Have you been abused in the name of the "BDSM Lifestyle"?

lancemanyon

Really Experienced
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Posts
122
Sorry to barge in here with yet another controversial thread, but.....I came across this article on a bdsm site. It is written in a research manner, in that footnotes refer to scientific literature. My question for you is, does this describe your bdsm relationship? Have you worried that your bdsm lifestyle would lead to a bad end? If so, please read carefully.

Comments are welcome.

http://www.sternangel.com/whatis.html

WHAT IS SADO-MASOCHISM?

by Terence Sellers
Author of The Correct Sadist
and Dungeon Evidence



"The most frequent and most significant of all perversions", 1 Sado-Masochism is our deviation of interest. Deviant, that is, from the normal sexual impulse - as per 'normal' being "the union of the genitals in the characteristic act of copulation".1 (We like to put this in, as it is so taxing for us to try to define that 'normal'.) But even the normal impulse "is always bound with a more or less prominent brutal element".2 In our modern age where relative morals seem to count for so much - even we of vaunted pervert strain must still remind ourselves that Sado-Masochism is a definite abnormality.

The ritualized behaviors; the strange and blatant acts, some which seem to be cut from horror-fiction; the rigid symbolism in dress, and manner - none of these behaviors should be lightly viewed, or ever treated as a mere 'game'. For those who do possess, in the depths of their being, the predominantly Sado-Masochistic bent cannot do without the flavour of it. And it will color every relationship - it is very often not a choice - and often it destroys love; and thus, to its possessor, it is rarely a possession of joy.

"The most striking peculiarity of sadomasochism is in the fact that its active and passive forms are regularly encountered together in the same person. He who experiences pleasure by causing pain to others in sexual relations is also able to experience pain as pleasure. A sadist is simultaneously a masochist, though either the active or the passive side of the perversion may be more strongly developed and thus represent his preponderate sexual activity." 1 The tendency to cause pain to the sexual object - and its opposite, the tendency to seek out and suffer pain from the sexual object, is designated sadism in its active form, and masochism in its passive.

In terms more au courant to the year 2000, the sadist might now be termed the Dominant: the Master, Dominatrix, or Mistress - or simply 'The Top'. The masochist is called a Submissive, a Slave, or 'The Bottom'. 'Top' and 'Bottom' are also used as verbs, as in "I bottomed to her", or "I want him to top me!". Another aspect of modern Sado-Masochism is the psychodramatic development of 'The Switchable'. That would be a person who consciously, in the sadomasochistic acting-out session, takes one side of the dynamic, then at some point 'switches' over into its psychologically 'equal and opposite'. So that a man might begin to act aggressively and then, either of his own will, or because compelled by his partner, 'switches' to enact the submissive side of his sexuality. (We assume the more favored, 'preponderate' role, is the one that ends the session - otherwise we cannot imagine what cathartic purpose the switching might have.) As well, we have to understand that whomever the 'Switchable' is with, will also oscillate between their own complementary sadomasochist roles. Or not ...

"Clinical observation led us ... to the view that masochism, the component instinct which is complimentary to sadism, must be regarded as a sadism that has been turned round upon the subject's own ego."3

Certainly there seems to be no harm in 'dressing up' one's ordinary sex-life with 'love-toys', role-play fantasy, or a little kinky costuming. But the 'charge' you are receiving within this 'play' is the bell-note of the Imperial Power you have tapped into. A Power still Libido, but with the Heart in abeyance; a sexuality shaped not by that kindly organ, but by the Mind, and the Will-to-Power. Such Power does excite; but is violent, excoriating; of a volatile, often uncontrollable Force, it can and will subvert the love that two people share. For this is a Power of Death, very strictly conjoined to Sex.

"From the very first we recognized the presence of the sadistic component in the sexual instinct. As we know, it can make itself independent [author's emphasis] and can ... dominate an individual's entire sexual activity." 3 The danger of an emotional 'bleed' into one's Love - a Love perhaps not yet entirely debased by a Lover calling itself Master - a Love that is most decidedly, at some point, wounded by the no-longer-merely 'symbolic' actions involving dominance and control.

And in time, Love may not even seem very important - at least to one of the Lovers - except as a precondition to submitting. Lord Byron once wearily remarked he cared very little any more for Love; though he would never tire of Obedience.

Both Freud and Stekel believe there is an instinct for, or towards Death; and that it is the first, most primordial of the instincts. That is to say, there is in all existant matter, from the stone to the human, a tendency to return to an original state of being - or Non-being, as it may be. The will to preserve oneself they view as a further development, even an acculturated trait.

This instinct to Death, this entropy, this seductive falling-back towards an earlier, assuredly more pleasurable time, we notice easily in the masochist. They would strive no longer to be anything, but to regress, become infantile, more helpless in the Greater's arms (though it might be a Greater Nothing). Though this inertia exists also in the Sadist, who might always be seen to be quite pleased with themselves - content to remain 'perfect', and thus, 'entropic'.

But - "the backward path that leads to complete satisfaction is as a rule obstructed by the resistances that maintain the repressions."3 As active Sado-Masochists, our resistance is down - the repressions are refashioned into 'psychodrama' - and so do we attempt to stand firmly on that 'backward path', to a complete satisfaction.

But Stekel goes yet deeper in his descriptions of the sadistic wielding of the Death-instinct, within sexuality. He comprehends there is, as well as inertia, an active Will-to Destroy - to overpower, crush, and kill the object of love. "Hate is the will to power, and love the will to submission. [But] there is no love without hate! This principle is still easier to comprehend than its converse: there is no hatred without love ... and while the will to power is inborn, the will to subjection seems to us a product of culture." 2

So the imperious Will-to-Power is a natural trait, inborn? And kept quieted, under control only by the later development - the perhaps more weakly will-to-subjection - the culturally-developed submission of the citizen, to the Greater Good - the social Order? "The sadist strives originally for the total annihilation of its subject. Every sadist is really a murderer." 4

Where a measured use of violence infuses the body with an erotic charge; where the lover's kiss is not enough, but needs the teeth to bite; where a slap in the face, by itself, has the same love-inspiring affect as a night's caressing: there is demonstrated Sado-Masochism - and, by implication, its usurptive power.

"But how can the sadistic instinct, whose aim it is to injure the object, be derived from Eros, the preserver of life?" 3 Freud himself does not answer his own eloquent question, except to concur Sadism must itself be the force of Death... dominating Love, and its handmaiden, Sex... resolving nothing, presenting yet again to our tired gaze the menage a trois ad infinitum of the Sado-Masochistic convolute.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
1 - Sigmund Freud, Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex.
"The Sexual Aberrations" E.P. Dutton & Co.,
New York, 1962
2 - Wilhelm Stekel, Sadism and Masochism.
"The Psychology of Hatred and Cruelty" Ch. II of Vol. I,
Horace Liveright, New York, 1929

3 - Sigmund Freud, Beyond the Pleasure Principle.
W.W.Norton & Co., New York, 1961

4 - Wilhelm Stekel, Sadism-and Masochism, "Retrospect and Prospect"
Ch. XX of Vol. II, Horace Liveright,
New York, 1929
 
Ummmmm

Have a good time with this one, lance.

I will check in in the morning after a good night's sleep and respond later.

Good night.

:)
 
Short answer: yes, to a degree my sexual identity is spoken of in that article. No, I am not afraid of that, what it means for myself now, or what may come.

I identify myself strongly with my sexual self; I know, because I've tried, that I cannot ever be happy in a relationship with someone whose tastes in sex do not closely align with my own. Nevertheless, that is not the sum of me, nor my relationships--merely a really big part. From the realization of the masochistic core within myself, I get an enormous rush. With that rush comes satisfaction. It's better than an orgasm, to me. Why would I be afraid of being fulfilled?

I would be afraid if pain, fear, humiliation, etc. were all that composed my relationship. It isn't. That's where the "scene" ends and I am still sexual, but it's beneath the surface. That's when I cuddle and discuss what we just went through and how it made us feel. Sometimes we don't get anything out of it, and that's okay. Sometimes we are immensely proud of our creativity and our ability to satisfy the other person to such a great degree. Why would I be afraid of fulfilling my partner?

Sex is sex. I've had it without being dominated. I much prefer my way. And when it's over and we are basking in afterglow, and in the remaining hours we spend together, we are a loving couple. That's the part you don't pay attention to, Lance. There IS love. Just not always when we're fucking, and there's a reason. Sex ought to be fulfilling, and for me, that means exciting. If loving sex doesn't excite a person, why the hell would they do it? Leave the love for when it enriches, rather than diminishes. It's always there. It just doesn't need to be spoken, or even visible, for us to understand. And I'm not so insecure that I fear tacit love.

I tried to stick within the parameters of the question while still giving enough of a post that you could understand my position. If there is anything you'd like me to elaborate or focus on, just lemme know.
 
Have you been abused in the name of the "BDSM Lifestyle"? My question for you is, does this describe your bdsm relationship? Have you worried that your bdsm lifestyle would lead to a bad end?

No. Have you?


Comments:

BDSM vs Abuse Articles
Abuse Statement

Is this another thread where you present a biased opinion in the form of a slanted question, answer no questions yourself and the only correct answer is an affirmative one of agreeing with you?
 
Last edited:
Quint said:
Short answer: yes, to a degree my sexual identity is spoken of in that article. No, I am not afraid of that, what it means for myself now, or what may come.

I identify myself strongly with my sexual self; I know, because I've tried, that I cannot ever be happy in a relationship with someone whose tastes in sex do not closely align with my own. Nevertheless, that is not the sum of me, nor my relationships--merely a really big part. From the realization of the masochistic core within myself, I get an enormous rush. With that rush comes satisfaction. It's better than an orgasm, to me. Why would I be afraid of being fulfilled?

I would be afraid if pain, fear, humiliation, etc. were all that composed my relationship. It isn't. That's where the "scene" ends and I am still sexual, but it's beneath the surface. That's when I cuddle and discuss what we just went through and how it made us feel. Sometimes we don't get anything out of it, and that's okay. Sometimes we are immensely proud of our creativity and our ability to satisfy the other person to such a great degree. Why would I be afraid of fulfilling my partner?

Sex is sex. I've had it without being dominated. I much prefer my way. And when it's over and we are basking in afterglow, and in the remaining hours we spend together, we are a loving couple. That's the part you don't pay attention to, Lance. There IS love. Just not always when we're fucking, and there's a reason. Sex ought to be fulfilling, and for me, that means exciting. If loving sex doesn't excite a person, why the hell would they do it? Leave the love for when it enriches, rather than diminishes. It's always there. It just doesn't need to be spoken, or even visible, for us to understand. And I'm not so insecure that I fear tacit love.

I tried to stick within the parameters of the question while still giving enough of a post that you could understand my position. If there is anything you'd like me to elaborate or focus on, just lemme know.

What an eloquent response. I have read your posts before, and meant to respond, but I end up defending my position so often that many times writings like yours end up going unanswered. I thank you for your time, and I will respond after getting some rest, and can give you the respect of a well-thought out reply.

All else (those who wish to merely post antagonistic replies), please refrain so this thread can take on some semblance of a rational discussion.

Semper fi,

Lance
 
Good to see you've at least flipped the record, there. The other one was starting to skip. Yes, I have been sexually abused, and no, never in the context of Ds. Do I fear that this lifestyle will lead me to a bad end? No, not any more.
One thought I've been trying to beat into your thick skull this whole time is that this is why god invented precautions. You're right, there are thatches out there, but they aren't nearly so common as you appear to think.
Look, I don't feel comfortable walking in dark alleys without a weapon, I don't stand in front of the creese without pads, and I don't play without a safety net. That's why it's called a safety net. (More allegory, don't take that literally.)
I will give you some credit for changing your toon slightly, though. This was a more thought provoking question, at least to me.
 
i stopped at the first line... "The most frequent and most significant of all perversions"


who says? who took the survey? who was polled?
 
[cross posted from bdsm and abuse thread, as is the article you posted.

Hi Lance M.,

As I recall, you had two original theses:
1.People practicing consensual, legal BDSM tend to have abusive pasts/childhoods, and
2."Sadists" and "Masochists" (practicing consensual, legal BDSM) are abusers and abused, respectively.

I've read or skimmed the recent postings, in a couple places,back and forth, and have yet to see any evidence from you supporting either.

It's unfortunate you've started another thread; it's beginning to look like the "jesus loves you" folks that put papers on peoples' windshields in parking lots.

I have looked at the essay you posted by Ms.Terence Sellars,

In another essay of hers, "Who becomes a sadomasochist" she concludes:
http://www.sternangel.com/whobecomes.html


So we ask again: Who becomes a Sado-Masochist? Anyone whose parents argued? Anyone spanked, whipped, or slapped? Anyone who looked at a fictional scene of murder? Anyone chastised for childish games of 'doctor'? He who loved his furious mother, who stood over him in red high heels ... she who misbehaved so she might lie across her mother's tight-skirted lap? Just about anyone exposed to sights, sounds or thoughts of violence? And therefore, just about anyone?Recollect again what our revered Doctor has said: Sado-Masochism is not a thing congenitally fated; but it is "a reaction to life that arises when hate is permitted to strike its roots early and deep into the heart of a child."And who does not harbor that germ of hatred.


She is clearly aware that all kinds of exposure to violence and hatred, even in stories, may produce the SM leanings, which scarcely supports your thesis of actual abuse.

Her first essay you cite is not really about histories, so much as it is a purported psychoanalysis of sadistic and masochistic urges, linking them to agressive and death instincts. The author herself does not claim to have done the research, but cites a lot of Stekel, whom I doubt you've read on this topic.

Let's look at this author. I give her bio below, from her site. In short, she says she has a BA in forensic pych, a few graduate courses in literature, and has written numerous things, principally, "The Correct Sadist", which she self-published. Given that BA degree, she is clearly not a "psychologist" as she claims, and her places of publication, Penthouse, Screw magazine, etc. generally confirm that. She cites no publications in reputable journals of research in psychology. She now writes for 'sternangel' an online entity run by "Dr. Tumbelty Southpaw"-- perhaps Ms Terence Herself, if "Southpaw" exists at all. Sellars clearly is NOT ready to condemn all SM as sick, but apparently plays both sides of the fence, writing and marketing SM fiction and her alleged 'analyses' from her website and elsewhere.


TERENCE SELLARS
Bio
http://www.terencesellers.com/bio.html
[verbatim from site]

SUMMARY
Author and Psychologist, with Degree in Forensic Psychology
Specialist in Abnormal Psychology, as per Sexuality
Experimental Psychologist/Psychodramatist in the field of Sadomasochism
Editorial Expertise and Experience since 1978

CURRICULUM VITAE
In private practice since 1980.

Author of two works on the psychology of sadomasochism, THE CORRECT SADIST (1983) and DUNGEON EVIDENCE (1997)
Author of stories, essays and novels relating to the subject of sadomasochism
Consultant to film industry and the legal system since 1988. Assignments in feature film, documentaries, and criminal investigations.
Co-Editor of New York literary review, VERBAL ABUSE; whipping mss. into pristine shape, 1990s.
Writer, Editor and Co-creator of the website PenthouseFetish.com, an all-fetish adjunct to Penthouse.com, 2001-2002.

EDUCATION
John Jay College of Criminal Justice (New York City)
Bachelor of Arts, Forensic Psychology, Summa Cum Laude, 1986
St. John's College (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Classical Studies, Undergraduate program, 1970-73
Literature, Masters Program, 1988-89

PUBLISHED WORK See the Portrait-Gallery of the Author
THE CORRECT SADIST
Vitriol Press, New York City, 1983
Grove Press, New York City,1985
Temple Press, Brighton U.K. 1989-1992
Blue Moon Books, New York City, 1994As "ANGE DE CRUATE", Merodack Publications,
Paris, 1988
As "DER KORRECTE SADISMUS', Ikoo Buchverlag,
Berlin,1982-2002 (In Print)
As "LA SADICA PERFETTA", Shake Publishing,
Milan,1995-2002 (In Print)
DUNGEON EVIDENCE /aka/ THE CORRECT SADIST "II"
Creation/Velvet Publications, London 1997-2000
(Remaindered copies available through this site.)
THE OBSESSION
Vitriol Publications, New York, 1985-2002 (In Print)
Ikoo Buchverlag Edition in German (In Print)The Correct Sadist and Dungeon Evidence are being prepared
for a one-volume, self-published Edition, ambitiously slated for 2003.

For information about ordering any of these publications, go to 'Writings' on this site.

A FEW MORE PUBLISHED WORKS OF INTEREST
Mistress Manslaughter, Masquerade Magazine,New York, 1998

The Voice of Candy, Screw Magazine, New York, 1995

Is There Life After Sadomasochism? High Risk Anthology, New York, 1990

To Achieve Death, Fenris Wolf, Stockholm, 1990

Details from the Life of a Fin-de-Siecle Author,20th Century Fad Magazine, San Francisco, 1989

Fag Rag - Hour of the Fey - The $200, or Shit on Heroin, Bomb Magazine, New York, Issues in 1979,1981,1986

Coprophagi & Urinology, from "The Correct Sadist," Semiotexte, Polysexuality issue, New York 1981

===

REPORTING STERNANGEL

A "magazine" in pdf format with articles based on that preferred subject, sadomasochism. Excellent, tasteful fetish photography by Martha Wilkerson. Written and edited under the auspices of Dr. Tumbelty Southpaw, Psy.D - "Being a Document for the Edification and Education of the Sadomasochist Individual who only Appreciates their Fate. Featuring Excerpts from the Best in S&M Fiction, as well as Serving as a Device to Record the Reflexions of that Premier Submissive, Doctor Tumbelty Southpaw; and as Reporting on the Activities and Interests of certain Dominant Individuals of Exceptional Beauty."

Purchase Reporting SternAngel
[end excerpt]
====

So Lance, you've yet to live up to your promise to produce an article in support of 1) and your own supposed authority, if ftsoa we accept her as such, does not agree with you.

As for 2), I differ with some of my esteemed colleagues.
Some of them are of a 'school', unfortunately very dominant, who hold that SSC or simply 'consent' is some kind of mantra, fine PR, or a good luck charm, remedy against evil, or even a philosophy of wholesome life-- instead of simply a way to stay out of jail and hospital. Against them, you are right, that abuse may occur with consent, so 'consent' isn't a total defense' against 'abuse'. Two doctor's recreationally shooting each other up with heroin is consensual, but arguably still abuse (of body).

However, you've never addressed what 'abuse' is, beyond the simplisitic 'hurt', and a number of posters have posted plausible counterexamples to that, e.g., in boxing. It's clear, isn't it, that many hurts aren't abuse, as you will remember when you visit your dentist?

What you havent given is your agenda, your standard of what's health and 'correct' use of the body, including 'proper' sexual activity? Is it based in the Bible? On certain theologians or psychologists? On the secular 'mental health' professionals? Do, for instance 'gay' adult sexual acts fall into your 'unhealthy' category?

It's quite futile to argue with you, if your cards aren't on the table. There are those, as I said several days ago, who say masturbation or condom use constitute abuse, and the only way to discuss with such a person isn't to say "I like it and I'm ok," but 'What are your standards of health and proper use of the body, and where is their support?"

Best,
 
Fancy Footwork, LanceM

It's worth noting that the gist of this new thread title is that there is abuse in some bdsm relationships. Of course there is 'abuse' in all kinds of relationships, straight and gay, etc.

You've shifted your stance, which, I gather, originally was that there was a *special* tendency of bdsm relationship to be abusive.

All replies on this thread do not advance your original thesis one bit.

For balance of data, I will start a similar thread.
 
Richard49 said:
they along with the thread starter abuse me a lot

now to unsubscribe

LOL Richard, I thought you had put me on "ignore"?

For a supposed "dom" you sure do a lot of sniveling and whining.
 
Pure, what kind of source would you find credible? I posted the one in question because I thought it would hold more credence, coming from one of your own, citing references to professional literature. There are plenty of others out there, but I doubt any of them would be more acceptable to you. The DSMV (Diagnostical and Statistical Manual) used by the psychological profession lists your "lifestyle" as a deviance, and mental illness.

On the other hand, your defense is in the form of articles written by those in the "lifestyle". So I guess that makes them a more credible source?????

It's all an attempt to derail the real topic anyway, which is about prey versus predator.

Oh, I forgot. As long as they "ask for it" it's ok. :rolleyes:
 
Quint said:
I tried to stick within the parameters of the question while still giving enough of a post that you could understand my position. If there is anything you'd like me to elaborate or focus on, just lemme know.

You made your point, and effectively so....via the written word, anyway. I hope what you write is actually true in real life for you. But that doesn't make it true for everyone.

Thank you
 
Lance if you don't agree, why don't you go away. Afterall no one is forcing you to be here. It is always a great person who wants to force their beliefs on others.
 
lancemanyon said:
You made your point, and effectively so....via the written word, anyway. I hope what you write is actually true in real life for you. But that doesn't make it true for everyone.

Thank you

EXACTLY! Real life experiences aren't the same for everyone! So why must you insist that it's all about previous abuse and a lifestyle full of abuse?
 
Hi Lance

Your last post lacks the usual intelligence.


Pure, what kind of source would you find credible? I posted the one in question because I thought it would hold more credence, coming from one of your own, citing references to professional literature.


Apparently you did not read carefully what I wrote; Sellars does not endorse your thesis about abusive history, so far as I can see. Also, she's not a psychologist. Further, in the beginning, a protocol I suggested was that 'case studies', therapists' recollections of SM patients' situations would not be relevant to your claim about special prevalence of abusive history in BDSM folks generallly. (Stekel was essentially a professional therapist, and 'Sellars' if she's to be believed, is one [marginally] also.)



There are plenty of others out there, but I doubt any of them would be more acceptable to you.


Well, one article by a psychologist or social scientist about abusive backgrounds should be easy to find, if there are 'plenty'.
The fact is you don't know of any, and haven't, apparently, looked.



The DSMV (Diagnostical and Statistical Manual) used by the psychological profession lists your "lifestyle" as a deviance, and mental illness.


DSM-V is not written yet so it doesn't list anything.

The DSM categorization was not the subject of the debate--is SM a paraphilia. The term (sexual) 'deviance' is not generally used in DSM IV. The term 'mental illness' is not used for the entities in any DSM.

For any paraphilia to count as a problem of psychiatric interest, the DSM IV specifies " "causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social occupational or other areas of functioning."
This you have not addressed, in focussing consensual 'sadistic' acts per se..

None of this material supports your claim that in consensual bdsm, 'sadists' are abusers, and 'masochists' are abused.


On the other hand, your defense is in the form of articles written by those in the "lifestyle". So I guess that makes them a more credible source?????


I explicitly said that anecdotes from BDSM folks, like clinicians anecdotes have no real weight if you're making a general claim about a group. I have not really mounted any defense since there is no 'case' or evidence yet, from you on either of your original claims:

1) Those adults involved in legal consensual BDSM tend to have abusive pasts/childhoods.
2) Current legal consensual adult BDSM 'sadists' and 'masochists' are abusers and abused, respectively.

There are your theses, aren't they?



It's all an attempt to derail the real topic anyway, which is about prey versus predator.

Oh, I forgot. As long as they "ask for it" it's ok.


Actually I explicitly rejected the 'consent' defense as adequate. You must learn to read carefully. You've answered none of the questions I posed in my last posting, either, as to your standard of proper and healthy sexual behavior, and whether adult gay sexual encounters fit in with that? Do you have a Bible or religiously based objection to the 'deviations'?

Best,
J.
 
Last edited:
slvjenn said:
i stopped at the first line... "The most frequent and most significant of all perversions"


who says? who took the survey? who was polled?
I would like to be polled, if you know what I mean. :)
 
From the DSMIV:

Sexual Sadism
Repeatedly for at least 6 months, the patient has intense sexual desires, fantasies or behaviors concerning real acts of causing physical or psychological torment or otherwise humiliating another.
This causes clinically important distress or impairs work, social or personal functioning, or the patient has acted on these desires with a nonconsenting person

Sexual Masochism
Repeatedly for at least 6 months, the patient has intense sexual desires, fantasies or behaviors concerning real acts of being beaten, bound, humiliated or otherwise made to suffer.
This causes clinically important distress or impairs work, social or personal functioning.

For any paraphilia to count as a problem of psychiatric interest, the DSM IV specifies " "causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social occupational or other areas of functioning."
This you have not addressed, in focussing consensual 'sadistic' acts per se..

I dunno, as I read this forum I see plenty of evidence of impairment.
 
Pure said:
The DSM categorization was not the subject of the debate--is SM a paraphilia. The term (sexual) 'deviance' is not generally used in DSM IV.

Once again, talking in circles. Definition of paraphilia:

paraphilia (par--fil-)

A condition, in either men or women, of compulsive responsivity and obligatory dependence on an unusual or personally or socially unacceptable external stimulus or internal fantasy for sexual arousal or orgasm.
In legal parlance, a perversion or deviancy.
 
lancemanyon said:
<snip>The DSMV (Diagnostical and Statistical Manual) used by the psychological profession lists your "lifestyle" as a deviance, and mental illness.

Well lance, this clinched it for me. Poser. I've been thinking it all along, but this did it. Watching you dance around trying to avoid everyone's request for valid research, etc., and then having you totally BLOW this most simple of things. Anyone with the background that you are claiming would have the DSM-IV burned on their brain.

I also noticed how you started madly quoting from it AFTER Pure gave you the tip-off....funny, actually. I wonder if you even knew where to look before that? Or did you just have a vague idea?

I won't put you on ignore...I find you pathetically amusing, and frankly, I think the folks here on the BDSM board will grind your silly little psuedo-arguments into the dust. You can't convert the faithful darlin'. Why, oh WHY don't you understand that???

~Anelize
 
Hi Lance M.

I see you've got your DSM a little more clearly in mind.
It's pretty well known that Sadistic and Masochistic practices, insofar as they interfere with normal function in love and work, or involve nonconsenting parties are labelled, by psychiatrists,
as "mental disorders." Gay sex practices were once, too, and if rumor is correct some portion of consensual sm activities may well be removed from the list, in similar fashion, as psychiatrists become more tolerant.

As to your original points, 1) the BDSM folks tend to have abusive pasts, and that 2) BDSM 'sadists' and 'masochists' (in legal consensual situations) are abusers and abused, respectively.
It's pretty clear you've abandoned them and any effort to provide evidence. Beyond illegally reproducing Ms. Sellars, who doesn't even agree with you about your first point, you've not done your homework.

{See my further comments after your quoted piece}

[LanceM quoting DSM-IV]
from the DSMIV:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sexual Sadism
Repeatedly for at least 6 months, the patient has intense sexual desires, fantasies or behaviors concerning real acts of causing physical or psychological torment or otherwise humiliating another.
This causes clinically important distress or impairs work, social or personal functioning, or the patient has acted on these desires with a nonconsenting person


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sexual Masochism
Repeatedly for at least 6 months, the patient has intense sexual desires, fantasies or behaviors concerning real acts of being beaten, bound, humiliated or otherwise made to suffer.
This causes clinically important distress or impairs work, social or personal functioning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote

[Pure said, quoting DSM IV]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For any paraphilia to count as a problem of psychiatric interest, the DSM IV specifies " "causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social occupational or other areas of functioning."
This you have not addressed, in focussing consensual 'sadistic' acts per se..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Lance M now says]
I dunno, as I read this forum I see plenty of evidence of impairment.

[end quoted material from Lance M's posting]
=============
If you're referring to relationship problems you've seen, you have no way of accurately judging them in comparison to the relationship problems you might see on any 'romance, dating, and marriage' forum. And there's some evidence of otherwise good relationships, if one takes people's word.

However, hypothetically, if you were correct, then yes, the folks might count as having 'mental disorder' as per DSM-IV, a fact noted and discussed here before. You yourself have, apparently, a kind of 'logical disorder'** since that is pretty much irrelevant to your original claims. Mental disorders do not necessarily stem from abuse, nor do those with them, necessarily abuse anyone.

When you've posted some research relevant to your points, or have anything interesting to say, I'll consider responding,

As Siskel and Roeper say at the end of their show "The balcony is closed."

Regards,
J.

**tendency to imprecise thinking and fallacious reasoning.
 
Last edited:
LanceM said

The DSMV (Diagnostical and Statistical Manual) used by the psychological profession lists your "lifestyle" as a deviance, and mental illness.



Originally posted by Pure
The DSM categorization was not the subject of the debate--is SM a paraphilia. The term (sexual) 'deviance' is not generally used in DSM IV.


[Lance M said]
Once again, talking in circles. Definition of paraphilia:

quote: paraphilia (par--fil-)

A condition, in either men or women, of compulsive responsivity and obligatory dependence on an unusual or personally or socially unacceptable external stimulus or internal fantasy for sexual arousal or orgasm.
In legal parlance, a perversion or deviancy.


That's pretty lame stuff, Lance, a definition, so far as I can tell, NOT even from DSM IV --reference not cited--is used to support your claim about what the not-written DSM V says.

And as I've already stated DSM IV, does not speak of 'mental illness' as you claim. As a little note, "Diagnostical and Statistical Manual" is not even the correct title: it's "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual". I suspect you were cribbing the stuff from you local religious crusader's newsletter.

J.
 
Last edited:
Once again, It appears you are looking in the wrong place for your information. The psychiatric community generally has no idea what the fuck they're talking about concerning sexual variation. They're still undecided whether to classify homosexuality as a personality disorder, or sexual disfunction, and I hear that there's a cure on the way.
BDSM is a hobby, not a psychosis despite what the head doctors seem to think. Admittedly, it can be as habit forming as knitting, and reckless driving, but it is not a form, or symptom of psychological trauma. As far as I've scene, it's merely a sign of boredom.
You may be having trouble finding works out there that supprt your cause because your allies are the religeous "right", and the aforementioned conservative, and biased medical community. It's in their interests for us to be "sick" because if everyone was as happy with themselves as some of us are, we wouldn't need them. The collection plates would be passed through a croud of absences, and nobody would pay hundreds of dollars an hour treating stresses that can just as easilly be beaten out of them.
Thank you for wasting your time here, though, you've actually helped me a lot. I've got a character who starts off with pretty much the same dim, and miopic view of recreational psuedoabuse, and I'm getting some great material for her here. If you like, I can credit you when the book is done.
 
Hi Lance M,
As witness to changing of legal norms as well as psychiatric ones, witness todays NY Times. I wonder if perhaps you're on the 'wrong' side of this issue also (is sodomy a sign of mental illness or a just plain wicked "unnatural" thing? DSMs I and II thought so, but times change. Pity.)

What say you on this topic?


=========
www.nytimes.com. 3/7/03

Supreme Court Seems Set to Reverse a Sodomy Law
By LINDA GREENHOUSE


WASHINGTON, March 26 — A majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready today to overturn a Texas "homosexual conduct" law that criminalizes sexual practices between same-sex couples that are lawful in the state when performed by a man and a woman.

Texas is one of four states to make such a distinction, and one of 13 with criminal sodomy laws still on their books. It appeared from the argument today, on behalf of two Houston men who were prosecuted after the police found them having sex in a private apartment, that the court would follow a path of least resistance and invoke the constitutional guarantee of equal protection to strike down the Texas law.


A decision along those lines would sidestep the more fundamental question of the constitutional status of gay rights. But the fact that such a moment had arrived in a court that only 17 years ago dismissed as "facetious" the notion that the constitutional right to privacy extended to the private sexual choices made by gay men and lesbians invested the courtroom with an air of drama that the lopsided and unsuspenseful argument itself could not dispel.

It was a cultural as well as a constitutional moment, marked by the presence in the courtroom of many gay men and women from among the core of elite Washington lawyers. The seats in the center of the courtroom reserved for members of the Supreme Court bar were all claimed by 6:30 this morning for the 11 o'clock argument.

The argument proved to be a mismatch of advocates to a degree rarely seen at the court.
[end excerpt]
 
Pure said:
Hi Lance M,
As witness to changing of legal norms as well as psychiatric ones, witness todays NY Times. I wonder if perhaps you're on the 'wrong' side of this issue also (is sodomy a sign of mental illness or a just plain wicked "unnatural" thing? DSMs I and II thought so, but times change. Pity.)

What say you on this topic?


=========
www.nytimes.com. 3/7/03

Supreme Court Seems Set to Reverse a Sodomy Law
By LINDA GREENHOUSE


WASHINGTON, March 26 — A majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready today to overturn a Texas "homosexual conduct" law that criminalizes sexual practices between same-sex couples that are lawful in the state when performed by a man and a woman.

Texas is one of four states to make such a distinction, and one of 13 with criminal sodomy laws still on their books. It appeared from the argument today, on behalf of two Houston men who were prosecuted after the police found them having sex in a private apartment, that the court would follow a path of least resistance and invoke the constitutional guarantee of equal protection to strike down the Texas law.


A decision along those lines would sidestep the more fundamental question of the constitutional status of gay rights. But the fact that such a moment had arrived in a court that only 17 years ago dismissed as "facetious" the notion that the constitutional right to privacy extended to the private sexual choices made by gay men and lesbians invested the courtroom with an air of drama that the lopsided and unsuspenseful argument itself could not dispel.

It was a cultural as well as a constitutional moment, marked by the presence in the courtroom of many gay men and women from among the core of elite Washington lawyers. The seats in the center of the courtroom reserved for members of the Supreme Court bar were all claimed by 6:30 this morning for the 11 o'clock argument.

The argument proved to be a mismatch of advocates to a degree rarely seen at the court.
[end excerpt]

What say I, is this: I have nothing against gays, and they are no longer considered "deviants" by the psychiatric community.

But....and this is a big BUT.....gays have never been considered predators. BDSM is another story.

So why don't you quit grasping at straws, and try to provide some credible evidence that your deviance is nothing to hide?
 
Lance M said,


What say I, is this: I have nothing against gays, and they are no longer considered "deviants" by the psychiatric community.


Nice sidestep LanceM. I've no doubt at an earlier time you'd be quoting a DSM about the sickness of gays. How do you account for the reversal about 'gay sex' among shrinks, and do you think it was wise? The Bible after all, apparently condemns at least some gay sexual acts. Are you OK with adult sodomy?



But....and this is a big BUT.....gays have never been considered predators. BDSM is another story.


You have vast ignorance. That is precisely why gays have been fired from primary and secondary teaching positions; yet they are no more predatory than straight teachers (male teachers going after girls). A certain % in each case.



So why don't you quit grasping at straws, and try to provide some credible evidence that your deviance is nothing to hide?


You produced no evidence for your original points about abusive personal histories or inherently abusive practice in the consensual bdsm community.

Your wild points about "DSMV" considering sm as 'illness' have not served you well. From your earlier post:


Lance M previously opined:
The DSMV (Diagnostical and Statistical Manual) used by the psychological profession lists your "lifestyle" as a deviance, and mental illness


Your new emphasis on the trite point that psychiatrists consider SM deviant if it interferes with occupational or social functioning is hardly worth discussing.

I'd say your missionary efforts aren't going well, but no doubt your suffering 'slings and arrows' will go over well with your handlers and co-religionists. You don't quite qualify, however under the "Blessed are the meek" category, imo.

Best,
J.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top