RE: safe, SANE & Consensual

RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Bobkgin -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 3:30:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Celeste43 It doesn't sound like she's in therapy to deal with her issues but because he's trying to coerce her into doing things she doesn't want to and is using the medium of therapy to accomplish this. What I don't get is why the therapist would go along with it. Most good ones would see this as an unhealthily codependent relationship and try to encourage independence in the patient. For me that is the argument that suggests this is not an abusive situation. Any therapist helping an abuser abuse someone is open to all kinds of legal liabilities and law suits. Thus this particular interpretation does not seem to be a reasonable assumption. But there is also SubLizzie's point as well.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 3:33:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Why do I get the feeling we have already "met" this "friend"? Such was my thought as well, just as soon as I read the OP. A bit thinly veiled, and not exactly very likely to be good for her confidence. If anything, it probably increases the likelyhood that she will leave therapy that she may need.

ExSteelAgain -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 3:38:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance I'm just curious what other's might think about the ethics of beating your mentally distressed/disturbed/confused (what ever word applies) girlfriend into submission. This is the line that bothered me. If that is the defined norm of what happens in D/s relationships the answer is, of course, no, even if the submissive is in excellent mental health. Beating someone into submission is the way the vanilla world looks at what we do and far from the truth.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 3:38:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann Yet the bias is usually towards pushing people in flux or trouble to just break up. Rarely are people told to work to overcome their problems. I think this is evidence of a disposable society, but that's another tangent. A very useful tangent, however. I've been thinking along the same lines. People who are almost perfect for each other break up every day because they won't put in the effort to make it work, while people who have an Olympic-grade obstacle course stacked against them succeed every day because they are committed to making it work. Advising people to hold out for the fairy tale is just bad advice, IMO. Working through the issues is usually the best advice, IME.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 3:42:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressSassy66 I think I would be worried if the D in question was using humiliation techniques in training. Depends on the humiliation, doesn't it? Pushing the self-worth buttons is more along the lines of degrading/debasing, not humiliating.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 3:46:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I hate the 'sane' requirement. Whoever came up with the "SSC" bit really wasn't the brightest. Historical tidbit from one of Archer's posts: SSC was never meant to be a guideline. It was a credo back when people thought that WIITWD should be grounds for hospitalization on psychiatric grounds, that it involved nonconsenting partners, and that it was inherently dangerous in any form whatsoever. It served as a slogan, then mutated into a "requirement", which is just plain silly. quote: This lifestyle, by and large, isn't sane. I'd posit that it is, in fact, the only sane lifestyle for most people. Curious now? [:D] quote: Personally, I think most of the people on Earth are insane and/or mentally retarded. I still recognize the viability of such individuals' right to consent. Hear, hear.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 3:56:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Celeste43 It doesn't sound like she's in therapy to deal with her issues but because he's trying to coerce her into doing things she doesn't want to and is using the medium of therapy to accomplish this. There's a difference between "doesn't want to" and "can't deal with". No licenced therapist will do anything about the former, unless what she doesn't want to is something that is normative in her society, whereas any licenced therapist worth their salt should help with the latter, just as with phobias and other such things. quote: What I don't get is why the therapist would go along with it. Most good ones would see this as an unhealthily codependent relationship and try to encourage independence in the patient. Codependence is mostly a pseudo-diagnosis (it is not recognized by either the DSM or the ICD, nor is it likely to be any time soon) that originates in pop psychology, and corresponds to either a variant normal state, or certain pathologies that should be diagnosed an treated in their own right with no special attention to "codependence". Most pop psych would consider any deep D/s or M/s relationship as codependent, and would be all too happy to take your money to "treat" this codependency, which basically translates into making you dependent on their particular programme instead, typically a long-term, expensive one... cf. the scientologists, for instance. It's time for some people to recognize that almost all humans have some element of dependency wired into them, and that it's not necessarily unhealthy to transfer that dependency from something one has been reared to attach it to, or something society commonly attaches it to, over to something of one's own choosing. IMNSFHO. YMMV.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 4:10:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 From what I have seen, verbal abuse is much more harmful to the psyche than any level of physical abuse, primarily because words can be remembered long after the sting of a spanking has faded. Insults, put downs, and other forms of verbal punishment can and do reverberate sometimes for years. Depends on the timing. I think it may be more a case of verbal abuse being used at the wrong time, in the wrong way, and frequently. Similar thing, but different cause/effect relation. Physical abuse that one can make sense of is a lot less problematic than when one can't make sense of it. Properly timed, it can give a pretty huge jolt to the temporal distance learning circuit in a damaging direction. Kind of an inverse of cognitive behavioural therapy, and a strong parallel to Stockholm syndrome and battered spouse syndrome. Verbal abuse is no different, I think, and passes through an extra layer of interpretation (and evaluation) before it reaches the circuits that make it possible to do deep seated / long lasting damage. Usually, when I see someone who has been damaged by verbal abuse, it has gone on a lot more frequently, and for a lot longer periods of time, than with people who have been damaged by physical abuse. Of course, I don't see a whole lot of them, but I've seen some fairly messed-up people coming from both kinds of abuse.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 4:14:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Both acronyms do a disservice, to my way of thinking. They are egregious and somewhat deceptive oversimplifications, that do little to illuminate the nuances of the lifestyle. People prefer simplicity, dogma and mantras. Dealing with the apparent complexity of the world creates a headache for most, and no less so in a lifestyle that appears at odds with mainstream social morae. Additionally, the lifestyle lacks a common identity, which kind of makes these mantras/credos into rallying points / flags of a sort. quote: Vanilla types don't need acronyms to explain how they live and play. Why do we? Probably because we are Othering ourselves. Inverted identity doesn't do very well for most.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 4:21:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chellekitty but according to the doctors i have talked to the times they use the word insane is when you can not determine reality from fantasy...ie. hallucinations or psychotic episodes or a number of other false thinking that you think is implicitly real... Profound lack of coherence in thought, or a disconnect from reality that you are unaware of the nature of and refuse to accept, would be fairly common criterion, I think. That said, there are cases where you can be considered insane for rejecting prevalent delusions. In any case, I've never heard a professional use the term "insane". quote: hallucinations don't make you insane unless you can't tell they aren't really there after a moment... Persistent hallucinations don't make you insane. Refusal to accept that they are actually hallucinations is a different matter, especially when confronted with proof of that. Of course, that would make Moses mad as a nutter, not to mention the people in the new testament. Let's hope Jesus isn't sectioned in a mental ward somewhere. [:D] (Yes, CL, I know. No need to comment.)

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 4:47:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin Does this include a belief in God and angels and Satan and demons and the saving grace of Jesus Christ ... none of which can be scientifically demonstrated to be real? Not unless you are in a country where atheism is the state-sanctioned view, such as the old USSR. The diagnostic criterion specifically exclude delusions that conform to the norms of the society you live in, or the society you were raised in, or a group you are a part of. Otherwise, 90% of the western hemisphere would be sectioned for prejudices (a very common kind of delusion that is unsupported by science). That said, there's a difference between belief (an assumption), faith (a strong assumption), blind faith / conviction (refusal to consider the possibility that the beliefs may be erronous) and so forth. We usually hold as self-evident a number of things that are unsupported or outright contradicted by science, as do most societies, as have humans for known history, and probably will for the forseeable future. quote: Wikipedia has an interesting definition for "delusion", which essentially breaks down to believing in things the majority of others do not (ie a subjective definition based on the popularity of a belief). Yes, the diagnostic criteria for delusion are subjective. Kind of like oppositional-defiant, conduct disorder, and so forth: mental illnesses where the diagnostic criteria include the contents of the minds of people around you, not just your own mind. Which is how the USSR could validly section people for the delusion that communism was deeply flawed. quote: The Mental Health sciences are still in their infancy and have yet to really tackle their built-in biases: faith in religion is "sane" but faith in 6-foot tall pink rabbits is a "hallucination". Faith is involved in both cases and neither can be proven scientifically, but one is exceptionally popular while the other is not. Let's take an example closer to the heart... Believing that it is impossible for a legally defined minor to engage in sexual relations with an adult without harm is a very common belief in the western hemisphere. It is also a belief that was rigorously proven to to be incorrect by the Rind et al paper and subsequent peer review by major arbitration bodies and so forth. Subscribing to that belief is proven to be delusional. Yet most people continue to do so, and it is not considered a mental illness. In fact, failing to subscribe to that delusion is something that most people will consider mental illness. It is amusing to see people use religion as an example, yet fail to examine their own beliefs. Back when the church said the world was flat, and that the celestial bodies revolved in epicycles around the Earth, and that the Earth was at the center of the Universe, the scientists who contradicted them would meet the modern criteria for a diagnosis of delusional psychosis or somesuch. However, they were right, as far as we can tell. And holding the opposing belief today would qualify for the same diagnosis. In short, science is kowtowing to prevailing dogma, and the church is out of the picture. The church was never the real problem in that regard, as demonstrated today. A better question is: where are the "heretical" scientists today that- back in the days when the church controlled the dogma- were willing to be burned for their beliefs? Certainly not in the media, and definitely not in the major peer-reviewed journals, with some few exceptions like Rind et al, a point raised by the AAAS (American Association for Advancement of Science) when told by the APA to review these scientific papers because they were "self-evidently" wrong. Rind et al had the dubious honor of being unanimously condemned by Congress for one of the most solid pieces of research in the social sciences. (The Rind paper is just a convenient example, as all criticisms have been addressed, and the results are scientifically uncontroversial.) Don't dig too deeply into the field of belief vs delusion. There are only three possible outcomes: (a) you find something you don't like, (b) you contribute to a monocultural delusional dogma becoming more firmly entrenched and prevalent, or (c) you become disillusioned to the point of realizing every human concept can be sorted into the damning categories of "null", "void", and "pointless". Whence nihilism and despair is a very rational outcome.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 4:49:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Why do I get the feeling we have already "met" this "friend"? Such was my thought as well, just as soon as I read the OP. A bit thinly veiled, and not exactly very likely to be good for her confidence. If anything, it probably increases the likelyhood that she will leave therapy that she may need. Had I began the post with "I have this friend," I might be hanging my head and feeling some measure of remorse over screwing up. This post isn't a message, thinly veiled or otherwise, to those individuals. Why bother? Direct advise doesn't seem to penetrate their reality, why would subtlety? Relationship issues have been brought to this forum that raised questions in my mind, and those questions developed into a topic that I thought worthy of discussion. If for no other reason than because I found it of interest, and was curious if I could debunk my own initial reaction to the situation. If I had been more direct in throwing out names, all this post would have become is a discussion about their issues. While that relationship raised the questions in my mind, I think the drama they have inspired so far, isn't worthy of perpetuating. It would have derailed the entire topic I began with. Because a topic might have been inspired by this particular situation, doesn't mean that the questions raised from it must nor should orbit the individuals. The concept of ethics has a broader reach than just Him and Her. If it were otherwise, in my mind, I'd just have simply been content with my His and Her slippers.

Bobkgin -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 5:05:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad A better question is: where are the "heretical" scientists today that- back in the days when the church controlled the dogma- were willing to be burned for their beliefs? They've existed: Einstein with relativity, Dart and australopithecus africanus, Darwin and evolution. The problem here is that those who revolutionize a science are never common, but were more common when basic principles were being overturned at the dawn of a science. Now we have scientists building more on the principles of revolutionary scientists. After all, you can only really discover that the earth moves around the sun once. From then on, subsequent scientists can merely substantiate the original claim or expand on it (as Kepler did with the Copernican system, which originally posited that orbits were circular - Kepler demonstrated that orbits are elliptical).

Bobkgin -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 5:15:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Why do I get the feeling we have already "met" this "friend"? Such was my thought as well, just as soon as I read the OP. A bit thinly veiled, and not exactly very likely to be good for her confidence. If anything, it probably increases the likelyhood that she will leave therapy that she may need. Had I began the post with "I have this friend," I might be hanging my head and feeling some measure of remorse over screwing up. This post isn't a message, thinly veiled or otherwise, to those individuals. Why bother? Direct advise doesn't seem to penetrate their reality, why would subtlety? Relationship issues have been brought to this forum that raised questions in my mind, and those questions developed into a topic that I thought worthy of discussion. If for no other reason than because I found it of interest, and was curious if I could debunk my own initial reaction to the situation. If I had been more direct in throwing out names, all this post would have become is a discussion about their issues. While that relationship raised the questions in my mind, I think the drama they have inspired so far, isn't worthy of perpetuating. It would have derailed the entire topic I began with. Because a topic might have been inspired by this particular situation, doesn't mean that the questions raised from it must nor should orbit the individuals. The concept of ethics has a broader reach than just Him and Her. If it were otherwise, in my mind, I'd just have simply been content with my His and Her slippers. I think the argument is that the topic could have been made more general, served the purpose you've described, and not encouraged people to avoid therapy so as not to appear troubled. Like the old Soviet Union, mental balance is too often used as a political tool to score points. There is no truly compassionate concern for those who suffer from these kinds of problems. Certainly there are those who take advantage of the mentally unstable. There are also people who take advantage of stupidity, laziness, and a desire to be popular. Yet we do not consider stupidity, laziness or a desire to be popular as mental aberrations, yet such can be abused just as easily, can be manipulated just as easily. So where does one draw a fine line in the sand to disntinguish those who are competent enough to participate in bdsm, and those who are not? Are those who take advantage of someone's stupidity so as to abuse them any less an abuser than someone who abuses a person with psychological difficulties?

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 5:37:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin The problem here is that those who revolutionize a science are never common, but were more common when basic principles were being overturned at the dawn of a science. They are actually more common than one might think. But nowadays, the scientific community itself clamps more down on them, particularly in the areas where one can mix science and opinion. Launching a rocket or operating a particle accelerator doesn't leave much room for opinion. Social sciences and so forth actually does, and despite there being a huge set of dogma to overturn, very few are forthcoming who have the willingness to do just that. quote: Now we have scientists building more on the principles of revolutionary scientists. And, more to the point, reconciling dogma with observation, rather than questioning dogma. My point being that we have gone from spending our time reconciling science and scripture, to doing a lot of science without an attempt to reconcile, back to reconciling science with a different kind of scripture. Even hard sciences are faking it at times. Psychiatry and social sciences, obviously, are generally the worst of the lot in this regard. Despite having as far to go as Copernicus et al did.

Bobkgin -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 5:55:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin The problem here is that those who revolutionize a science are never common, but were more common when basic principles were being overturned at the dawn of a science. They are actually more common than one might think. But nowadays, the scientific community itself clamps more down on them, particularly in the areas where one can mix science and opinion. Launching a rocket or operating a particle accelerator doesn't leave much room for opinion. Social sciences and so forth actually does, and despite there being a huge set of dogma to overturn, very few are forthcoming who have the willingness to do just that. Ah, the difficulties in comparing the hard sciences with the soft sciences. Today it is much easier to achieve a reasonable degree of objectivity when viewing data from the hard sciences. Satellites etc make it impossible for us to argue there are canals on Mars, whereas in the time if Schiaparelli and Lowell earth-based astronomy was still vague enough that opinion mattered. "I think I see ..." was a legitimate basis for theories. But not anymore. In the soft sciences, objectivity is almost de facto impossible, because who is to say the scientists are so finely balanced that their opinions of others are not merely the expression of biases and prejudices? Where the hard sciences can defend absolute positions based on mathematical formulae, the soft sciences can only defend averages based on statistics. They then try to argue which is right or wrong, but within the context of what is a popular belief and what is not. If you want the research grants, you cannot pursue the proof for unpopular ideas. And there is no organization seeking to buck popular misconceptions that is wealthy enough to support the research that would be required, assuming such research could actually prove anything when it comes to human psychology. You might consider the soft sciences as a branch of philosophy, which suffers from many of the same problems and lacks the science to support itself. quote: quote: Now we have scientists building more on the principles of revolutionary scientists. And, more to the point, reconciling dogma with observation, rather than questioning dogma. My point being that we have gone from spending our time reconciling science and scripture, to doing a lot of science without an attempt to reconcile, back to reconciling science with a different kind of scripture. Even hard sciences are faking it at times. It has been a long time since we've had a controversy along the lines of Piltdown or A.Africanus where bias was evident. Too many scientists willing to check your conclusions. I suppose the closest might be Leakey's "1470" skull which he used to argue a very old line of homo. The dating was wrong, and it took years to get that information out to the scientific community in a verifiable way. The Leakeys love old homo.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 6:13:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin So where does one draw a fine line in the sand to disntinguish those who are competent enough to participate in bdsm, and those who are not? Are those who take advantage of someone's stupidity so as to abuse them any less an abuser than someone who abuses a person with psychological difficulties? Good reply. Saved me from writing one. This bit here, though, I'll say, is the crux of the matter for me. I'm pretty well acquainted with some segments of the psychiatric field and the cognitive sciences, and also very concerned about the issue of informed consent, in the sense that it be the actual person's own will to participate. In some cases, like with aspies, the "abnormality" is a fundamental aspect of who they are, and isn't a barrier to consent. In other cases, it can be something that is clearly superimposed over the the actual person, and (for me) a barrier to consent. In most cases, it is a very tricky question. The more I learn about the field, the harder it is to find any meaningful definition of consent.

Aswad -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 6:26:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin If you want the research grants, you cannot pursue the proof for unpopular ideas. That's quite probably the dominant factor in it all, and leads to systemic bias, which I think dominates all the other forms of bias in the social sciences. In fact, it would be very interesting to see someone try to replicate Chomsky's work on the Propaganda Model of the Media in relation to the social sciences. quote: You might consider the soft sciences as a branch of philosophy, which suffers from many of the same problems and lacks the science to support itself. Philosophy and epistemology can actually be on pretty solid ground in many regards, although they can't make final conclusions on a lot of different things. Perfectly valid assertions along the lines of "if X then Y" and such can be made, but they can't really resolve the if's involved. Still, very useful and important fields, IMO. quote: It has been a long time since we've had a controversy along the lines of Piltdown or A.Africanus where bias was evident. Too many scientists willing to check your conclusions. The conclusions are frequently checked, but often they aren't checked in a scientifically rigorous manner, but rather checked against prevailing dogma and "self-evident truths". Rind et al is a case in point. Social sciences can disprove an assertion in the context of a paradigm, and without ambiguity. Researchers generally don't try to do that, however. There is a lot more money to be had from constructing a victim-making machine than there is in what Rind et al did, which is basically to test a falsifiable position that had been forwarded by the mainstream social sciences community, and rigorously disproving it on their own terms, using their own definitions and biases. Critics reviewed the work and offered their objections, with the most interesting result being a strengthening of the conclusion (there had been a piece of statistics that had been analyzed in an oversimplified manner; someone pointed this out, and claimed that correcting it would show the paper was wrong, so the authors applied the suggested methodology, and found a much stronger result in line with the original conclusion). Mostly, the critics had been reading more into the paper than was actually there. Basically, they could easily see that the paper challenged their bias, felt threatened by that, and addressed their own conclusions to reassert their own positions, only to be met with a rebuttal that, simplified, goes: "you said it, we didn't." We need more research like that, although other topics are more interesting / relevant.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 6:35:06 AM)
I was wondering if you cerebral gorillas were going to manage to get back on topic, once the cortex thumping was accomplished (If you can't see this as humor, deal with it). Good job of working back to the OP. I was going to ask why any question must result in a definitive, line drawn in the sand answer. I certainly never expected one to be. Aswad made an excellent point that answered that question. The only lines that can be drawn are by the individuals and those are on a case by case basis. Again, I still think the first person to respond to my questions, offered the best answer. Probably because her response was personal and compassionate and was not presented in a clinically sterile manner. The answers were basically the same.

Bobkgin -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 6:47:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin So where does one draw a fine line in the sand to disntinguish those who are competent enough to participate in bdsm, and those who are not? Are those who take advantage of someone's stupidity so as to abuse them any less an abuser than someone who abuses a person with psychological difficulties? Good reply. Saved me from writing one. This bit here, though, I'll say, is the crux of the matter for me. I'm pretty well acquainted with some segments of the psychiatric field and the cognitive sciences, and also very concerned about the issue of informed consent, in the sense that it be the actual person's own will to participate. In some cases, like with aspies, the "abnormality" is a fundamental aspect of who they are, and isn't a barrier to consent. In other cases, it can be something that is clearly superimposed over the the actual person, and (for me) a barrier to consent. In most cases, it is a very tricky question. The more I learn about the field, the harder it is to find any meaningful definition of consent. We have something in common. I've been pursuing this question from a philisophical/moral/ethical perspective than a mental health perspective, for as I said, the soft sciences are little more than statistical averages, not what is right or wrong. Consider the following: what is the fine line between persuasion and coercion? I find we soon enter the field of semantics (and being a writer, that is a part of the craft's tool-kit). Thus, one person's "advocacy" is another person's "mind control". It is all in the experience of the individual, and how that individual has translated those events into ethical principles and judgments. The person who has not experienced compassion sufficiently to accept it as a possible motive in humans will reject all evidence of compassion and interpret the evidence in some other way consistent with the lessons he's learned from his experience. Being "broad-minded" or "narrow-minded" is a bit of a misnomer, as they both describe the same principle: how we relate our personal experiences and the lessons we drew from them to others in the world. In a sense, we are all "narrow-minded", because we all use our own experiences and lessons. For some of us, those lessons included trusting the lessons of others as related to us. Thus we can learn about history, mathematics, engineering and brain surgery. But we are still using our own experiences and lessons to decide whose lessons we'll learn, and how we will apply those lessons. So how shattered must an individual be before we can say that they are incapable of giving informed consent? All of their decisions are based on their experiences and the lessons they learned. I think the issue is a bit upside down. For me, it is not how low can I get before informed consent is not informed consent, but rather how high a standard do I demand of those with whom I become involved. I knew my slave was competent enough to give informed consent by the way she treated me, the way she spoke to me, before she became mine. Intelligence rules. Its self-reinforcing: I want to be treated well, that rules out all those who do not treat me well, that rules out anyone incapable of informed consent, because such individuals simply lack the competency to treat me well. Bear in mind I'm not saying that is the only standard I use. But it is certainly a useful standard for steering clear of those whose consent I'd question. on edit: You know, I can just see this confusing hell out of some people, so I'm going to take another stab at it. From my point of view, almost all of us are capable of some degree of informed consent. The more you know, the more informed the consent will be. One would have to reach a gross incapacity of cognitive processes before no informed consent could be given. So the argument becomes, how informed is informed enough, and where do we draw the line between that and not informed enough? This quickly degenerates into an elitist argument involving IQs and such. So with respect to the OP, I submit that anyone who is unable to provide some degree of informed consent is unlikely to have the congitive skills to pick their nose, let alone use a computer, go out and date, etc. Regarding the question of how uninformed an informed consent must be before the individual should be discouraged from engaging in bdsm ... I suspect everyone has their own opinion and likely favours the one they apply to those they seek. Hope that clears up the earlier response.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875