The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'

[Netzach]

Every single bdsm group is autonomous. Same with every bdsm message board. You can define them all as "casual" if you like. So if all real life groups are casual and bad, and all message boards are casual and bad, where does one go to find their beloved? Or where would a female sub go to find her non-causal Dom?

Apparently being a stranded motorist introduces you to people with STERLING ethics.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Apparently being a stranded motorist introduces you to people with STERLING ethics.

Was it just me, or was there a certain reverse James Caan/Kathy Bates vibe?

 

[BLoved]

You've interacted with what - 10 people here? 15? If I meet 10 people from a particular cultural group who are all assholes, I don't make the determination that the entire group is made up of people who are exactly the same.

In the 2+ years I quested for my Beloved I've interacted with hundreds of casual players/advocates on fetlife, collarme, bondage.com, mydungeonspace, and here.

They are all the same when it comes to a lack of ethics.

The people in this discussion and the ones that led up to it are no different.

When hundreds of people show the same deceit, the same immaturity, the same two-facedness ... in other words, when they are "all assholes", one has to question the casual 'bdsm' paradigm that it should attract so many dysfunctional predators.

BDSM without ethics is no better than rape.

 

[BLoved]

Apparently being a stranded motorist introduces you to people with STERLING ethics.

Compare:

A lot of people would call my financial use of my slave, H, abusive of him. However I can't possibly imagine slavery that involves no material enrichment for the owner that I'd still call slavery.

with Love

 

[intothewoods]

In the 2+ years I quested for my Beloved I've interacted with hundreds of casual players/advocates on fetlife, collarme, bondage.com, mydungeonspace, and here.

They are all the same when it comes to a lack of ethics.

The people in this discussion and the ones that led up to it are no different.

When hundreds of people show the same deceit, the same immaturity, the same two-facedness ... in other words, when they are "all assholes", one has to question the casual 'bdsm' paradigm that it should attract so many dysfunctional predators.

BDSM without ethics is no better than rape.

I've found a pretty different vibe on Fetlife, CM and here, but then again, I didn't post a thread calling everyone on the board unethical, rapists and a lynch mob.

 

[satindesire]

I may be just thick, or something, but what exactly is the point of this thread? What does it boil down to?

Not all casual BDSMers are abusive.

Not all long-term BDSMers in relationships are NOT abusive.

I was in a long-term BDSM relationship for four years that was VERY abusive. He nearly took my life. He loved me (as much as he could) and I certainly did love him, passionately, but it was still abusive.

Am I missing something?

 

[rida]

@BLoved: I liked your story: it is very romantic and sweet.

I know that for you I'm just one of the "casual players" out there abusing people without giving them a chance to emotional intimacy. But the reality is that, in my own way I too wish to bring the joy that can be experienced only when touching the each others soul in the world. I do not exclude emotional intimacy beforehand: I'm pretty open to what may happen with each encounter (and I'm picky on who I let so close to me). I just do not expect it to happen each time and I do not believe that the act of enjoying sex has to go necessarily hand in hand with a deep emotional bonding.

I believe we are all student in life, souls on a journey to realize our true nature. Your path and your lessons in this incarnation, are different from others' lessons. And none of us is in any position to judge another soul's journey.

It is not your message that the people on this board are objecting to. It is your condescending and judgmental tone. If you'd approach people and their opinions as valid instead of dismissing them as dysfunctional, you'd realize that many share similar core believes. It is just that most of the people here realize that there are as many "true way" as the people walking the path, and no one needs to convert anybody else.

 

[BLoved]

I've found a pretty different vibe on Fetlife, CM and here, but then again, I didn't post a thread calling everyone on the board unethical, rapists and a lynch mob.

So what can we conclude when "everyone on the board" focuses their immaturity and lack of self-restraint on one individual who disagrees with their paradigm?

That they tolerate diversity?

It is in the manner that they handle adversity that their dysfunctions appear.

It is called "two-facedness".

And when they are so willing to manifest their immaturity and lack of self-restraint in public, what can we surmise about their practice in private, where there are no witnesses to their abusive behaviour?

What can we assume about their behaviour when it comes to uncooperative novices?

Peer pressure, character assasination, insults ... these are all forms of attack against a person's self-esteem.

Shall we conclude the casual players/advocates are used to getting their way by attacking the self-esteem of others, including novices?

In what way is that a healthy practice for those who disagree?

Casual players/advocates were challenged to provide the ethical basis for their behaviour, and we have 39 pages of evidence demonstrating they have no self-restraint in public and no ethics to justify what they do.

In other words, they are incapable of discussing their 'ethics' in a mature and responsible manner because they have no ethics, they know it and they are desperately trying to divert attention away from this fact.

 

[BLoved]

I may be just thick, or something, but what exactly is the point of this thread? What does it boil down to?

Not all casual BDSMers are abusive.

Not all long-term BDSMers in relationships are NOT abusive.

I was in a long-term BDSM relationship for four years that was VERY abusive. He nearly took my life. He loved me (as much as he could) and I certainly did love him, passionately, but it was still abusive.

Am I missing something?

Whose definition are you using where "Love" is synonymous with "abuse"?

No definition for "love" that I've ever seen in a dictionary includes such a comparison.

Perhaps what is missing is a clear understanding of "love".

Love: a state of being where the welfare and happiness of another is at least as important as one's own.

Abusers do not love, and lovers do not abuse.

 

[BLoved]

@BLoved: I liked your story: it is very romantic and sweet.

I know that for you I'm just one of the "casual players" out there abusing people without giving them a chance to emotional intimacy. But the reality is that, in my own way I too wish to bring the joy that can be experienced only when touching the each others soul in the world. I do not exclude emotional intimacy beforehand: I'm pretty open to what may happen with each encounter (and I'm picky on who I let so close to me). I just do not expect it to happen each time and I do not believe that the act of enjoying sex has to go necessarily hand in hand with a deep emotional bonding.

It is called "mutual masturbation", and it is my belief that to objectify another in such a manner causes emotional damage.

I believe we are all student in life, souls on a journey to realize our true nature. Your path and your lessons in this incarnation, are different from others' lessons. And none of us is in any position to judge another soul's journey.

It is not your message that the people on this board are objecting to. It is your condescending and judgmental tone. If you'd approach people and their opinions as valid instead of dismissing them as dysfunctional, you'd realize that many share similar core believes. It is just that most of the people here realize that there are as many "true way" as the people walking the path, and no one needs to convert anybody else.

In other words, if I was willing to validate dysfunctional behaviour that leads to emotional abuse, I'd get along fine with the dysfunctional players/advocates who cause others to suffer.

If calling a spade a "spade" helps their victims to either find their way free of the abuse or to avoid it entirely, I will feel my effort was not wasted.

I have more sympathy for those who have been victimized by the dysfunctional than I will ever have for the feelings of the dysfunctional.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

If you'd approach people and their opinions as valid instead of dismissing them as dysfunctional, you'd realize that many share similar core believes.

I think you scared him, because he just dragged out the same old arguments, rather than admit that people have already agreed on some points with him.

Heaven forbid he have something in common with these casual, abusive heathens who are the worst criminals in the world that he is trying to save all the poor innocent souls from.

Eh. I don't care. I have some gangbanging good times to prepare for!

 

[WriterDom]

In the 2+ years I quested for my Beloved I've interacted with hundreds of casual players/advocates on fetlife, collarme, bondage.com, mydungeonspace, and here.

They are all the same when it comes to a lack of ethics.

The people in this discussion and the ones that led up to it are no different.

When hundreds of people show the same deceit, the same immaturity, the same two-facedness ... in other words, when they are "all assholes", one has to question the casual 'bdsm' paradigm that it should attract so many dysfunctional predators.

BDSM without ethics is no better than rape.

We get it. It's your opinion. It won't get you banned. I don't believe you have been banned anywhere myself. Perhaps ignored.

 

[rida]

It is called "mutual masturbation", and it is my belief that to objectify another in such a manner causes emotional damage.

In other words, if I was willing to validate dysfunctional behaviour that leads to emotional abuse, I'd get along fine with the dysfunctional players/advocates who cause others to suffer.

If calling a spade a "spade" helps their victims to either find their way free of the abuse or to avoid it entirely, I will feel my effort was not wasted.

I have more sympathy for those who have been victimized by the dysfunctional than I will ever have for the feelings of the dysfunctional.

No.

You call your spade a spade, and my spade an ax.

 

[rida]

I have some gangbanging good times to prepare for!

*envy*

 

[chy_girl]

I may be just thick, or something, but what exactly is the point of this thread? What does it boil down to?

Not all casual BDSMers are abusive.

Not all long-term BDSMers in relationships are NOT abusive.

I was in a long-term BDSM relationship for four years that was VERY abusive. He nearly took my life. He loved me (as much as he could) and I certainly did love him, passionately, but it was still abusive.

Am I missing something?

It's not you, luv. Believe me... It's not you. And the point of the thread would be a practice of futility.

According to BL, yes, all casual BDSMer's are abusive because BDSM without love is abuse.

According to BL, if it's abusive then it cannot be Love because Love and abuse cannot exist simultaneously in the same relationship. Therefore your relationship, along with a number of other's here, had no love because they were abusive.

And just to twist the mental WTF a little more, all of us that are here are "casual" BDSMers who evidently advocate, encourage, and support the abuse and mistreatment of all the poor little noobie sub-girls - why? Because there is no love in casual BDSM.

OH! And if someone has a committed PYL/pyl and the two decide to go to a third to be taught something dangerous like suspension or fire play... They're casual, unethical, and abusive too.

 

[mattguize]

It's not you, luv. Believe me... It's not you. And the point of the thread would be a practice of futility.

According to BL, yes, all casual BDSMer's are abusive because BDSM without love is abuse.

According to BL, if it's abusive then it cannot be Love because Love and abuse cannot exist simultaneously in the same relationship. Therefore your relationship, along with a number of other's here, had no love because they were abusive.

And just to twist the mental WTF a little more, all of us that are here are "casual" BDSMers who evidently advocate, encourage, and support the abuse and mistreatment of all the poor little noobie sub-girls - why? Because there is no love in casual BDSM.

OH! And if someone has a committed PYL/pyl and the two decide to go to a third to be taught something dangerous like suspension or fire play... They're casual, unethical, and abusive too.

this sums up the entire thread. very well put

 

[satindesire]

Whose definition are you using where "Love" is synonymous with "abuse"?

No definition for "love" that I've ever seen in a dictionary includes such a comparison.

Perhaps what is missing is a clear understanding of "love".

Love: a state of being where the welfare and happiness of another is at least as important as one's own.

Abusers do not love, and lovers do not abuse.

I never even implied that "love" and "abuse" were SYNONYMOUS, and I'm insulted that you would even try such a thin-skinned straw man tactic with someone of my intellect level. I clearly stated that HE LOVED ME AS MUCH AS HE COULD. I can quote my post, if your short term memory is lacking?

Love is not a state of being where the happiness of another is at least as important as one's own AT ALL TIMES. EVERYONE in love relationships can be selfish, and NEED to be sometimes. If someone is poly-amorous, and their partner is not, their partner has a RIGHT to refuse to be in that relationship anymore, due to not wanting to share their mate. That's just ONE example. Sometimes, you have to value your own happiness more, in order to stay SANE.

A constant state of Selfless love doesn't exist in real life. Real love isn't something you get out of a romance novel or Romantic Comedy movie. It's not flowers and Italian dinners and wine all the time, either. Real love is human, humans interacting with humans in a caring way, and REALITY is...sometimes, you have to value yourself more in order to be a happier and healthier person.

If you want to actually debate your opinion in an openminded and non-judgmental way, you're in the right place. But if you're going to continue being a self-righteous bigot incapable of intellectual conversation, you'd best be off somewhere else.

Shall we conclude the casual players/advocates are used to getting their way by attacking the self-esteem of others, including novices?

In what way is that a healthy practice for those who disagree?

Casual players/advocates were challenged to provide the ethical basis for their behaviour, and we have 39 pages of evidence demonstrating they have no self-restraint in public and no ethics to justify what they do.

In other words, they are incapable of discussing their 'ethics' in a mature and responsible manner because they have no ethics, they know it and they are desperately trying to divert attention away from this fact.

Everyone was kind to you to a point, but you seemed pretty intent on pounding your opinion into everyone's face without having the decency to logically and calmly discuss your feelings without being judgmental and condescending.

I think it's you who owe them an apology, not the other way around.

This is a free speech board, to a limit, but we're entitled to tell you to shove off if you're being a twit.

It's not you, luv. Believe me... It's not you. And the point of the thread would be a practice of futility.

According to BL, yes, all casual BDSMer's are abusive because BDSM without love is abuse.

According to BL, if it's abusive then it cannot be Love because Love and abuse cannot exist simultaneously in the same relationship. Therefore your relationship, along with a number of other's here, had no love because they were abusive.

And just to twist the mental WTF a little more, all of us that are here are "casual" BDSMers who evidently advocate, encourage, and support the abuse and mistreatment of all the poor little noobie sub-girls - why? Because there is no love in casual BDSM.

OH! And if someone has a committed PYL/pyl and the two decide to go to a third to be taught something dangerous like suspension or fire play... They're casual, unethical, and abusive too.

I'm starting to have a sinking suspicion that this person is a troll, trolling for attention.

I CALL SHENANIGANS! SHENANIGANS!!!

No.

You call your spade a spade, and my spade an ax.

My spade's a hammer!


*sings* IIII've been workin' on the raaiilllroad, allll the live-long daaaaayyy!!!

 

[chy_girl]

This is a free speech board, to a limit, but we're entitled to tell you to shove off if you're being a twit.

It's nice to have you back.


And he's not the standard troll. Much more persistent.

 

[satindesire]

It's nice to have you back.

*grins* Thank you sweetie. I missed you too.

 

[satindesire]

And he's not the standard troll. Much more persistent.

Dead horse troll is beating a dead horse.

 

[chy_girl]

Dead horse troll is beating a dead horse.

But he's beating him with Love, so it's ok.

 

[satindesire]

But he's beating him with Love, so it's ok.

He's been in a long-term love relationship with the horse for years now...As long as he's not being dysfunctional about it I'm sure the whole world will approve of how much of a romantic and how loving and amazing he is.

 

[Etoile]

Abusers do not love, and lovers do not abuse.

Bullshit. Plenty of abusers do what they do for the supposed betterment of their victim. Sure, it's twisted and not fluffy with kittens, but what you've stated is ridiculous.

 

[intothewoods]

So what can we conclude when "everyone on the board" focuses their immaturity and lack of self-restraint on one individual who disagrees with their paradigm?

That they tolerate diversity?

It is in the manner that they handle adversity that their dysfunctions appear.

It is called "two-facedness".

And when they are so willing to manifest their immaturity and lack of self-restraint in public, what can we surmise about their practice in private, where there are no witnesses to their abusive behaviour?

What can we assume about their behaviour when it comes to uncooperative novices?

Peer pressure, character assasination, insults ... these are all forms of attack against a person's self-esteem.

Shall we conclude the casual players/advocates are used to getting their way by attacking the self-esteem of others, including novices?

In what way is that a healthy practice for those who disagree?

Casual players/advocates were challenged to provide the ethical basis for their behaviour, and we have 39 pages of evidence demonstrating they have no self-restraint in public and no ethics to justify what they do.

In other words, they are incapable of discussing their 'ethics' in a mature and responsible manner because they have no ethics, they know it and they are desperately trying to divert attention away from this fact.

Not everyone here has behaved in an immature manner. This is a forum in which people often disagree vehemently with each other. Like everyone everywhere, some people are more mature than others, some are more patient than others, some love arguing for argument's sake and on and on. By the way, you have been arguing with people here who have never attended a bdsm play party. Most people I know in the scene don't spend all that much time on online forums.

You have presented yourself in a manner that suggests you have no interest in true dialogue. And no, that doesn't mean agreement. You've managed to close off dialogue with some people who are pretty engaging and open and in relationships that are similar to your own. I think that's a shame.

It is called "mutual masturbation", and it is my belief that to objectify another in such a manner causes emotional damage.



In other words, if I was willing to validate dysfunctional behaviour that leads to emotional abuse, I'd get along fine with the dysfunctional players/advocates who cause others to suffer.

If calling a spade a "spade" helps their victims to either find their way free of the abuse or to avoid it entirely, I will feel my effort was not wasted.

I have more sympathy for those who have been victimized by the dysfunctional than I will ever have for the feelings of the dysfunctional.

You missed rida's point entirely.

 

[intothewoods]

Bullshit. Plenty of abusers do what they do for the supposed betterment of their victim. Sure, it's twisted and not fluffy with kittens, but what you've stated is ridiculous.

Getting a universal definition for the word "love" is about as likely as everyone agreeing on what is "normal."