internal conflicts over mates and to ensure the survival of offspring.

We are still hard-wired to associate intimate behaviour with intimate emotional bonding: pair-bonding.

Even in cases where reproduction doesn't occur (such as with male and female homosexuality) pair-bondng still occurs (which is why same-sex marriage is legal here and why the demand to recognize it is so prevalent elsewhere).

It is only in societies where the pair-bonding process is interfered with that dysfunctional behaviour becomes an issue.

Casual 'bdsm' interferes with that pair-bonding process, by insisting intimate behaviour is completely unrelated to intimate emotional bonding.

 

[Etoile]

Even in cases where reproduction doesn't occur (such as with male and female homosexuality) pair-bondng still occurs (which is why same-sex marriage is legal here and why the demand to recognize it is so prevalent elsewhere).

This partly answers my question, but if you get a chance, please answer what I asked and get into it a little further. I really do want to know how gays and lesbians, celibate people, and male submissives factor into your thinking.

 

[BLoved]

And you have expressed your opinions, which include interpretations of my behavior.

Are we attacking each other?

You provided me with details regarding your relationships and you asked me for my opinion about those details.

And then, in response to the opinions you asked for, you say "It can be very distressing when somebody keeps telling me that I am [in an abusive relationship]."

All I can say is if you find the opinions you asked for so distressing, don't ask for them, or at least tell me what those opinions should be so as to avoid distressing you.

If you are going to complain about how distressing those opinions are to you, at least acknowledge that they were only given in response to you requesting them.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

In other words, you asked me for my opinion, and stated a willingness to discuss the risks you take.

You might recall I was asked to start this discussion, just as I have been asked to voice my opinion regarding your relationship and the relationships of several other participants in this discussion.

Is it fair to ask me for my opinion and then attack me for giving it to you?

Did my beloved ask anyone for an opinion about her relationship?

Have I?

You brought your beloved into this discussion:

I will let my beloved answer:

Remember? She was the one who then gave her personal history about herself and the two of you.

And you on more than one occasion brought up your relationship with your beloved.

If you wanted your private life to stay private then don't bring it up.

If you don't want opinions on it, then don't talk about it.

And please don't play the victim.

You gave your opinion on people's relationships when you do not know all the facts about them or their relationships.

I did the same with yours.

Sucks, don't it?

 

[Netzach]

You are not looking back far enough.

Consider the odds a single pregnant mother has of defending herself from Pleistocene predators.

Consider her odds while giving birth to offspring, or afterwards while trying to provide for a helpless infant. How is she to travel from food source to water source and back to the cave while holding an infant whose hands have lost the ability to clutch the mother's hair as is done in chimps? How is she to gather food, hunt, handle predators with an infant in one arm?

How is she to do this with an infant who screams when alone?

Without pair-bonding to a male, her odds of survival are much too small, which is why no other mammal has made a similar attempt with offspring so helpless.

Without a pair-bonded male to hunt for and to defend herself and her offspring there is little chance she will be able to accumulate the protein needed to sustain her child's brain development, just as there is little chance of her avoiding predators.

Without pair-bondng there would be no humanity.

30,000 years into the evolution of this survival strategy big-brained humans developed culture, and to handle the increasing population with the concommitant demand for members of the opposite sex for mating, cultural standards were developed to facilitate pair-bonding.

In cultures where the mortality rate amongst males was disproportionately high, rules developed to protect the orphans.

In all cases the rules developed were to minimize internal conflicts over mates and to ensure the survival of offspring.

We are still hard-wired to associate intimate behaviour with intimate emotional bonding: pair-bonding.

Even in cases where reproduction doesn't occur (such as with male and female homosexuality) pair-bondng still occurs (which is why same-sex marriage is legal here and why the demand to recognize it is so prevalent elsewhere).

It is only in societies where the pair-bonding process is interfered with that dysfunctional behaviour becomes an issue.

Casual 'bdsm' interferes with that pair-bonding process, by insisting intimate behaviour is completely unrelated to intimate emotional bonding.

Wrongo.

He's not going to survive a minute without his brothers and cousins and dad around him either. They're all huddled together - and the first thing we probably came up with is an incest taboo of some sort.

Long before monogamy of any sort.

Nice try, come again.

 

[TypicalDeviant]

Wait, if we're hardwired for monogamy, how do you explain sperm warfare? A huge number of the sperm in your ejaculate aren't even capable of fertilizing an egg. Instead, their sole purpose is to block the oviducts or attack and kill "foreign" sperm.

That's right, even your testes assume that your beloved has been with someone else...

 

[00Syd]

Man, evolutionary biology is so cool. It's the one kind of science that I really get into.

 

[BLoved]

BLoved, something occurred to me...do you apply your theories to same-sex couples, or only heterosexual couples? I haven't seen this discussed yet. Also, what are your thoughts on celibate people, whether it is due to religious, physical, or asexual reasons? (I'm speaking of those who are celibate by choice...not being able to get laid doesn't count!)

From my point of view there is no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality: intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding are still linked.

It is why I support same-sex marriage as an expression of their love and committment to one another. I completely oppose discrimination against homosexuals and I believe it is that discrimination that has led to so many difficulties and dysfunctional behaviour within that community.

Celibacy is a much harder animal to analyze as it is most often linked to religious beliefs, tho' not exclusively.

Within the religious context, celibacy is an effort to form an intimate emotional bond with a deity by foregoing any intimate behaviour with a person. In a sense it is still pair-bonding.

Celibacy also occurs amongst some widows and widowers, unwilling to form another pair-bonded relationship out of respect to the deceased partner.

I think you will also find behind those who object to divorce a belief that divorce is an attack against pair-bonding. I do not subscribe to that belief, but I can see how those who were raised in a culture where divorce is rare or nonexistent might view it in that way.

 

[Etoile]

From my point of view there is no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality: intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding are still linked.

It is why I support same-sex marriage as an expression of their love and committment to one another. I completely oppose discrimination against homosexuals and I believe it is that discrimination that has led to so many difficulties and dysfunctional behaviour within that community.

Celibacy is a much harder animal to analyze as it is most often linked to religious beliefs, tho' not exclusively.

Within the religious context, celibacy is an effort to form an intimate emotional bond with a deity by foregoing any intimate behaviour with a person. In a sense it is still pair-bonding.

Celibacy also occurs amongst some widows and widowers, unwilling to form another pair-bonded relationship out of respect to the deceased partner.

I think you will also find behind those who object to divorce a belief that divorce is an attack against pair-bonding. I do not subscribe to that belief, but I can see how those who were raised in a culture where divorce is rare or nonexistent might view it in that way.

Now that is some fascinating stuff to chew on (the bolded part).

I think divorce is the natural product of what happens when a couple realizes they aren't really right for each other after all. With your view of pair-bonding, it was a mistaken bond. Divorce is just how you go about fixing that.

 

[00Syd]

What about people who are asexual?

 

[Etoile]

What about people who are asexual?

I thought about this too. Asexuality is a desire for emotional intimacy WITHOUT physical intimacy.

 

[BLoved]

I was also wondering what his thoughts are on male submissives, since he seems to only be talking about female submissives when he discusses how they are all poor, abused, victims. So, what about male submissives?

Why should gender make a difference? People are people and we are all hard-wired for pair-bonding.