The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'

[graceanne]

As long as they can present their way as the only way in which you can engage in bdsm, they will have a steady stream of victims.

As long as they can continue to convince you that love and commitment is a waste of time they can continue to abuse their victims without facing consequences for what they do ... their victims either lose all self-esteem and take whatever abuse they wish to dish out, or their victims run and are no longer heard from again.

That's why they are in constant need of new recruits.

Wow, not listening or giving a damn, again.

Wait, dammit, now I'm trying to inject reality.

what were you THINKING?

 

[Netzach]

~smile~

As the attentive reader will notice, they still cannot defend the lack of ethics involved in casual 'bdsm', they continue to blame others for their lack of self-control (Abusive spouse: 'Honey, I wouldn't have beaten you up if only you'd do what I tell you to do. You know how much it makes me angry when dinner is late. You only have yourself to blame.'), they continue to throw out red herrings ("logic", "studies" et al), and they continue to disrupt the discussion ("don't feed the trolls").

Not only can they not defend their lack of ethics, their inability to control their own immature behaviour, their need to distract, distort and disrupt, but they cannot even say what ethics apply to casual 'bdsm'.

Those are the 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'.

These are the people you are supposed to trust with your life when you engage in casual 'bdsm'.

This is how they handle a situation where they are not getting what they want.

Any wonder they crave novices who are the least informed and most susceptible to the pressure tactics we've seen from them over and over and over?

They don't believe in live and let live. They seek to convert or conquer, because anything less creates the opportunity to object to their One True Way.

They are not content to place their arguments in favour of casual 'bdsm' before you and let you compare the arguments and come to your own conclusions.

They have no arguments in favour of casual 'bdsm' that aren't rooted in a dysfunctional attitude towards love and intimacy, and they know it.

So they distract, disrupt and distort because the bottom line is they figure their victims are idiots who exist solely to be abused. If you are smart enough to figure them out, you are of no use to them. You'll never put yourself in a position where they can get their hands on you.

No, they want the novices who have no idea casual players are dysfunctional or abusive.



As long as they can present their way as the only way in which you can engage in bdsm, they will have a steady stream of victims.

As long as they can continue to convince you that love and commitment is a waste of time they can continue to abuse their victims without facing consequences for what they do ... their victims either lose all self-esteem and take whatever abuse they wish to dish out, or their victims run and are no longer heard from again.

That's why they are in constant need of new recruits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[TypicalDeviant]

...they continue to throw out red herrings ("logic", "studies" et al), and they continue to disrupt the discussion ("don't feed the trolls").

Well damn it BLoved, I was trying to work with you. You know, give you a chance to defend and strengthen your argument. A "red herring" would be if someone said "hey, I read this study that proves my point" but then they never produced that study, they could never even prove it actually existed. A false lead or misleading clue, that's a red herring.

Our requests for you to increase the logical substance of your argument, or, you know, to cite your sources are our way of giving you a chance. They're our way of saying "hey, maybe you DO have a point, but we just want a little more meat on your argument".

There is nothing false or misleading about our requests. If you can correct the logical fallacies present in your argument and produce the studies you've cited, we'd be thrilled, and grateful.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well damn it BLoved, I was trying to work with you. You know, give you a chance to defend and strengthen your argument. A "red herring" would be if someone said "hey, I read this study that proves my point" but then they never produced that study, they could never even prove it actually existed. A false lead or misleading clue, that's a red herring.

Our requests for you to increase the logical substance of your argument, or, you know, to cite your sources are our way of giving you a chance. They're our way of saying "hey, maybe you DO have a point, but we just want a little more meat on your argument".

There is nothing false or misleading about our requests. If you can correct the logical fallacies present in your argument and produce the studies you've cited, we'd be thrilled, and grateful.

Quite so.

But since Bloved has already shown ample evidence that he will not offer anything more than sweeping generalisations, nobody is holding their breath.

 

[intothewoods]

~smile~

As the attentive reader will notice, they still cannot defend the lack of ethics involved in casual 'bdsm', they continue to blame others for their lack of self-control (Abusive spouse: 'Honey, I wouldn't have beaten you up if only you'd do what I tell you to do. You know how much it makes me angry when dinner is late. You only have yourself to blame.'), they continue to throw out red herrings ("logic", "studies" et al), and they continue to disrupt the discussion ("don't feed the trolls").

Not only can they not defend their lack of ethics, their inability to control their own immature behaviour, their need to distract, distort and disrupt, but they cannot even say what ethics apply to casual 'bdsm'.

Those are the 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'.


These are the people you are supposed to trust with your life when you engage in casual 'bdsm'.

This is how they handle a situation where they are not getting what they want.

Any wonder they crave novices who are the least informed and most susceptible to the pressure tactics we've seen from them over and over and over?

The posters who are arguing with you are not on the hunt. Do you think if some "novice" PM'ed Etoile or Netzach or rida, they would say, awesome, come on over and I'll have NSA sex with you! In my experience, the people who "recruit" for NSA play or sex are mostly men who rarely post on the forum.

People looking for specifc details about the public scene are on Fetlife, because that's where most of the events are posted. This is a talk forum. If everyone lurking here decided your worldview was correct, it would have zero impact on my life and, I suspect, most everyone else's lives here.

They don't believe in live and let live. They seek to convert or conquer, because anything less creates the opportunity to object to their One True Way.

They are not content to place their arguments in favour of casual 'bdsm' before you and let you compare the arguments and come to your own conclusions.

Who isn't letting you live? Who isn't letting you come to your own conclusions? Or anyone else? A vigorous exchange -- even one that includes some snark -- does not prevent you from speaking your mind, living your life or making decisions for yourself.

They have no arguments in favour of casual 'bdsm' that aren't rooted in a dysfunctional attitude towards love and intimacy, and they know it.

Dysfunctional means an inability to function. Most people here lead pretty functional lives.

So they distract, disrupt and distort because the bottom line is they figure their victims are idiots who exist solely to be abused. If you are smart enough to figure them out, you are of no use to them. You'll never put yourself in a position where they can get their hands on you.

No, they want the novices who have no idea casual players are dysfunctional or abusive.

Where are the victims of this forum? Are there lurkers who, but for this thread, would be seeking NSA play with someone here? Where are they?

As long as they can present their way as the only way in which you can engage in bdsm, they will have a steady stream of victims.

As long as they can continue to convince you that love and commitment is a waste of time they can continue to abuse their victims without facing consequences for what they do ... their victims either lose all self-esteem and take whatever abuse they wish to dish out, or their victims run and are no longer heard from again.

That's why they are in constant need of new recruits.

What stream? And who said love and commitment is a waste of time? I don't need to recruit a single soul.

 

[Homburg]

what were you THINKING?

Meh, he'll ignore it.

"Reality incoming! Shields up, Mr Sulu!"

 

[Netzach]

The posters who are arguing with you are not on the hunt. Do you think if some "novice" PM'ed Etoile or Netzach or rida, they would say, awesome, come on over and I'll have NSA sex with you! In my experience, the people who "recruit" for NSA play or sex are mostly men who rarely post on the forum.

People looking for specifc details about the public scene are on Fetlife, because that's where most of the events are posted. This is a talk forum. If everyone lurking here decided your worldview was correct, it would have zero impact on my life and, I suspect, most everyone else's lives here.



Who isn't letting you live? Who isn't letting you come to your own conclusions? Or anyone else? A vigorous exchange -- even one that includes some snark -- does not prevent you from speaking your mind, living your life or making decisions for yourself.



Dysfunctional means an inability to function. Most people here lead pretty functional lives.



Where are the victims of this forum? Are there lurkers who, but for this thread, would be seeking NSA play with someone here? Where are they?



What stream? And who said love and commitment is a waste of time? I don't need to recruit a single soul.

What's that? I'm taking valuable time away from pimping homeless 18 year old girls and heard my name.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

Bloved knows that "True Love" is not meant to be used on scientifically trained intellectuals because, as "True Love" is not logical, rational, or scientific, the intellectuals will not be swayed by it.

Rather, he knows, "True Love" is meant for the naive subs who cannot comprehend logic and intellect, but can be convinced of anything if their emotions are manipulated.

He further knows that since new subs have very little experience, the key to "True Love" is to keep repeating the same ideas over and over again until they are understood by and engraved on the mind of even the most naive sub.

~smile~

As the attentive reader will notice, they still cannot defend the lack of ethics involved in casual 'bdsm', they continue to blame others for their lack of self-control (Abusive spouse: 'Honey, I wouldn't have beaten you up if only you'd do what I tell you to do. You know how much it makes me angry when dinner is late. You only have yourself to blame.'), they continue to throw out red herrings ("logic", "studies" et al), and they continue to disrupt the discussion ("don't feed the trolls").

Not only can they not defend their lack of ethics, their inability to control their own immature behaviour, their need to distract, distort and disrupt, but they cannot even say what ethics apply to casual 'bdsm'.

Those are the 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'.

These are the people you are supposed to trust with your life when you engage in casual 'bdsm'.

This is how they handle a situation where they are not getting what they want.

Any wonder they crave novices who are the least informed and most susceptible to the pressure tactics we've seen from them over and over and over?

They don't believe in live and let live. They seek to convert or conquer, because anything less creates the opportunity to object to their One True Way.

They are not content to place their arguments in favour of casual 'bdsm' before you and let you compare the arguments and come to your own conclusions.

They have no arguments in favour of casual 'bdsm' that aren't rooted in a dysfunctional attitude towards love and intimacy, and they know it.

So they distract, disrupt and distort because the bottom line is they figure their victims are idiots who exist solely to be abused. If you are smart enough to figure them out, you are of no use to them. You'll never put yourself in a position where they can get their hands on you.

No, they want the novices who have no idea casual players are dysfunctional or abusive.

As long as they can present their way as the only way in which you can engage in bdsm, they will have a steady stream of victims.

As long as they can continue to convince you that love and commitment is a waste of time they can continue to abuse their victims without facing consequences for what they do ... their victims either lose all self-esteem and take whatever abuse they wish to dish out, or their victims run and are no longer heard from again.

That's why they are in constant need of new recruits.

And if anyone was curious where I got the quote from:

In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler described his perspective on propaganda.

He explained that propaganda is not meant to be used on scientifically trained intellectuals because, as propaganda is not logical, rational, or scientific, the intellectuals will not be swayed by it.

Rather, he said, propaganda is meant for the masses who cannot comprehend logic and intellect, but can be convinced of anything if their emotions are manipulated.

Hitler further stated that since the masses have very little intelligence and are quite forgetful, the key to propaganda is to keep repeating the same ideas over and over again until they are understood by and engraved on the mind of even the slowest person.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nazi-propaganda-1

I know one book that's sitting on Bloved's shelf.

 

[LaRocha]

There's no such thing as casual BDSM, so how can there be an 'ethics' of casual BDSM? BDSM is a set of differing ritualistic fetish practices. There's no such thing as a casual fetish. On the other hand BDSM is a general umbrella for any number of things, and there's no rigidity to any of its rituals.

Not even pantie sniffing is casual -- even if I only take advantage of a pair of soiled panties lying on the laundry room floor once in a while. Fetishes can't be turned off and on. I'm always a pantie sniffer, regardless of the number of panties I sniff each year.

 

[00Syd]

In all the literature I've read their sexual interactions strengthen the social (emotional) bonds.

What literature is that?

I'm still curious about this, by the way.

Still curious what literature you've read to reach your conclusions on the evolution of sexual/emotional interactions and pair bonding. A list of books or links to articles that have helped you form your opinions would be helpful to my understanding of your argument.

 

[BLoved]

Without new recruits, groups become stagnant, insular.

In other words, without fresh meat casual 'bdsm' gets boring.

It is not like new recruits are going to change the basic paradigm of casual 'bdsm': abuse or be abused.

 

[BLoved]

Our requests for you to increase the logical substance of your argument, or, you know, to cite your sources are our way of giving you a chance. They're our way of saying "hey, maybe you DO have a point, but we just want a little more meat on your argument".

I have yet to see anyone produce a study regarding the 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm' or the alleged benefits produced by engaging in such behaviour.

Let me know when you do.

Nor have I seen anyone produce an argument that uses logic to invalidate an argument that 30,000 years of evolution has hardwired intimate behaviour with intimate emotional bonding.

Let me know when you do.

This has always been a discussion regarding differing points of views, different paradigms, different ethics.

Love-based bdsm is based on mutual love and respect within a committed life-long relationship.

Casual 'bdsm' has no ethics beyond abuse or be abused.

 

[BLoved]

http://www.answers.com/topic/nazi-propaganda-1

I know one book that's sitting on Bloved's shelf.

~smile~

Godwin's Law.

 

[BLoved]

There's no such thing as casual BDSM

~smile~

Then all of these people have been arguing with me for nothing.

Casual 'bdsm' is based on the premise: No Strings Attached, as in love-less encounters akin to those between client and prostitute.

 

[BLoved]

Still curious what literature you've read to reach your conclusions on the evolution of sexual/emotional interactions and pair bonding. A list of books or links to articles that have helped you form your opinions would be helpful to my understanding of your argument.

~smile~

We are talking about conclusions based on what I've learned from forty years of studying the subject.

I'd recommend Part Four of "Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind" by Donald Johnason and Maitland Edey for more detailed information on pair-bonding and its origins. I found it quite helpful in connecting various dots that had accumulated through my reading on the subject.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

~smile~

Godwin's Law.

Doesn't take away from the fact that you nail those propaganda tactics to a T.

It's all thanks to you too. You brought up on a few occasions examples of Hitler/Nazi and the KKK and that got me thinking.

As I said, I knew exactly what you were after about your 10th post.

 

[BLoved]

Doesn't take away from the fact that you nail those propaganda tactics to a T.

Along with a lot of other people, including advertising agencies.

Read the chapter on Communication in "Rules for Radicals" by Saul D. Alinksy.

It's all thanks to you too. You brought up on a few occasions examples of Hitler/Nazi and the KKK and that got me thinking.

I referred to Hitler when describing the fate of Europe's homosexuals under the Nazi regime. This was in an exchange with Etoile regarding the rights of homosexuals in modern society.

I mentioned the KKK when I talked about respecting the rights of others to hold opinions different to my own.

As I said, I knew exactly what you were after about your 10th post.

~smile~

Let me guess: Hitler?

~smile~

Godwin's Law

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

~smile~

Let me guess: Hitler?

~smile~

Godwin's Law

No.

Worse.

 

[Stella_Omega]

~smile~

We are talking about conclusions based on what I've learned from forty years of studying the subject.

I'd recommend Part Four of "Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind" by Donald Johnason and Maitland Edey for more detailed information on pair-bonding and its origins. I found it quite helpful in connecting various dots that had accumulated through my reading on the subject.

I would recommend something much newer, and something based on a different study-- bone diggers are not psychologists.
They are guys with shovels.

 

[BLoved]

No.

Worse.

Godwin's Law:

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").[6]

Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering genocide, propaganda, early 20th century eugenics (racial superiority) or other mainstays of the Nazi Germany, nor, more debatably, to discussion of other totalitarian regimes, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances is appropriate. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.

However, Godwin's law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.[7]

Godwin's law has been extended via corollaries to cover other topics being brought up as an off-topic analogy. Stead's Law covers comparisons to Christianity, and Jack's Corollary ("reductio ad Klanum") covers that of racism. A common corollary is that whoever first brings up Hitler or the Nazis is said to have lost the debate.

Wikipedia

 

[BLoved]

I would recommend something much newer, and something based on a different study[/url]

~smile~

Of course you would. Calling for a citation was always a red herring because it can always be challenged in the manner you've just demonstrated.

-- bone diggers are not psychologists. They are guys with shovels.

Paleo-anthropology is a science that studies prehistoric artifacts (bones, tools, etc) and attempts to explain how prehistoric species evolved into homo sapiens sapiens.

They combine a number of disciplines to achieve this end.

 

[Netzach]

In other words, without fresh meat casual 'bdsm' gets boring.

It is not like new recruits are going to change the basic paradigm of casual 'bdsm': abuse or be abused.

No, your discussion tactics could be refined. Watch more O'Reilly.

 

[Netzach]

I would recommend something much newer, and something based on a different study-- bone diggers are not psychologists.
They are guys with shovels.

If you're going to use Lucy to denigrate sexual variance in the North American continent in 2010 you already have such a total disregard for reality that it's a non-discussion.

 

[Stella_Omega]

~smile~

Of course you would. Calling for a citation was always a red herring because it can always be challenged in the manner you've just demonstrated.

Absolutely. Get more authoritative citations.

~smile~

Paleo-anthropology is a science that studies prehistoric artifacts (bones, tools, etc) and attempts to explain how prehistoric species evolved into homo sapiens sapiens.

They combine a number of disciplines to achieve this end.

Attempts.

You said it.

It is absolutely impossible do do more than attempt at this time, we simply do not have enough data. The hominin remains we have are minimal at best. Artifacts are non-existent until the stone age. We have no idea at all what tehstate of technology was before that.

But more importantly, in exploring the evolutionary arc, in no way whatsoever can we extrapolate behaviors, or explain current cultures. To try is to cover oneself in confusion and ignominy.

A little learning is a dangerous thing.

~smile~

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

So when logic is used against "True Love" it's a red herring, but when BL uses logic, it's proof that "True Love" is a evolutionary fact?

Let's be honest, there is no right or wrong argument in this discussion. It's all just opinions.

If it was fact based on either side this thread would be about 5 posts long instead of 600.