The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'

[BLoved]

Absolutely. Get more authoritative citations.

~smile~

And why would I let someone who thinks we started walking upright 50k years ago set my standards for me?

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~

~smile~

Which is yet another reason why calling for citations is a red herring.

Indeed there are theories. We have yet to figure out behaviour in the modern age, let alone 3 million years ago in a species that isn't yet human.

Nonetheless, I find Johanson's arguments persuasive. Having deliberately studied many aspects of humanity for forty years, I find his hypothesis more convincing than any other I've studied.

Amongst apes human babies are the most under-developed at birth. We are the most altricial. Without a linkage between intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding, our pair-bond strategy for survival would never have developed and humanity would have been a dead end.

 

[BLoved]

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

If you and your friends weren't so busy trying to diagnosis the reason why I won't validate casual 'bdsm' this thread would be a good deal less boring

 

[00Syd]

If you and your friends weren't so busy trying to diagnosis the reason why I won't validate casual 'bdsm' this thread would be a good deal less boring

On the contrary, I think that this thread is wildly entertaining.

 

[LaRocha]

~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.

I agree, they have been arguing with you for nothing('though they likely argue for entertainment purposes.)

You've made casual BDSM the same as any other casual sexual encounter. Which then would pair a BLoved Brand 'true' intimate BDSM relationship with that of a non-BDSM 'true' intimate relationship. You can't do that. BDSM is a special stratagem tacked onto 'true' intimate relationship. Same as casual BDSM is a contrivance upon casual sex.

There's no such thing as intimate BDSM, there's just BDSM the category, and then loving or non-loving, intimate partners who have sex practices that fall under the broad and inclusive category of BDSM. BDSM has nothing to do with categorical intimacy, abusers and abused, it's just a method of sexual encounter.

 

[Stella_Omega]

~smile~

And why would I let someone who thinks we started walking upright 50k years ago set my standards for me?

Because then you too can demand citations. Duh.

~smile~

~smile~

Which is yet another reason why calling for citations is a red herring.

Indeed there are theories. We have yet to figure out behaviour in the modern age, let alone 3 million years ago in a species that isn't yet human.

Then why waste your time pretending you know the truth?

Nonetheless, I find Johanson's arguments persuasive. Having deliberately studied many aspects of humanity for forty years, I find his hypothesis more convincing than any other I've studied.

Which is an honest statement, thank you.

Amongst apes human babies are the most under-developed at birth. We are the most altricial. Without a linkage between intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding, our pair-bond strategy for survival would never have developed and humanity would have been a dead end.

The mother-child bond is not exclusive; mothers easily bond to more than one infant, and easily keep their bonds with older children without detriment to the baby-- the bonds just keep adding themselves. Likewise a baby can bond with more caregivers than its mother alone. And adult humans can bond with more than one SO, if the cultural environment allows for it. We may see more and more polyamory as the discussion of that possibility becomes more widespread.

Another bond that is very important to humans is the tribal, affiliative bond-- we need to know that others of our kind share our experiences and emotions. There is where many groups get their seed from, including, IMO, many of the people that identify as part of a BDSM community.

~smile~

 

[CutieMouse]

Ethical BDSM by David Stein

Aim at excellence in all that you do.
Otherwise, why bother? There are much easier ways to get off. Everyone who comes under your hand, or whom you submit to or serve, should be better off for the experience. Does this mean humiliation or degradation have no place in ethical BDSM? As training tools, they do; as goals, no.

Be honest.
Withhold no necessary information. Never promise what you can't deliver. Acknowledged roles and fantasies aside, don't pretend to be what or who you're not.

Do no harm.
Giving (or accepting) pain is okay. Marks may be okay, even permanent ones. Temporary disabilities may be okay if complete healing is to be expected. Even helping someone die who's irreparably damaged and ready to go might be okay. But inflicting permanent harm that diminishes the quality of life or the ability to function in society and to earn a living is not okay. If you break your toys, you can't play with them anymore. And if you're a bottom, submissive or slave, if you demoralize your tops or Masters, no one will want to play with, control, or own you anymore.

Neither inflict nor accept pain unintentionally.
Causing indiscriminate, unintentional pain is the mark of a bully or a dolt, while accepting pain as simply one's lot in life is a victim mentality. Sadism and Mastery are about control and the ethical dimension requires control of the sadist or Master's own impulsive behavior. But the same goes for bottoms, submissives, and slaves, who can inflict enormous pain on their partners - or themselves without meaning to, simply by acting without thinking first. And they should also take care not to accept pain they don't want, especially without a context that makes it meaningful (such as serving a beloved Dominant or Master). Pain in BDSM ought to be a deliberate transaction, not an accident or a byproduct.

Take responsibility for assessing and reducing risk.
Risk-reduction is not the exclusive responsibility of the top or Master. Everyone needs to become informed about the risks involved in whatever kind of scene is in the offing and decide whether they're worth running, as well as how to reduce them as much as reasonably possible. Being careless or stupid isn't "hot"...it's just careless or stupid.

BDSM is not covert therapy.
Don't trap an s/m partner, let alone a D/s partner into filling a therapist's role. Unless you discuss it with your partner ahead of time, keep your personal shit out of the dungeon. If you have specific psychic or emotional trigger points, make sure your partner knows about them beforehand * and make sure he or she can be trusted to avoid triggering them.

Everyone should feel good about it when it's over.
With few exceptions, unless you leave your partner(s) wanting to do it again, the session wasn't right. Ideally, the same should be true of a relationship when it's over (this is much harder, but even more important).

Right is better than "right now."
Learn to wait for the right moment, the right partner, the right time to present itself. Don't be afraid to say, "Thank you, no," or "Not now." Learn to listen to your gut the right way * not the part that screams, "Feed me!" but the part that whispers, "No, there's something wrong here" or "Yes, this is it. Go for it!"

Kinky people are still people.
Even when we're puppies or ponies, Masters or Goddesses, slaves or toys, no one is invulnerable, unfeeling, or unworthy of the presumption of respect.

Treat others better than yourself.
Don't shortchange them the way you often do yourself. Treat others the way you'd treat yourself if you had time for it...if you weren't feeling so guilty...if you didn't have all these deadline pressures...if you didn't have higher priorities...if you weren't a closet masochist...

Finish what you start.
Don't take control of a bottom's mind unless you know how to return it again when you're finished. Don't break a bottom or a slave you're not prepared to put back together again. Don't enter training without intending to complete it, come what may (barring only the most extreme circumstances). Don't walk out of a scene partway through; if there's provocation that can't be ignored, step aside and calm down, then come back and finish it. If you enter a contractual D/s or M/s relationship, fulfill your end of the bargain no matter what; even though you can walk away without legal consequences, you forfeit your honor. (Caveat: Don't enter such a contract unless there are provisions for honorable release if either party comes to find the terms intolerable.)

Don't mess with someone's livelihood or family.
Unless someone explicitly invites you into the parts of her or his life that concern family or making a living, it's best to assume these are off limits. Therefore, nothing should occur during a session that might threaten those areas unless consent is secured in advance, before any action starts. For instance: shaving the head or eyebrows, piercings, tattooing, preventing someone from reporting in to work or calling family members. The same goes for a bottom, sub or slave encroaching on a partner's private space, like calling a number you were told not to use or interacting with his/her work colleagues or family members even though you haven't been introduced.

Don't take your partner(s) for granted.
Depend on them, count on them, lean on them as needed and appropriate, but never, ever lose the awareness that their presence in your life is a gift and a grace, not an entitlement, not even a quid pro quo. This is so whether you are a top or a bottom, a Master or a slave, a Dominant or a submissive, or even a switch. Having one or more partners you can count on, whether for a scene or a lifetime, is an incalculable gift. Don't devalue it by taking it for granted.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's petty good, CM.

 

[CutieMouse]

For the man who insists the BDSM community refuses to discuss or educate poor, helpless, unsuspecting sumbissives about abuse, sussed out from simply typing BDSM & Abuse into a Google search. 2,550,000 hits in .13 seconds - which tells me the "community" isn't exactly remaining silent on the issue.

A sample of online resources teaching healthy boundaries re: BDSM & abuse:

http://www.thenetworklared.org/smvsabuse.htm

http://www.leatherleadership.org/library/diffsmabuse.htm

http://www.lesbiansexmafia.org/smandabuse.html

http://www.leathernroses.com/abuse/harrissubstand.htm

http://www.leathernroses.com/abuse/steelabusersamong.htm

http://www.evilmonk.org/a/abuse00.cfm

http://www.nlaidvproject.us/html/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37

And for the True Love aficionado, himself, a workshop offered by Dark Moon Rising:

Honor, Service, and Devotion: Love in a Power Dynamic

Can love exist healthily in a dominant/submissive power dynamic, for an hour or for a lifetime? This workshop explores the spiritual, emotional, ethical, and practical sides of consensual power exchange in relationships, whether part-time as play or full-time as a way of being in the world. We'll delve into the fire of power-exchange ritual and the darkness of using magic to consensually enhance the training of a submissive. We'll celebrate the many sacred archetypes of dominance and submission and see how they dance together ... Predator and Prey, Master and Servant, Owner and Slave, Magician and Enchanted Object, Priest and Worshipper, Seeker and Psychopomp, Lord and Vassal, Teacher and Padawan, Dark Goddess and John Barleycorn, and many others. Bring your stories! And your collars, and chains, and leashes ... both ends.

 

[00Syd]

And for the True Love aficionado, himself, a workshop offered by Dark Moon Rising:

Indeed!


In NYC, TES has a class coming up on May 12th (for their novice group, no less) titled "From Poly to Monogamy."

FROM POLY TO MONOGAMY
Wednesday Novice SIG From Poly to Monogamy It’s refreshing to see all the many wonderful ways, we kinky folk, LOVE each other! Husband/Wife, Significant others, Slaves, Play Partners, Friends, etc.. How do we make it work? You only have one partner... that’s it?”, “YOU HAVE 6?”, “How do you love a Husband and slaves?” Join a panel of VERY diverse “lovers” as they share their stories, their successes and failures,

After that on May 26th, TES has a class for their relationships group titled "Commitment in the Scene."

COMMITMENT IN THE SCENE
Relationships SIG Commitment in the Scene" with August and Sue Outside of the scene, the concept of "commitment" is usually restricted to romantic monogamous partnerships. But within the scene, commitment can take on many relationship forms - including monogamous partnerships, but also poly triads, leather families, D/s structures, and more. How do we keep commitment going without traditional roadmaps? What are the issues involved in long-term scene relationships that vanilla couples don't face? Are polyamorous relationships a threat to commitment? How does it work when you're committed but don't live together? How do marriage and the BDSM lifestyle go together - and how do they not? Join us as we discuss these issues and more, and bring your own stories and experiences to the discussion.

And that's only in May.

 

[00Syd]

In addition, TES (NYC's oldest BDSM org, for those not in the know) links to the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom's article titled "SM vs. Abuse Policy Statement"

Also, TES lists "Rules of Etiquette" on their website:

RULES OF ETIQUETTE

We want TES to be a "safe space" for our members and guests, so we have developed these Rules of Etiquette. We expect all members and quests to follow them. We believe they will help you fit in and establish successful relationships with the people at TES.

1. Treat other people with respect and consideration at all times. Get to know them as you would in any other social situation. Don't assume that the only worthwhile outcome of attending is a sexual encounter.

2. First names and pseudonyms are usually used at TES. Everyone's personal identity is confidential, so avoid using all last (or real) names in meetings and pseudonyms in non-scene settings.

3. Never touch anyone, their equipment, or belongings without permission.

4. No soliciting for sexual services is allowed.

5. Don't smoke, drink alcohol or use drugs at TES meetings. If you come to a function under the influence of alcohol or drugs, you will be asked to leave.

6. No penetration, oral sex or exchanging of body fluids is ever allowed at TES meetings or functions.

7. No scenes are allowed during a meeting, unless it's on the program or requested by the speaker or group leader.

8. At meetings, raise your hand if you have a question or comment when someone else is speaking, so you may be recognized by the speaker or group leader.

9. The Board of Directors is responsible for supervising all TES functions. The Board, or their designated agents, will stop any scene they consider to be unsafe.

10. Use your common sense.

Members or guests who violate these rules, or behave in a manner inconsistent with TES Creed may be asked to leave.

Having attended quite a few TES meetings and events, I can testify that these rules are indeed strictly enforced.

 

[rida]

@CutieMouse and @00Syd: thank you for the links, info and extracts.

 

[TypicalDeviant]

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.

Let me see if I understand you correctly here. You presented an argument in which people found some logical inconsistencies. You have refused to address such inconsistencies, despite several requests to do so. You have have only supported your arguments by referring to facts, not citing them, despite requests to do so.

So let's get something straight here:
I made smart-ass comments, I asked you to strengthen and support your argument, but I didn't present a counter-argument.

I'll say it again:
I never presented a counter-argument.

And since I haven't, I can't fulfill your requests. But, you can still fulfill mine, which should be pretty easy to do if your argument is well-founded.

So are you going to continue speaking out of both sides of your mouth, on one saying that your stance is supported by fact while the other says it's just opinion, or are you going to step up and show us your proof?

 

[BLoved]

I agree, they have been arguing with you for nothing('though they likely argue for entertainment purposes.)

You've made casual BDSM the same as any other casual sexual encounter. Which then would pair a BLoved Brand 'true' intimate BDSM relationship with that of a non-BDSM 'true' intimate relationship. You can't do that. BDSM is a special stratagem tacked onto 'true' intimate relationship. Same as casual BDSM is a contrivance upon casual sex.

There's no such thing as intimate BDSM, there's just BDSM the category, and then loving or non-loving, intimate partners who have sex practices that fall under the broad and inclusive category of BDSM. BDSM has nothing to do with categorical intimacy, abusers and abused, it's just a method of sexual encounter.

We disagree on how to categorize relationships.

I view relationships where intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding can occur as emotionally healthy. Such relationships may or may not include bdsm.

Relationships where intimate behaviour occurs but there is no chance for intimate emotional bonding (ie No Strings Attached) are emotionally unhealthy for reasons I've provided throughout this thread.

I do not consider such relationships representative of bdsm for the same reason I do not consider spousal abuse or rape as bdsm: all of the above cause emotional damage, if not physical damage as well.

If we are to claim that bdsm is healthy then casual 'bdsm' doesn't fit the definition any better than spousal abuse or rape.

If you wish to define bdsm as not necessarily healthy then you've opened the door for abusive spouses and rapists to claim they are nothing more that bdsm practitioners.

 

[BLoved]

The mother-child bond is not exclusive; mothers easily bond to more than one infant, and easily keep their bonds with older children without detriment to the baby-- the bonds just keep adding themselves. Likewise a baby can bond with more caregivers than its mother alone. And adult humans can bond with more than one SO, if the cultural environment allows for it. We may see more and more polyamory as the discussion of that possibility becomes more widespread.

Another bond that is very important to humans is the tribal, affiliative bond-- we need to know that others of our kind share our experiences and emotions. There is where many groups get their seed from, including, IMO, many of the people that identify as part of a BDSM community.

~smile~

The types of relationships I consider healthy include closed poly relationships. Essentially any relationship where intimate behaviour is linked with intimate emotional bonding is included in my definition for a healthy relationship.

The casual 'bdsm' paradigm is "No Strings Attached", as in no intimate emotional bonding is to occur regardless of the intimate behaviour. I view that kind of behaviour as dysfunctional.

If intimate behaviour wasn't linked to intimate emotional bonding, there would be no reason for a male to hunt for or protect his mate and offspring after copulation.

No Strings Attached.

Without intimate emotional bonding there would be no tribe to protect mothers and young.

If mothers and young were unprotected, there would be a high mortality rate for both as neither could ward off an attack by a pride of lions or a pack of dogs. Humanity would not have survived.

However, with a link between intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding, males have a reason to stay with females after copulation, thus increasing the odds mother and offspring would survive.

 

[BLoved]

Ethical BDSM by David Stein

BDSM is not covert therapy.
Don't trap an s/m partner, let alone a D/s partner into filling a therapist's role. Unless you discuss it with your partner ahead of time, keep your personal shit out of the dungeon. If you have specific psychic or emotional trigger points, make sure your partner knows about them beforehand * and make sure he or she can be trusted to avoid triggering them.

In other words, intimate behaviour should not be linked with intimate emotional bonding.

What happens when a novice is unaware of his or her triggers?

Take responsibility for assessing and reducing risk.
Risk-reduction is not the exclusive responsibility of the top or Master. Everyone needs to become informed about the risks involved in whatever kind of scene is in the offing and decide whether they're worth running, as well as how to reduce them as much as reasonably possible. Being careless or stupid isn't "hot"...it's just careless or stupid.

Does this include telling novices that casual 'bdsm' is emotionally abusive because it ignores the link between intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding?

If not, how self-serving are these rules?

 

[BLoved]

For the man who insists the BDSM community refuses to discuss or educate poor, helpless, unsuspecting sumbissives about abuse, sussed out from simply typing BDSM & Abuse into a Google search. 2,550,000 hits in .13 seconds - which tells me the "community" isn't exactly remaining silent on the issue.

A sample of online resources teaching healthy boundaries re: BDSM & abuse:

http://www.thenetworklared.org/smvsabuse.htm

http://www.leatherleadership.org/library/diffsmabuse.htm

http://www.lesbiansexmafia.org/smandabuse.html

http://www.leathernroses.com/abuse/harrissubstand.htm

http://www.leathernroses.com/abuse/steelabusersamong.htm

http://www.evilmonk.org/a/abuse00.cfm

http://www.nlaidvproject.us/html/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37

And do any of these tell the reader that "No Strings Attached" is emotionally abusive?

If not, how self-serving are they?

 

[BLoved]

I never presented a counter-argument.

And since I haven't, I can't fulfill your requests. But, you can still fulfill mine, which should be pretty easy to do if your argument is well-founded.

Just went through this with Stella. As with her, I fail to see why anyone should view you as an authority on what standard is to be considered acceptable.

 

[BLoved]

Having attended quite a few TES meetings and events, I can testify that these rules are indeed strictly enforced.

Again, no effort to warn anyone that ignoring the link between intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding will result in emotional damage.

So how self-serving are these rules?

 

[00Syd]

Again, no effort to warn anyone that ignoring the link between intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding will result in emotional damage.

So how self-serving are these rules?

As there is absolutely no consensus that "ignoring the link between intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding will result in emotional damage," and that issue is not, by any means, exclusive to the BDSM community in anyway, it is not the job of a BDSM community education group to include this discussion in their general rules.

However, you conveniently ignored my post in respect to TES hosting classes on issues related to love and commitment in relationships.

TES hosts classes on a myriad of subjects related directly or indirectly to BDSM, and there is absolutely nothing stopping one of the special interest groups from hosting a class on this very subject. In fact, you could easily get in touch with one of the Facilitators of one of the special interest groups (perhaps the Novice group? The Relationships group? The Dominant Men, Submissive Women group? ), and suggest this as a topic for a future meeting. To take it one step further, you could suggest that you would be willing to go to NYC and teach the class/host the meeting.

I highly recommend it.

 

[graceanne]

Let me see if I understand you correctly here. You presented an argument in which people found some logical inconsistencies. You have refused to address such inconsistencies, despite several requests to do so. You have have only supported your arguments by referring to facts, not citing them, despite requests to do so.

So let's get something straight here:
I made smart-ass comments, I asked you to strengthen and support your argument, but I didn't present a counter-argument.

I'll say it again:
I never presented a counter-argument.

And since I haven't, I can't fulfill your requests. But, you can still fulfill mine, which should be pretty easy to do if your argument is well-founded.

So are you going to continue speaking out of both sides of your mouth, on one saying that your stance is supported by fact while the other says it's just opinion, or are you going to step up and show us your proof?

You cannot reason with a troll. They wouldn't know logic if it bit them in the ass.

I, personally, want to see a discussion about the abuse of all those poor dominants FORCED to make due with casual relationships by subs who don't want anything else. How dare those pyl's do that to their PYL's? Those dominants really should get help, after all the abuse they've been forced to endure.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The types of relationships I consider healthy include closed poly relationships. Essentially any relationship where intimate behaviour is linked with intimate emotional bonding is included in my definition for a healthy relationship.

The casual 'bdsm' paradigm is "No Strings Attached", as in no intimate emotional bonding is to occur regardless of the intimate behaviour. I view that kind of behaviour as dysfunctional.

If intimate behaviour wasn't linked to intimate emotional bonding, there would be no reason for a male to hunt for or protect his mate and offspring after copulation.

No Strings Attached.

Without intimate emotional bonding there would be no tribe to protect mothers and young.

If mothers and young were unprotected, there would be a high mortality rate for both as neither could ward off an attack by a pride of lions or a pack of dogs. Humanity would not have survived.

However, with a link between intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding, males have a reason to stay with females after copulation, thus increasing the odds mother and offspring would survive.

Heh. Such an apocalypse you paint!

But the truth is that humans and human culture have flourished for all these millennia regardless of all of the casual sex which they demonstrably have indulged in.

A tribe does not need intimate emotional bonding to function. It needs a common cause, such as dealing with the practicalities of life. Let me point out you are doing a fine job of giving this literotica BDSM tribe, at least, a common cause-- united in derision of you.

I think you and your beloved need to get off the internet now, and spend some time with each other.

 

[BLoved]

As there is absolutely no consensus that "ignoring the link between intimate behaviour and intimate emotional bonding will result in emotional damage," and that issue is not, by any means, exclusive to the BDSM community in anyway, it is not the job of a BDSM community education group to include this discussion in their general rules

~smile~

There is no consensus that ignoring the link will not result in damage, yet your casual community sees fit to teach casual 'bdsm' anyway.

As I said: "self-serving".

 

[BLoved]

You cannot reason with a troll.

~smile~

Yet you see fit to feed them.

How good is your advice when you yourself ignore it?

 

[BLoved]

Heh. Such an apocalypse you paint!

But the truth is that humans and human culture have flourished for all these millennia regardless of all of the casual sex which they demonstrably have indulged in.

A tribe does not need intimate emotional bonding to function.

A tribe is nothing more than an extended family, and intimate emotional bonding is what is required to form that family.

All aspects of any "community" are based upon the family model. Eliminate the possibility for intimate emotional bonding (as in "No Strings Attached") and you eliminate the model upon which a healthy "community" functions.

At best casual communities are dysfunctional by definition, as they exclude intimate emotional bonding (otherwise "no strings attached" is meaningless).

Let me point out you are doing a fine job of giving this literotica BDSM tribe, at least, a common cause-- united in derision of you.

~smile~

Considering the source, I take that as a compliment.

I think you and your beloved need to get off the internet now, and spend some time with each other.

~smile~

 

[Homburg]

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.

Too much of a nutless coward to do anything other than reply utterly out of context?