Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: velvetears
It was basically just a get together, not for any scene activity necessarily, but some people had collars on and there were some impact toys lying around, also there were discussions in front of these kids which should not have been allowed
From what you're saying, it breaks down like this:
People had collars on. Big deal. My parents wore their wedding rings all their lives. Some goths I know, who aren't into BDSM at all, wear collars all the time. Since the symbolism is okay (relationship token) and the physical article itself is okay (decorative clothing), where's the problem?
There were impact toys around. And? Were people using them? Did the kids seem scared of them or uncomfortable about them? There are police officers who will wear their service firearm to a picnic, as well they should, and I don't see why a lethal weapon should be acceptable where a plaything isn't. Maybe I just live in an odd country, but kids around here would never get what those were actually for, though they might amuse themselves by running around whacking each other with them (as opposed to hitting, whacking with their own toys, and generally behaving as kids do).
People were talking. This is something adults do all the time. And adolescents. And kids. Unless you buy the idea that BDSM is something "unnatural", "unacceptable" or "wrong", then there is nothing inherently different about a BDSM couple discussing BDSM around the kids, as opposed to a vanilla couple discussing dating hassles and nightclubs around the kids. Worst case, the kids don't get as prejudiced and traumatised as the rest of the population.
If these were serious objections, why not put all kids in public rearing camps, where they all get fed the same xerox'ed blueprint for how to live their lives as everyone else does, with no room for parents to "mess up" by raising their kids differently in any way?
I don't "get" the problem at all.
quote:
The second was a scene that involved face and stomache punching, sub down on the ground being kicked - severe beating, blood, etc - not my cup of tea and in my opinion that goes over the fence into abuse.
While I'm not particularly happy about face punching or hard slapping, the rest of it sounds entertaining enough, and I'm pretty sure there are plenty of others here who agree. In fact, I know there are.
Which isn't to say I would be doing it, but each to their own, IMO.
As for face punching et al, I suspect it's just the usual case of people not knowing just how risky that can be, which is bad- and kind of one of the reasons I say informed consent should be the standard, not just consent- but hardly uncommon. People misjudge risks all the time. And, for all I know, they may know the risks and take them consensually. Some get into boxing, after all.
quote:
i know many will say well did the sub agree or like it - i don't care if she did - i still consider it abuse.
Which is fine. That's the attitude that the term YKINOK was coined for. Use it early, use it often.
I've had neighbours and friends who thought anyone being spanked, caned or "forced" to wear a collar was abuse. People draw their lines in different places. Whichever place a BDSM person chooses to draw their own line, it will be on the "wrong" side of the majority (vanilla) opinion of where that line "should" be drawn, however.
Hence, many, like me, prefer to reject the idea of drawing a line anywhere, except for the line between consent (sex/relationship/lifestyle) and non-consent (rape/abuse/white slavery). That's where YKINMK comes in: your kink isn't my kink, but that's okay.
Where you draw yours is, of course, up to you. (Though I'd love to hear where that is, and why.)
But intervening in that "abuse" is a different matter.
Intervening in a relationship between adults operating under informed consent constitutes real abuse, as one is depriving one or more other human beings of their option of choosing what their sexuality will be like, and what their romantic life will be like, and how to live their lives.
Even "regular" rape isn't that invasive. And usually not nearly as self-righteous.
(No offense intended, despite the bluntness. I respect your position, even though you have clearly stated you don't respect mine. I just don't understand why you subscribe to that position.)
_____________________________
"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
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