The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'

[CutieMouse]

ad hominem: An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.

Bullshit? It wasn't bullshit. It was reductio ad absurdum. I figured if nothing else works, RAA might. Obviously it failed to reach the mark too, but a few people appreciated it.

BL, you quoted Homburg's post stating his argument was reductio ad absurdum, giving the Wiki definition of an ad hominem argument. A reductio ad absurdum is not ad hominem.

 

[BLoved]

BL, you quoted Homburg's post stating his argument was reductio ad absurdum, giving the Wiki definition of an ad hominem argument. A reductio ad absurdum is not ad hominem.

Trying to undermine my argument by calling me a "goat fucker" is an ad hominem, not reductio ad absurdum

 

[Netzach]

You would rather we believe that the 200+ strangers who walk in off the street to witness/participate in a public 'bdsm play party' are more likely to be akin to those who walk into a restaurant or a movie, and not like those who wandered into here, here or here.

I'm not sure if you're the biggest idiot in the world or if you just think other people are.

There's no alcohol in the areas I'm talking about. So yes, it IS more like people going to a restaurant or theater than bar. I know you have to ascribe dark and antisocial motives to them to make you precious point, whatever the fuck it is.

I know you have a huge boner over my relationship with H, but my stable is full, sorry. I encourage a quick perusal of the dictionary definition of "slavery" again, remedial really.

 

[BLoved]

Let's put it this way: your one and only experience was an even where people were free to walk in from the street. I too would have not liked such thing and would have walked away from such lack of security.

However, the experience shared by me and other people is different: people are have to show IDs, or it is a reservation only event, or a membership club event. And in the case of private parties, you have to personally know the organizer or one of the guests to be invited.

Private parties come with their own risks:

Private Play Parties

Private play parties occur in homes, with small groups of people specifically invited for the event.

Basically, if you were invited, someone in the group was hot for your meat and believes you will cooperate completely with their fantasies that involve you.

In theory, no one is pressured into anything.

In practice, that all depends upon someone's definition for "pressure".

Deception may or may not be used to obtain cooperation.

Drugs/alcohol may or may not be used to obtain cooperation.

Hypnosis may or may not be used to obtain cooperation.

And that is assuming subtlty is involved.

For some, the fact a submissive even shows up is enough cooperation. For others, if she permits herself to be tied up she is available to anyone attending.

The thinking is, if she didn't want it, she wouldn't have come to the event.

What limits will be respected and which will be ignored are entirely up to the regular group, who will always outnumber the recruits.

One group I knew of required both members of a couple to serve as subs, regardless of whether they were subs or not.

This would mean both could be rendered helpless at the same time and neither be able to come to the aid of the other, if required.

Unlike public play parties which are advertised, there is no hope of making claims about how many private parties occur, who is involved, what rules are enforced and how are they enforced, what safety protocols are followed, if any ...

But it will be noted this does not deter those who advocate such behaviour to make claims about safety without concern for this lack of knowledge.

They are all safe.

-- Excerpt from "Casual 'BDSM' and Emotional Abuse: The Case for Love"

 

[BLoved]

I'm not sure if you're the biggest idiot in the world or if you just think other people are.

You've yet to explain how letting 200+ strangers off the street into a room where a 'bdsm' public event is being held somehow "*mitigates* risk".

I mean I know how it makes money for those who fund the event, but I've yet to hear how it is supposed to mitigate risk.

How is safety improved by allowing 200+ strangers in without a weapons check?

Does it become more safe if you let in a thousand?

Doesn't the more people you let in mean the more likely you are that you'll let someone in with a weapon?

Just as the more people you let in, the more likely you are to let in unbalanced individuals, violent people, etc?

So how does this "*mitigate* risk" in your reality?

 

[ImOnIt]

You've yet to explain how letting 200+ strangers off the street into a room where a 'bdsm' public event is being held somehow "*mitigates* risk".

I mean I know how it makes money for those who fund the event, but I've yet to hear how it is supposed to mitigate risk.

How is safety improved by allowing 200+ strangers in without a weapons check?

Does it become more safe if you let in a thousand?

Doesn't the more people you let in mean the more likely you are that you'll let someone in with a weapon?

Just as the more people you let in, the more likely you are to let in unbalanced individuals, violent people, etc?

So how does this "*mitigate* risk" in your reality?

1. Safety by observation. Rational crims dont want 399 witnesses.
2. 1000 or 400 people seems about the same safety. 2 people is the worst number for an attack ie. no witnesses.

3. Letting in someone with a weapon (and intent to use it) is still most dangerous in a room with only 2 people.

4. All four of your points are the same. See answers 1,2,3.

 

[BLoved]

1. Safety by observation. Rational crims dont want 399 witnesses.

Do you mean the way they were here, here and here?

2. 1000 or 400 people seems about the same safety. 2 people is the worst number for an attack ie. no witnesses.

Do you mean the way they were here, here and here?

3. Letting in someone with a weapon (and intent to use it) is still most dangerous in a room with only 2 people.

Do you mean the way they were here, here and here?

 

[ImOnIt]

Lets go over what I just said.

Rational crims dont want 399 witnesses.

Maniacs are the exception.

Read this next line until you understand that your news reports are

the exception not the norm
the exception not the norm
the exception not the norm

 

[BLoved]

Lets go over what I just said.

Maniacs are the exception.

Aren't they always?

You have some evidence to prove this, this and this were the acts of "maniacs"?

You have some evidence that said "maniacs" couldn't just walk into a public 'bdsm' event just as easily as they did in the above-mentioned events?

Assuming they have the price of admission, of course.

 

[ImOnIt]

Of course they could walk into fucking ANYTHING and do ANYTHING.


The rational position (re: Columbine High) is that schools = MASSACRES. That is how much sense you make.

Yes. Maniacs ARE the EXCEPTION to normal behaviour. It is part of the job description.

You have some evidence that said "maniacs" couldn't just walk into a public 'bdsm' event just as easily as they did in the above-mentioned events?

Now, read this twice. It is possible for ANYONE to get in, including maniacs. However, maniacs and mass murder are NO MORE the norm in bondage events compared to high schools. Do you understand?

 

[BLoved]

Of course they could walk into fucking ANYTHING and do ANYTHING.

The rational position (re: Columbine High) is that schools = MASSACRES. That is how much sense you make.

Yes. Maniacs ARE the EXCEPTION to normal behaviour. It is part of the job description.

Now, read this twice. It is possible for ANYONE to get in, including maniacs. However, maniacs and mass murder are NO MORE the norm in bondage events compared to high schools. Do you understand?

They installed metal detectors in high schools to stop people from entering with weapons.

When can we expect the various casual communities to install theirs?

Or is the price of admission more important than safety?

 

[minx1]

Trying to undermine my argument by calling me a "goat fucker" is an ad hominem, not reductio ad absurdum

sorry this sentence made me laugh out loud. Must be the combination of latin and goat fucker.

[hijack over] I'll go back to trying to avoid the thread now.

 

[ImOnIt]

They installed metal detectors in high schools to stop people from entering with weapons.

When can we expect the various casual communities to install theirs?

Or is the price of admission more important than safety?

Some schools have metal detectors.


There are words you must learn about. Some, none, all, always, never, when, if.

Some people are violent and maniacs. Many people can kill someone bare handed. Metal detectors don't detect that.

>Some places have metal detectors
> Clubs dont have metal detectors.

Now, your conclusion is false.

The presence or absence of metal detectors is not an indicator of regard for safety.

 

[Netzach]

They installed metal detectors in high schools to stop people from entering with weapons.

When can we expect the various casual communities to install theirs?

Or is the price of admission more important than safety?

Super genius, how many Columbine-like shootings or gun incidents have happened, have ACTUALLY HAPPENED at a large public SM party? Because you KNOW press would be on that like flies on shit.

Um - none? Huh.

As opposed to high schools, where there are ongoing extant issues. Why doesn't the grocery store metal detect me when I go in. IRRESPONSIBLE. The price of WHEATIES is worth more than safety!

 

[Netzach]

Casual yogurt runs at 11 pm - they have killed countless victims.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Some schools have metal detectors.


There are words you must learn about. Some, none, all, always, never, when, if.

Some people are violent and maniacs. Many people can kill someone bare handed. Metal detectors don't detect that.

>Some places have metal detectors
> Clubs dont have metal detectors.

Now, your conclusion is false.

The presence or absence of metal detectors is not an indicator of regard for safety.

Indeed. it's an indicator of regard for potential lawsuits. Nothing more.

(I bolded some very important words in your post)

 

[rida]

Private parties come with their own risks:

Private Play Parties

Private play parties occur in homes, with small groups of people specifically invited for the event.

Basically, if you were invited, someone in the group was hot for your meat and believes you will cooperate completely with their fantasies that involve you.

In theory, no one is pressured into anything.

In practice, that all depends upon someone's definition for "pressure".

Deception may or may not be used to obtain cooperation.

Drugs/alcohol may or may not be used to obtain cooperation.

Up to here it reads more like a high-school kids party than a private BDSM play party.

Hypnosis may or may not be used to obtain cooperation.

And that is assuming subtlty is involved.

For some, the fact a submissive even shows up is enough cooperation. For others, if she permits herself to be tied up she is available to anyone attending.

The thinking is, if she didn't want it, she wouldn't have come to the event.

What limits will be respected and which will be ignored are entirely up to the regular group, who will always outnumber the recruits.

And such groups should be outed indeed.

However the same thing (hypnosis used for coercion, taking showing up as cooperation, limits ignored) can happen during a private date and in such case you can be 100% that there is nobody that could rescue you.

During a party, there are at least some odds that someone would intervene.

One group I knew of required both members of a couple to serve as subs, regardless of whether they were subs or not.

This is the way of Leather and/or Old Guard. It is not common but is their rule. Researching the group before hand is responsibility of the participants.

 

[ImOnIt]

Indeed. it's an indicator of regard for potential lawsuits. Nothing more.

(I bolded some very important words in your post)

Hi stella. I meant that some (impersonal) places ie. prisons/airports have security but dont CARE about your safety (in a personal way).


Now, places WITHOUT metal detectors (im thinking sports clubs, bed and breakfasts and bondage parties) may well be made up of people who care very much about the personal safety of everyone present.

I wasnt even thinking of liability and lawsuits.

 

[BLoved]

Some schools have metal detectors.
...

The presence or absence of metal detectors is not an indicator of regard for safety.

School security
Following the Columbine shooting, schools across the United States instituted new security measures such as see-through backpacks, metal detectors, and security guards; hence the phrase "the Columbine effects". Some schools implemented school door numbering to improve public safety response. Several schools throughout the country resorted to requiring students to wear computer-generated IDs.[46] At the same time, police departments reassessed their tactics and train for Columbine-like situations after criticism over the slow response and progress of the SWAT teams during the shooting.

-- Excerpt from Wikipedia's entry for the Columbine High School massacre

When you wonder why the high schools are safer, here's why.

I've provided links to shootings at nightclubs, and a shooting at a high school, and the steps taken to improve safety.

What is the casual community doing to avoid its own 'Columbine'?

Or is profit more important than safety?

 

[BLoved]

Indeed. it's an indicator of regard for potential lawsuits. Nothing more.

That's why these events have everyone sign a waiver, releasing them from any blame for whatever happens.

Makes it all the easier to hang on to the profit they make selling tickets to whomever walks in.

 

[Netzach]

School security
Following the Columbine shooting, schools across the United States instituted new security measures such as see-through backpacks, metal detectors, and security guards; hence the phrase "the Columbine effects". Some schools implemented school door numbering to improve public safety response. Several schools throughout the country resorted to requiring students to wear computer-generated IDs.[46] At the same time, police departments reassessed their tactics and train for Columbine-like situations after criticism over the slow response and progress of the SWAT teams during the shooting.

-- Excerpt from Wikipedia's entry for the Columbine High School massacre

When you wonder why the high schools are safer, here's why.

I've provided links to shootings at nightclubs, and a shooting at a high school, and the steps taken to improve safety.

What is the casual community doing to avoid its own 'Columbine'?

Or is profit more important than safety?

What is my local Target, the Mall of America or the hotel the event is in doing?

 

[ImOnIt]

School security
Following the Columbine shooting, schools across the United States instituted new security measures such as see-through backpacks, metal detectors, and security guards; hence the phrase "the Columbine effects". Some schools implemented school door numbering to improve public safety response. Several schools throughout the country resorted to requiring students to wear computer-generated IDs.[46] At the same time, police departments reassessed their tactics and train for Columbine-like situations after criticism over the slow response and progress of the SWAT teams during the shooting.

-- Excerpt from Wikipedia's entry for the Columbine High School massacre



I've provided links to shootings at nightclubs, and a shooting at a high school, and the steps taken to improve safety.

What is the casual community doing to avoid its own 'Columbine'?

Or is profit more important than safety?

Some, several. You are making several false assumptions here.

When you wonder why the high schools are safer, here's why.

I dont think high schools are safer. They arent. Some/several have metal detectors. Many dont.

Bondage lounges are doing nothing to avoid a massacre. There is no real connection between bondage lounges and threats to safety.

Bonus: Lounges/clubs are not so profitable. Safety is not ignored in a mad rush for money.



Risk is the concern of the individual. There is no real correlation between bondage and crime. These clubs are made up of people who participate. A club council imposes whatever restrictions it feels necessary for safety.

 

[BLoved]

However the same thing (hypnosis used for coercion, taking showing up as cooperation, limits ignored) can happen during a private date and in such case you can be 100% that there is nobody that could rescue you.

All the more reason to approach such a situation cautiously ... taking the time to get to know someone, developing trust and affection.

A novice attending a party is unlikely to know anyone well, taking everyone and everything on faith. She will be getting almost no time to get to know anyone, let alone get to know them to the point where she can develop a reasonable idea of whether these individuals are being candid or not.

They, on the other hand, are only interested in whether she will be cooperative or not. They don't care about her as a person, don't want to know about how she was abused in the past ... just as long as she doesn't melt down in front of them, and is willing to do as she is told, she's in.

During a party, there are at least some odds that someone would intervene.

Certainly not the regulars. We've seen more than enough evidence of that in this discussion.

And the other novices, eager to be accepted by the regulars, will agree with the regulars.

And anyone who doesn't like it would simply leave or not go back.

 

[BLoved]

Bondage lounges are doing nothing to avoid a massacre.
...

Risk is the concern of the individual.

Thank you.

 

[ImOnIt]

A novice attending a party is unlikely to know anyone well, taking everyone and everything on faith. She will be getting almost no time to get to know anyone, let alone get to know them to the point where she can develop a reasonable idea of whether these individuals are being candid or not.

They, on the other hand, are only interested in whether she will be cooperative or not. They don't care about her as a person, don't want to know about how she was abused in the past ... just as long as she doesn't melt down in front of them, and is willing to do as she is told, she's in.

DUN DUN

The dom is a FUCKING BEAR. OH FUCK! A BEAR!

WITH CLAWS AND FUR AND OH GOD ITS EATING ME!