The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'

[unregistered]

 

[BLoved]

I always laugh at the notion of the Mighty Mammoth Hunter. It says so much about the fantasies of men, and so much about their ignorance of what kind of hunting actually sustains a clan.

~smile~

As you were the one to mention them, I take it you were indulging your fantasies regarding what men fantasize about.

Dude you'll have to explain that one, I am curious.

You claimed "Fighting to defend one's young is not love. That's your basic reproductive imperative at work."

I referred you to the oyster, because her "basic reproductive imperative" is to pump as many eggs as possible into the ocean. She spends zero time defending her young.

Indeed, the vast majority of species on the planet reproduce without any effort to defend their young.

There is no real need to explain that

Unless you want to resort to 'intelligent design' or Lamarkism it most certainly requires an explanation. These sorts of thing do not just spontaneously appear in three families as divergent as the ones you list.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

"No Strings Attached"

"One Night Stands"

"Casual 'bdsm'"

Oya, lots of people are ignoring that emotional bonding occurs.

Ok, so I'm currently processing my feelings re: casual shenanigans. (Yes, I love that word now)

Now I'm sure you'll think that if you looked dysfunctional up in the dictionary you'd see me after reading this, but here goes nothing.

You're basically saying that intimate behaviour=intimate bond. What if, casual relations with other people deepens the bond between the existing couple?

I know, for myself, that I get a deep personal satisfaction watching my partner enjoy himself, as he does with me. And we've come out of those experiences much closer emotionally and with a greater understanding of each other.

I don't see how that's bad.

*laughs*

Ok, let it rip.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Only culturated humans could dream up something as neurotic as romantic love to screw up something like fucking.

Man, where's that quote calendar thingie when you need it.

Nomination, right here.

 

[BLoved]

callous indifference

Actually, I care very much.

But all the caring in the world won't help an alcoholic if the alcoholic doesn't see the problem.

So it is with those who suffer from dysfunctional attitudes when it comes to love.

CM, you asked me for this discussion. You made a big fuss about how I wouldn't give my opinion regarding your relationship.

Now you are trying to eviscerate me for having given you that which you've repeatedly requested.

How dysfunctional is that?

 

[BLoved]

Love can certainly coexist with abuse.

You are free to define love any way you wish.

If you want to define love as abusive, no one will stop you.

I'm just making clear that has nothing to do with my definition of love, nor the dictionary's, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[unregistered]

 

[BLoved]

Ok, so I'm currently processing my feelings re: casual shenanigans. (Yes, I love that word now)

Now I'm sure you'll think that if you looked dysfunctional up in the dictionary you'd see me after reading this, but here goes nothing.

You're basically saying that intimate behaviour=intimate bond. What if, casual relations with other people deepens the bond between the existing couple?

I know, for myself, that I get a deep personal satisfaction watching my partner enjoy himself, as he does with me. And we've come out of those experiences much closer emotionally and with a greater understanding of each other.

I don't see how that's bad.

*laughs*

Ok, let it rip.

Using someone else for your partner's pleasure draws the two of you closer together?

In what way are the two of you not objectifying the individual whom you use for his pleasure?

What about the emotional needs of the person being used? He/she is left alone trying to address the disconnect between intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding.

Thus your dysfunction regarding love is transmitted to the third party.

 

[BLoved]

Well, I guess we should just concede to your definition. Only you, BLoved, can know the one true way to define love.

[/Sarcasm]

By the way, the posts say that love can coexist with abuse. Not that love is defined by being abusive.

Abuse is inspired by fear, not love.

If abuse has occurred, the abuser is acting on fear, not love.

Abuse and love, like fear and love, are mutually exclusive.

Abusers may claim to be acting on love, but that is merely denial.

When one has a clear understanding of what is and is not love, self-deception and other forms of denial become obvious.

 

[ImOnIt]

Abuse is inspired by fear, not love.

If abuse has occurred, the abuser is acting on fear, not love.

Abuse and love, like fear and love, are mutually exclusive.

Abusers may claim to be acting on love, but that is merely denial.

When one has a clear understanding of what is and is not love, self-deception and other forms of denial become obvious.

ASDA:SDMQWEM:QEMALD<MA:L<A:XCL<ACASCA

LEARN ABOUT LOGIC KINDLY. Apply it to your chains of therefor and hence, and perhaps you will understand why people dont agree with your claims.

 

[BLoved]

perhaps you will understand why people dont agree with your claims.

I am well aware of why those engaged in casual 'bdsm' disagree with me.

To agree would require changes in their lifestyles, and they are much too addicted to make those changes.

Casual 'bdsm' creates the illusion of intimacy without the intimate emotional bonding: satisfying in the short term, but it never lasts. To regain that feeling they must indulge again and again, like a heroin addict getting a fix to push back the withdrawal symptoms.

The cure is an intimate emotional relationship, but that takes too long and requires individuals to unlearn the lessons they taught themselves when they were confusing abuse for love.

Feeling safe from abuse because they avoid love, they continue to satisfy themselves with the illusion of intimacy without risk of actual intimacy. They reinforce their dysfunctions by engaging in group activities with others who suffer from similar dysfunctions. They recruit novices who know no better and attack anyone who refuses to turn a blind eye to their lack of ethics.

They are an insulated group who are not satisfied with a world where people exist who don't share their paradigm. Unable to 'live and let live' they practice 'convert or conquer' with a fanaticism that demonstrates itself through their need for schoolyard bully tactics in public forums.

They seem to be completely oblivious to how immature they appear through their tactics of taunting, disruption, trolling, flaming ...

I do not expect them to ever agree, and I do not write for their benefit (tho' should they benefit, so much the better).

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

Abuse is inspired by fear, not love.

If abuse has occurred, the abuser is acting on fear, not love.

Abuse and love, like fear and love, are mutually exclusive.

Abusers may claim to be acting on love, but that is merely denial.

When one has a clear understanding of what is and is not love, self-deception and other forms of denial become obvious.

Is this expert opinion from years of experience abusing?

From your first wife to your beloved the abuse just keeps rolling on.

 

[eastern sun]

Geez. It must be really fun to be this guy's "beloved."

If you're looking for certainty in an uncertain world, and have no interest in challenging that certainty, it can be quite compelling.

People make that choice all the time.

 

[rida]

I know, for myself, that I get a deep personal satisfaction watching my partner enjoy himself, as he does with me. And we've come out of those experiences much closer emotionally and with a greater understanding of each other.

I don't see how that's bad.

*laughs*

Ok, let it rip.

I've had a similar experience ^_^

I do not deny the biochemistry of bonding taking place when you have sex with someone (anyone). But being aware of the chemical consequences of physical intimacy on a chemical level, I can easily separate them from love and use them to foster the bond with my Hubby instead.

Using someone else for your partner's pleasure draws the two of you closer together?

In what way are the two of you not objectifying the individual whom you use for his pleasure?

What about the emotional needs of the person being used? He/she is left alone trying to address the disconnect between intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding.

Thus your dysfunction regarding love is transmitted to the third party.

The third (or fourth or fifth ...) party are someones there on their own accord. Whether they are someone that we have met through an ad or in another way, they are aware from the beginning of what the rules of engagement are.

They are not used, but they are willing participant.

As I'm responsible for my own choices, they are responsible for their own. I might be naive, but I'm a strong believer on being responsible for your own actions. I'm/we are honest on what are we offering and we expect that the other party/parties is/are honest as well.

Can I be 100% sure that I've never fucked anybody that had not had any "disconnect between intimate behavior and intimate emotional bonding"? From the information I was privy to and assuming honesty in our interactions, I'd say yes. I'm pretty good at reading and figuring out people.
However if they lied to me (and themselves), I do not believe that letting them fuck me was me abusive to them.

 

[BLoved]

If you're looking for certainty in an uncertain world, and have no interest in challenging that certainty, it can be quite compelling.

People make that choice all the time.

It is called "leadership". I have a clear understanding of love, and those who listen, those who lack a vested interest in dysfunctional behaviour, find that understanding helpful when they try to explain events in their lives and try to define themselves and who they wish to be.

Those who wish to lead people into a love-less existence are forced to recruit those who are already invested in dysfunctional behaviour, and novices who do not know there is a better way to explore bdsm than through love-less encounters with abusive, immature strangers.

 

[BLoved]

The third (or fourth or fifth ...) party are someones there on their own accord. Whether they are someone that we have met through an ad or in another way, they are aware from the beginning of what the rules of engagement are.

They are not used, but they are willing participant.

As I'm responsible for my own choices, they are responsible for their own. I might be naive, but I'm a strong believer on being responsible for your own actions. I'm/we are honest on what are we offering and we expect that the other party/parties is/are honest as well.

Can I be 100% sure that I've never fucked anybody that had not had any "disconnect between intimate behavior and intimate emotional bonding"? From the information I was privy to and assuming honesty in our interactions, I'd say yes. I'm pretty good at reading and figuring out people.
However if they lied to me (and themselves), I do not believe that letting them fuck me was me abusive to them.

And let's not pretend you cared one way or the other.

This is the paradigm for casual 'bdsm': I'm alright, if you're not you only have yourself to blame.

Covers any and all forms of abuse.

 

[eastern sun]

It is called "leadership". I have a clear understanding of love, and those who listen, those who lack a vested interest in dysfunctional behaviour, find that understanding helpful when they try to explain events in their lives and try to define themselves and who they wish to be.

Those who wish to lead people into a love-less existence are forced to recruit those who are already invested in dysfunctional behaviour, and novices who do not know there is a better way to explore bdsm than through love-less encounters with abusive, immature strangers.

Do you often find yourself in positions of "leadership"?

 

[rida]

And let's not pretend you cared one way or the other.

This is the paradigm for casual 'bdsm': I'm alright, if you're not you only have yourself to blame.

Covers any and all forms of abuse.

If I coerced any of them. If I had gone to people that had no interest in swinging or casual sex, if I had walked up to someone on the street and propositioned and cajoled them ... perhaps I could feel a little bit guilty. As it is, they were all healthy self-confident individuals. I've actually turned down a few people when I felt they had intimacy issues or were trying to put a band-aid on their broken heart by fucking around. I know you might not believe it, but I am a pretty caring person. I make a point to follow up with people I had meaningful contacts. I'm actually still in good terms with most of my casual contacts.

I'm all for love, and I'm all for everyone finding that special someone (or someones) in their life. I do not believe, however that having casual sex with me is going to mess with their chance to find love. I do not believe that just because I (and them) enjoy some free sex, it is a sign of dysfunction.

And for the records, I also believe that in BDSM you can bottom casually but not submit.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

I've had a similar experience ^_^

The third (or fourth or fifth ...) party are someones there on their own accord. Whether they are someone that we have met through an ad or in another way, they are aware from the beginning of what the rules of engagement are.

They are not used, but they are willing participant.

As I'm responsible for my own choices, they are responsible for their own. I might be naive, but I'm a strong believer on being responsible for your own actions. I'm/we are honest on what are we offering and we expect that the other party/parties is/are honest as well.

Mmmm. I tend to assume that the other parties (and for us, at the moment, it's parties, as in couples) are seeking to fulfill an emotional need of some sort of their own as well, and I trust that they've achieved that.

 

[Netzach]

Just substitute "God" for "Love" and you pretty much nailed this. If someone came on here to give us Jesus, would this dialogue even be going on?

 

[Netzach]

Actually, I care very much.

But all the caring in the world won't help an alcoholic if the alcoholic doesn't see the problem.

So it is with those who suffer from dysfunctional attitudes when it comes to love.

CM, you asked me for this discussion. You made a big fuss about how I wouldn't give my opinion regarding your relationship.

Now you are trying to eviscerate me for having given you that which you've repeatedly requested.

How dysfunctional is that?

It's so true, they don't and they won't. Poor things. No matter how many times you tell them the wall they're so sure of is an elephant's ass they're still going to fight other people about it.

 

[Netzach]

I've tried SO MANY TIMES to rip the veil away from the eyes of idiots who need to justify their physical desires by means of hoop de doo and smoke and mirrors, but they're never going to stop, they're going to try and make sure those of us who are honest about our desires wallow in bummer.

Or man, does it burn their ass if we don't. Something should be done about that. Like a law or something.

 

[chy_girl]

*snip*
In fact, when I've asked questions on encouraging my husband to explore BDSM no one suggested I try out an expert first, no one encouraged me to seek experience outside of marriage. Rather, those with whom I've spoken were adamant in stating their positions against extramarital affairs/cheating.
*snip*

May I just point out that the seeking out an experienced individual was strictly in relation to experiencing/learning the practical application of the BD half of BDSM?

Literally: "This is how we insert the needle..."
"This is how we tie someone's arms behind their back..."
"This is how we tie someone up in a ball and hang them over water..."
"This is how we set some on fire without causing major damage..."

And I don't know about other communities, but the PYL's in my community don't just hand their pyl's over and wonder away - they watch, they help, they support, they participate, they make sure it stays safe, sane, and consensual. Why? Because that would be in their job description as PYL.

Just saying...

 

[Keroin]

Put another log on the fire...


Cutie mouse, rock on you crazy, cute and clever little rodent!