Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: velvetears
Thank you Aswad for your considerate and thoughtful response to my rather protective of um's emotional post to you.
You're welcome. And I get the emotional bit.
quote:
Where they are concerned i would always rather err on the side of caution rather then see any kind of physical or emotional damage done to them.
As would I.
However, I'm a bit more at a loss as to what constitutes damage.
Most such damage would be from feedback and social friction.
Some might construe relationship prejudices as damage.
And raising them with a feeling that BDSM isn't natural may be a problem when they grow up, given that it isn't all that unlikely that they'll eventually find a similar interest themselves as adults.
The same "problems" arise with LGBT parents.
And, again, it's prejudices, feedback and social friction that's the problem.
A recent country-wide survey up here in Norway showed that lesbian parents are the best.
They provide better access to male role models, take better care of the kids, spend more time with the kids, are more willing to take unpaid days off from work to deal with the kids, and so forth; and their kids are more happy than straight couples' kids.
That's on average, of course, not an absolute given.
But, still, probably surprising to some, particularly in the USA.
I don't discount the possibility that the same may be true of BDSM couples.
Hence, my stance is a bit more "wait and see".
quote:
i dont see how it wouldn't be considered child abuse when kids have been taken away from parents (here in the US) for them simply posessing a picture of said child in the tub - you know the cutsey pictures a lot of people take for no other reason then a fond memory of bath time being construed as something completely different.
I never got that whole nudity scare thing in the US.
And I live in a country that has Protestant Christianity as a state religion...
Basically, I'd say people who want to take kids away from their parents for something like that probably have some deeply seated issues they need to deal with; and making it policy on a gov't level is just ... words fail me.
Let's look at a different angle ... still in the US ...
Jews are allowed to circumcise infant boys.
Amish are allowed to turn down medical aid for their kids.
Seventh Day Adventists are allowed to refuse their kids blood transfusions.
If those things aren't child abuse, where does a collar rank?
In some areas, it isn't domestic abuse if your partner hits you back an equal number of times, or if there was a "fair fight" (in a physical sense). Children who witness this are not considered abused, unless they were hit themselves. How does that compare to a flogger?
I'll trust your judgment in saying the UMs were uncomfortable.
That's enough to merit a decent talk with the parents, at the very least.
However, I am not at all sure that this constitutes child abuse in any way.
Without knowing them better, it's hard to say what the kids were uncomfortable about.
I, for one, used to be generally uncomfortable about guests, particularly guests who laughed loudly (I had sensitive ears), and in a certain age interval, I'd get all blushy and uncomfortable when they discussed dating or relationships (even with no mention of anything unkosher); none of this constituted abuse.
My parents were more forward than what you have given an impression of this couple being.
And I would dare to say that I haven't been "damaged" by it in any way, shape or form.
My friends certainly thought they were "way cool", and they actually still think so.
Now I'm older, I'd tend to agree, despite some "zomg, mom!"'s at the time.
Europe is somewhat different from the US in this regard, it would seem.
But I'm reluctant to buy that US kids are less "resillient" than ours...
quote:
i didn't mean at all to imply that you thought um's could consent or participate, i apologize if it came across that way.
No need to apologize. I just wanted to be clear on it, that's all.
quote:
What i am having a general hard time understanding is what appears to me a consensus that it's alright to raise your kids in any fashion you want and that it's no ones business but the parents in how the kids are raised.
It comes down to this...
Either we make kids full members of society, or we have someone act as their proxy.
If someone is to act as a proxy, then the proxy does what the proxy thinks is best.
It is the typical case, by tradition, for the parents to be that proxy to their UMs.
One cannot convince a bulk of people to standardize on restrictions that interfere with culturally accepted norms for child rearing. Yet to draw lines that distinguish between acceptable non-traditional norms, acceptable traditional norms, unacceptable non-traditional norms, and unacceptable traditional norms, without the latter group containing any restrictions that cause a public outcry, seems impossible.
In other words, we're stuck with mistakes from the past, and people won't change.
Hence, any debate as to alternatives to the current system are academic at best.
From this, it follows that one can only extend by analogy and cultural change.
Since I'm for womens' rights, LGBTs rights, and BDSMers rights, it seems natural to me that BDSM should be made a natural, integrated part of society for those who want to do it, and that behaviours analogous to what is acceptable for vanillas should also be acceptable for us. For instance, wearing a collar in public is (IMO) like wearing a wedding band; a leash is like holding hands; kneeling is like mooning at each other; kissing is like regular kissing; kissing someone's feet or somesuch is like french kissing. This in terms of what I think should be acceptable behaviour.
Now, I quite get that some people would throw a fit if they found a couple engaged in foot "worship" on the bus station. But go back a few years and show them a gay couple french-kissing, and you'll see the same response. Currently, the latter couple has gotten their rights, although some are still prejudiced about it and dislike it, while the former couple is relegated to the dark corners with their "forbidden" love.
Kids who grow up around that kind of behaviour will see it as natural unless anyone intervenes.
And an intervention is a pretty surefire way to make kids traumatized for life.
However, there is still social friction and feedback to contend with.
That's where the rub is, for me.
If the kids see it as natural, and talk to their peers, they'll get negative feedback, and soon the Family Inquisition / SS will arrive to raise a ruckus. These things will damage the kids, not the initial actions themselves. Hence, there's a bit of a touchy question as to how one goes about avoiding exposure to negative feedback without depriving them of interactions with their peers.
Should a group of BDSMers with UMs build (or buy) a neighbourhood which accepts this kind of behaviour in public, and has enough peers and enough infrastructure for life there to look like any other large neighbourhood, then I'm confident the UMs would be growing up as decent, mentally stable and open-minded people.
And I can pretty much guarantee that CSA rates would be way lower than the national averages.
quote:
Maybe where i am seeing "abuse" and others not is in the fact that i associate bdsm with sex.
That could definitely be affecting your perceptions.
For me, it's not about sex, but about relationships between people.
I could go without the sex, permanently, if I had to, but the relationship I want to keep.
This was pretty much covered in the "I have a dream, BDSMers..." sections above, tho'.
quote:
i can certainly see a home where there is open D/s in the form of dads the boss kind of thing as more a way of life and acceptable if thats how they want to raise their kids, that i can accept,
One should hope so, since that's pretty much how relationships were until "recently". 
Most BDSMers I know with UMs take this approach.
The UMs do not hear or see anything out of place, at all.
What they may notice is that one of the parents is the boss.
Let's say dad, since I'm a male, without implying moms can't be.
So the UMs may notice that if dad says "we'll talk about it later", mom shuts up.
Or that dad's word is final, at least of spoken just so, and that mom gets this.
However, they don't see what goes on "behind the scenes" so to speak.
Whether "talk about it later" means a stern talking-to, or not being able to sit for a week, that is between the parents, and the UMs are none the wiser.
quote:
but whips, floggers, leashes, collars etc in front of 10 and 12 yr olds - i just can't accept that.
Bear in mind that where you see a cane, you are seeing "hmm... cool, flexible thingy that will hurt when he hits me with it... sexy!", or something more or less to that effect, I'd guess. Similar things go for whips and floggers.
However, when a kid sees something like that, that's not a context they have for them, so they go "hmm... cool, bet this will really hurt my brother if I hit him... neat! now I can get even for that rotten tomato at school yesterday!", or something more along those lines. Which is a problem if the implement is dangerous, like a single-tail, but not if it isn't.
See, it's like with a dog. If you make a hitting motion toward a young pup, without any intent to hit it, and stop well short, it will usually think it's some kind of game, and get curious or just ignore it. It doesn't have the context. However, if it has been abused by its owners in the past, it will cringe and brace for impact, and will be scared unless you comfort it straight way. That means it does have the context, at which point I talk to the poor thing's owners and explain how they will be treating it in the future.
Similarly, if an UM sees a toy, whether it be BDSM-related or vanilla-related (massage tools come to mind), then they don't see a "Toy", they see a "toy", if you get what I'm saying. It lacks the context and drives to associate it with anything. However, if an UM shows that they understand that the thing in mom's drawer isn't a massage rod like the catalog said it was, then there's a context present, which is disturbing. In less witch-hunt oriented times, I'd be inclined to confront the parents at that point; since things are a bit tense nowadays, I'd collect a fair bit more "evidence" first.
But, really, if I'd seen a rubber domidong as an UM?
I'd be thinking "murder weapon", not "sex-toy".
(Apologies for reusing domiguy's jokes.)
As for leashes and collars...
Goths wear those all the time, no problem.
And as long as parents are allowed to wear huge blood-diamonds, these don't rank.
By blood diamonds, I mean "real" diamonds. You know, the "It isn't love unless some 12-year old lost a finger digging it out of some rock" kind of "real" that DeBeers spouts to help save support for perhaps the worst cartel in human history, despite better quality diamonds being available for less than USD 5 per carat.
quote:
You were using it as a metaphor as to what is happening to people when others try to intervene in what they do consentually with others.
Okay, great.
quote:
i had an idea about informed consent, because i am not sure if someone who hasn't experienced someting can really give informed consent.
My solution to this has been simple: start short and narrow, go slow.
Don't sign up for lifetime consent until you've sampled it in smaller pieces first.
At each stage, make sure what you consent to is within the range of what you can fully comprehend the consequences of, so that when you finally get to the point where you have collected enough expriences, then you have the reference points needed to make the decision for life.
quote:
Unless all it means is you are of sound mind to give something a try and you understand what it is you are even willing to try and thats it.
Consider that the term is used for medical research, DNR orders, and so forth.
It's a question of being able to understand the scope and the consequences.
One doesn't have to be a doctor to see where a DNR order ends up.
But one doesn't need to know what being dead is like to make one.
You don't need to be a researcher to get experimental treatment.
You just have to understand the risks, benefits and so forth.
In short, have a good grasp of things, but you don't need to have "been there".
quote:
You mentioned you would want it in writing and how it is binding over where you live - that would scare me because what if i said yes i give consent and i was analysed as having sound mind, not being cohersed, or on drugs, or have any chemical imbalance etc but then experienced things i thoguht i could handle, when in reality i couldn't.
Well, it's not a carte blanche.
What it means is, if I sign up for a solid spanking, but dislike it, I can't complain about it. Unless, that is, there are safe-words in there, in which case that construes intent not to go too far, and then there would again be legal issues if the other person went too far, even if I was too messed up to use the safe-word.
For this reason, and others, the main BDSM organizations here have a standardized negotiated limits form with 0 (hard limit), 1-5 (hate through love) and 6 (requirement) for a wide range of activities, along with boxes for safewords and so forth. People fill in the forms and keep a signed copy each, and play like they otherwise would.
It's just a safeguard against repercussions.
Sometimes, shit happens, and nobody is to blame for it.
In those cases, a form is nice when someone assigns blame to a scapegoat.
People capable of giving consent aren't usually inclined to sign up for "extreme body modification without safewords or anaesthesia" (no, that's not an item on their lists). Hence, it's not really a problem. Get to know the partner, play, discover, and don't give your partner prior permission to do something you're not ready for them to do. In short, the "common sense" of wiitwd.
It also covers D/s and M/s to some extent.
Basically, if nephandi runs off, and I restrain her, I'm in the clear.
But if she really wants out, and persists in this, a consent form won't do it.
A simple "contract" only goes as far as instructing the police and jury that it is both parties' wish (up front) that whatever it explicitly permits not be treated as a crime, and that whatever it denies be treated as rape and/or assault. The police then make a judgment about whether there's anything iffy about it (e.g. questions about competence or whether things went too far, etc.), and if they're not satisfied people were acting in good faith under proper consent, then they pass the buck to the courts. In the courts, the paper becomes admissible for both parties, but most of it isn't legally binding. For instance, if it says I can keep someone in a box for the rest of their life, that isn't going to fly. It will, however, give the jury an impression of the headspace we were in when we signed it, and so forth.
WIITWD is the same up here as over there.
It's just that we have legal safeguards for both parties.
Now, I do have some work going on that may constitute the necessary jumping through legal loopholes to go "all the way" in legally recognizing voluntary slavery, but that's not something to be worried about. The overhead is just too much for anyone who isn't really doing this in a carefully planned way. For instance, it requires two mental health professionals, a lawyer, a paralegal, and tons of paperwork, as well as going by a protocol that takes a lot of time to get to the "open-ended" point. But it's an interesting thing to play around with, and if a certain girl volunteers to test it legally, we might do some cultural ground-breaking.
My turn to go on for ever, obviously. Oh, wait. I always go on for ever. Oops.
One last thing, though, is that these things prevent interventions.
In Norway, a third party can report a crime or civil case.
So, a concerned parent of an adult woman can do so.
And we all know about mothers-in-law etc.
Hence, it does serve a real purpose.
Not just mental masturbation.
quote:
Maybe i am just thinking too much in the extreme, but i tend to take things seriously, especially those i committ to. Hope i made sense. Thanks and hope you're feeling better 
I take things quite seriously, as well. And I always cover the extremes, not because I'm planning on going there, but because I want the other person to really think about what they want and when they want it. There's no rush in getting there, and no reason why a partner of mine should want to toss all the safeguards out the window on the first day.
As someone said, if they say "no limits", I bring out the gardening shears.
Then, as if by magic, they suddenly realize that they have limits.
The shears are negotiation tools, not toys for play.
Anyway, yeah, you made sense.
Thanks for your concern, and you're welcome.
As for feeling better ... maybe in about a week or so... 
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: When is enough, enough…..or where does acceptance... - 
Profile
............luci
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread