Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

BDSM, a step backwards?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> BDSM, a step backwards? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 9:42:56 AM   
Ryugen


Posts: 69
Status: offline 		Now, I realise this is only my second post on the site, but if I don't post somewhere I'll never get all my curiosity out. If you look at my join date, know that I've been lurking across the different forums here every day since I joined.

Anyway, as to the purpose of this post, I'd like to make it clear that I intend to start a debate here and that any negative flaming is most unwelcome. Constructive criticism on the other hand is very welcome (although I am more looking for a debate with thought out arguments). I confess that I am very keen on M/s relationships and that this post may seem against them, but I'm just letting you know my preference and opinion now to avoid any unnecissary flames (as if any were necissary in the first place).

So, to begin on the topic;
Is the BDSM lifestyle a step backwards in human development as a species? Is the most human of all traits the D/s setup, or is it something else? Is the most human of all traits the ability to justify anything to ourselves?

If the ideal human society is all equal then M/s and D/s relationships are against that. Slavery (and I know this is a matter of semantics) is something that has been outlawed and is far in our past. Is revisiting it merely going backwards? (please note that I said slavery and not enslavement, please note the differences between them).

You can toy with semantics as much as you want, but everyone should know that words have power, and with mere words, you can muster resources to build entire nations. Therefore the terms Master and slave do have effect on those using them and those hearing them. While some people judge those in the BDSM lifestyle merely by the semantics used and those using the lifestyle as an excuse to abuse others that get in the media, does that make BDSM humane?

Does the physical injury done to a submissive, no matter how small, constitute abuse even if it is consentual (please put a lot of thought into this question and not answer with a simple yes or no)? If the submissive is willing to undergo such things for whatever reason, is that enough justification for someone to inflict the injuries?

But most of all, if equality is the ideal setting of humanity, is the entirety of BDSM a step backwards in human development?

Thank you for reading, and I look forward to your responses. If you are outraged by this, feel free to express your outrage here, but please know that I am looking for an intellectual debate here more than anything else. As I stated near the beginning of the post, I am pro-BDSM (if there is such a term).


_____________________________

I live, and am learning.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 9:57:47 AM   
thetammyjo


Posts: 6322
Joined: 9/8/2005
Status: offline 		I think that DS is a natural part of how human beings can interact.

However what makes BDSM's DS quite different is that we are supposed to be consenting adults who discuss things and then make a conscious informed decision to engage in behaviors.

In my opinion that is quite different from other forms of dominance and submission which are based either on tradition and blind acceptance of it or force either in the forms of laws, physical violence or religious doctrine.

Therefore I'd argue that it is actually a sign of maturity when human beings can look at their behavior and themselves and then make the best possible choice without the need or desire to make others follow those same choices.

_____________________________

Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips & Chains,

TammyJo

Check out my website at http://www.thetammyjo.com Or www.tammyjoeckhart.com

And my LJ where I post fiction in progress if you "friend" me at http://thetammyjo.livejournal.com/

(in reply to Ryugen)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 9:58:02 AM   
TreasureKY


Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline 		I don't have time at the moment for a lengthy comment but wanted to suggest that you clarify your thoughts just a bit.  You'll find that some here do not equate M/s or D/s with BDSM... they are related but not interdependent.  An M/s or D/s relationship does not require any kind of sadomasochistic activity.

(in reply to Ryugen)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 10:06:46 AM   
KatyLied


Posts: 13029
Joined: 2/24/2005
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		~fr~
One of the things I like the most about the "lifestyle" is that it is a way for people to exercise the contradiction within.  I think it's wonderful that a person can express being tender, yet find enjoyment in hurting that special someone.  Or an independent, stong person can find release in submitting.  Or a masochist can meet a sadist and they can partake in mutual pain delivery.  Finding a way to express oneself is not a step backward.

quote:

I think that DS is a natural part of how human beings can interact.

Exactly.


_____________________________

“If you want to live a happy life, tie it to a goal, not to people or things.”
- Albert Einstein

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 10:07:34 AM   
adoracat


Posts: 1779
Joined: 2/16/2007
Status: offline 		i see BDSM as a step forward rather than a step back.  i am not being abused by Daddy, i am asking him (yes, literally, our dynamic requires me to ask for spankings, floggings, etc) to purposefully inflict pain on me.  he does or he doesnt as he chooses.

the word CONSENTUAL factors heavily into why i see it as a step forward.  we (generalization) arent just taking out our aggressions on another human being, we are consenting to be hurt but not harmed, we are inflicting pain and what can absolutely be considered torture on another human being who is willing if not eager to experience that sensation.

to me, its a step forward because both people can own their feelings (wishing to feel pain or inflict it) and arrange to experience those feelings in a controlled fashion.  i understand what you are saying about things seeming as abuse....but if i ask for a flogging because i need that endorphin rush to kill the emotional pain i'm having or to relieve the physical pain i have every waking moment is that abuse?  especially if Daddy watches carefully my reactions and knows when i'm at "OMG this is wonderful and i am getting relief, need to cum" and not into "you're harming me"?  and the added knowledge that i have been known to cut myself to get that relief....but DONT at the moment because i am under strict orders NOT to deliberately damage Daddy's property?

everyone has needs.  BDSM allows those people with slightly more unconventional needs to get them met.  "ideally"...we're all equal in the world, and everyone has equal rights and is treated equally....but if that's not what i want/need/long for/dream about then why pitch a bitch about me (or anyone else) seeking and finding the type of relationship that makes my soul sing with happiness and satisfaction?

and although i refer to my dominant as Daddy....we do have a M/s relationship.  i am his slave and remain so whether i am within hands' reach of him or whether we are at our separate homes. 

kitten, who has waxed the philisophical till its practically mirror-finished

(in reply to Ryugen)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 10:09:14 AM   
spanklette


Posts: 882
Joined: 2/22/2005
Status: offline 		First, don't be so afraid of the flames...they might even melt the icecream cone faster!
 
I think that in most cases, participation in BDSM is a step forward...it's my version of hedonism. If I were participating in sex in order to procreate, there are more efficient ways to go about it. BDSM speaks to my desire...not my needs, but my desires. When I am able to look past my needs because they are already fulfilled and concentrate on my desires...I consider that a monumental step forward.

_____________________________

~spanklette~

"The important thing is this: to be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become. " Charles du Bois

"Please don't shout, can't you see I'm not listening." Billie Myers

(in reply to Ryugen)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 10:26:17 AM   
DesFIP


Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline 		Prove first that the ideal human society is when everyone is equal.

Because we aren't. An eighty five year old isn't the equal physically of a 23 year old pro football player. An 18 year old high school drop out isn't equal in science knowledge to a Nobel Prize winner in biology.

If you say that the ideal human society is one wherein we are all free to become our most authentic selves, then no disagreement. But in that case who is to say that I am not most authentically myself when following him?

_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!


(in reply to spanklette)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 10:47:05 AM   
happypervert


Posts: 2203
Joined: 5/11/2004
From: Scranton, PA
Status: offline
quote:

Is the BDSM lifestyle a step backwards in human development as a species?


I doubt it is a step backwards -- things tend to evolve as a step forward. I think you've set your question up with the false premise by considering that this statement "if equality is the ideal setting of humanity" might be true.

But on a similar note I've been wondering if there might be some genetic component to kinkiness as some form of diversity in the species just in case environmental conditions changes so that it could be advantageous in some way, or perhaps is a leftover from prehistoric times when it was advantageous. But I'm not going to worry about it too much either way.


_____________________________

"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it if you live." . . . Mark Twain

(in reply to Ryugen)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 10:50:45 AM   
mistermaster111


Posts: 19
Joined: 4/11/2007
Status: offline 		Oppression in our history has hinged upon the insistence that a group of people were inferior based on characteristics over which they had no control, such as sex or race. The oppression that we practice in D/s is entirely centered on the individual. That is the difference. D/s has nothing to do with "a woman's place" and everything to do with the way that woman wants to live her life.

Acceptance of self leads to happiness, and I consider that a good thing.

(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 11:01:47 AM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ryugen

So, to begin on the topic;
Is the BDSM lifestyle a step backwards in human development as a species? Is the most human of all traits the D/s setup, or is it something else? Is the most human of all traits the ability to justify anything to ourselves?


I am of the belief that humans are still animals regardless of our sentience.  I do not see BDSM as a step back, but forward - always forward.  Is it human to justify it?  I don't justify it - I simply believe it.


quote:

If the ideal human society is all equal then M/s and D/s relationships are against that. Slavery (and I know this is a matter of semantics) is something that has been outlawed and is far in our past. Is revisiting it merely going backwards? (please note that I said slavery and not enslavement, please note the differences between them).


To me, ideal is equal without being equal in everything.  Ideal human society does not believe all is equal because there are too many belief structures within society to pin down that all human society believes in equality.  Revisiting it is not how I see it.  I see it as BDSM allowing people the chance to become an individual again.  Only once one can become an individual can one be free, regardless of society.(If that makes any sense).

quote:

You can toy with semantics as much as you want, but everyone should know that words have power, and with mere words, you can muster resources to build entire nations. Therefore the terms Master and slave do have effect on those using them and those hearing them. While some people judge those in the BDSM lifestyle merely by the semantics used and those using the lifestyle as an excuse to abuse others that get in the media, does that make BDSM humane?


Absolutely words have power.  But only when used in conjunction with other words.
BDSM humane?  Absolutely.  If you view that to be humane, one is allowed the freedom to be.

quote:

Does the physical injury done to a submissive, no matter how small, constitute abuse even if it is consentual (please put a lot of thought into this question and not answer with a simple yes or no)? If the submissive is willing to undergo such things for whatever reason, is that enough justification for someone to inflict the injuries?


Abuse? Yes!  Abusive? No.  Again, there need be no justification, not in our world.

quote:

But most of all, if equality is the ideal setting of humanity, is the entirety of BDSM a step backwards in human development?


You speak again of equality.  Define equality - if you can?  In our world, equality is equally unequal, and unequally equal.  100% /100%  responsibility for oneself, even in slavery.

quote:

Thank you for reading, and I look forward to your responses. If you are outraged by this, feel free to express your outrage here, but please know that I am looking for an intellectual debate here more than anything else. As I stated near the beginning of the post, I am pro-BDSM (if there is such a term).


You're welcome.  I hope I made sense!  I'm not outraged, for a firstish post - it kinda rocked....
 
the.dark.

_____________________________
RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to Ryugen)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 11:18:08 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

Is the BDSM lifestyle a step backwards in human development as a species?

Ryugen,
I would consider all aspects placed under the umbrella "BDSM Lifestyle" to be an advancement of human social development, or at least a positive step in the evolution of acceptable philosophical mores. I would place the homosexual, and polygamy lifestyles in the same category.
 
Remember, every current "socially acceptable" and "socially unacceptable" behavior or display is religiously based.  Due to the origination culture of most of the exploration, call it conquest and exploitation if you will, "western" religion and culture set the standard for determining was is and isn't "accepted". Regardless of their accomplishments or advancements the societies stumbled upon by these explorers were considered "savages". Some just because their woman didn't cover their breasts in public. Check out some of the threads concerning public behavior and that same label is still assigned.
 
People are deluded in modern society believing that religion has no impact on what is currently acceptable. Outside Islam, there isn't any drive to set up a religious based oligarchy; yet every day we are subject to the same prejudice of the native people who encountered the European explorers. If you are outside social 'norms' you are a savage and treated as one.
 
The roles and expectations assigned to gender have changed but the social engineers only reassigned the rules and didn't eliminate them. It is impossible to relate to first hand; however from a man's perspective, woman have suffered and loss more from the process than they've gained. "Conservatism" and "Liberalism" are modern day religions. "Sinning" against either results in condemnation. Pointing out the hypocrisy of either dooms you to being labeled a heretic. They have and are trying to enforce their "Commandants" for genders. Men now growing up shouldn't be given the opportunity to play with toys resembling guns. Young girls should be given a doll to play with only if its and action figure or comes with a office, car and credit credit card.  Cartoon characters such as the 'Teletubbies' must be gender neutral and Mr. Rodgers replaced a uniformed Captain Kangaroo as the ideal male role model.
 
If the goal was to raise gender neutral children these attempts are lost on me. They appear to instead try and socially engineer a more submissive man and a more dominant woman. Were gender neutrally a goal more fundamental action would be taken. Exposing a female nipple would have no more consequence than a male nipple. Public bathrooms would, as in any household, be gender neutral. Instead the engineer's actions seem to address only those characteristics and traits which occur naturally with the majority of gendar regardless of which is subject to manipulation. It is a case where to address the exceptions rules are enforced on the majority. Providing equal opportunity is a mask most of these efforts hide behind. But most of the opportunity is in reality taken away. The opportunity to play 'army' now comes with a stigma. The opportunity to put 'mother/housewife' as a career path leads to counseling.
 
The rule now says that a woman can, and should, have a career. Woman should take a dominant or at least equal position in a household. However, there is an inherent problem that has yet to be overcome. Only a woman can give birth. Who knows, someday cloning may change even that physiologically based gender prejudice.
 
Until then there is BDSM and the other lifestyle choices. They take gender out of the equation. Being born a man doesn't come with the requirement of dominance any more than a female is born submissive. Sexual preference is also not assigned to gender at birth; neither is the desire to mate for life. These "lifestyles" are the vanguard for advanced and evolving social mores independent of "religious" philosophy. These are liberating lifestyles. A person has the opportunity to be "free" as a "slave" in the lifestyle to express and live as they identify themselves.
 
As long winded as that diatribe was, it provides some of the rational that supports my personal belief that BDSM or any lifestyle choice is liberating.
 
I view any opportunity to be liberated and free to be yourself as a step forward.

(in reply to Ryugen)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 11:22:06 AM   
petitespot


Posts: 288
Joined: 7/3/2006
From: Surfside Beach, SC
Status: offline 		To be able to recognize, admit to and search out that which satisfies you sexually and emotionally is not a step backwards.  Seems like it's more of a leap forward for me.

(in reply to Ryugen)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 11:23:25 AM   
Jeffff


Posts: 12600
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline 		I don't consider it a step back wards , forward or to the side. It is not evolution, it is human behavior.It didn;t start with De Sade and it won't end with us.

Jeff

(in reply to Ryugen)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 11:31:46 AM   
Ryugen


Posts: 69
Status: offline 		Thanks to all for the responces. I know this post relies on an assumption that the ideal human society is equal. That was on purpose and I know everyone has their own views on it. Part of my lack of definition about what I ment in the use of the words; "equal" and "equality" was for you to interpret it in your own way. Apologies if that confused anyone.
 
I'm very much enjoying this conversation and these trains of thought, so I'll give to you another few questions;
If, by someone submitting themselves entirely, establishing themselves as a slave to their master, and by definition, becoming property of their master, does that mean they are no longer equal to a human in a vanilla relationship? By not equal, in this instance, I mean less than. Equivalent to their masters pet dog, for instance, except an incredibly well trained pet dog.
 
To those who said that discovering oneself is more important than equality, or that that was the ideal human pursuit (or anyone who's interested in responding); Do you consider that (your opinion about the idea human pursuit) a selfish opinion, keeping in mind that you can only really help others if you help yourself first?
 
I'm afriad I do not find any justification in inflicting injuries on anyone else, even if both parties consent. If pain is what pleases you and gives you release, or whatever positive things it does for you, I do not think that is healthy for your mind or body (or perhaps even soul, if you believe in that). However, I hope we can agree to disagree on that one. Then you may ask what punishments I would visit upon a slave of mine, I would say; sexual teasing. I admit, I do gain pleasure from turning someone on and seeing them squirm as I stop just before they orgasm. Although, I have learned that foreplay makes the main event a lot more satisfying for all parties involved.
 
Also, I have noticed there is no clear cut definition of BDSM for the people of this forum, however this specific forum is called "General BDSM Discussion". I would have to say, for me, the term "BDSM" is not all the acronyms it encompasses. Not necissarily I should say, although it can be. On these boards I have been given the idea that the term "BDSM" and anything to do with the acronyms it encompasses and is consentual. Although it appears many people disagree as to whether an M/s relationship that is consentual falls under the banner of BDSM. For me, I would say it does.
 
I look forward to responces to the first post by those who haven't yet, and the responces to this second post. I greatly enjoy the semantic play going on in these forums and observing the minds at work here. This community houses a lot of intelligent people.

_____________________________

I live, and am learning.

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 11:40:09 AM   
FRSguy


Posts: 653
Joined: 9/4/2007
Status: offline 		“Is the BDSM lifestyle a step backwards in human development as a species?”

I think it’s dependent on the individual dynamics of the relationship.  In some cases yes but in most No it’s a step forward.

Although as people we have evolved beyond the limits of other animals we are still linked to the same behaviors that are exhibited by other mammals. Many of the other mammals exhibit most of our social behaviors and the further we move away from those behaviors the more they seem to spill out in unacceptable ways. I believe that although the Woman’s suffrage movement has brought woman to be equals it does little to reinforce primal necessities and blur’s ones sense of what role for the male to play in our society and creates an insecurity that in turn threatens any relationship because of imaginary threats that exist on both sides of a relationship.
In the dynamic between my wife and I… I in no way feel that she is less than myself. She is a strong career woman respected in her field and makes only slightly less money than myself.  If we were to get a divorce life would be tough for the both of us but the two of us would carry on fine so to speak. She does not need me in any way.  The dynamic that exists between us works because our home life is structured in some respects the same way our careers are structured.  It is a household and we both have roles to perform within that household which involved me being the boss and protector of my family and its holding.  This is not to say that she is less than me in any way … her role is different from mine but in no way is it less important. I have what might be considered a very stressful career and so does she however I do not suffer the way my coworkers do and I don’t have the medical problems they do or the family problems they do.  I am a kept and satisfied man and she is a kept and satisfied woman and there is no confusion over what it is that we do to achieve this.  My beast as well as hers is stroked in very purposeful way in a timing we choose it does not spill all over when a stressful situation hits. The thought that I “own” her or am her “Master” is an outright lie.  She is not my slave because she can open the door and walk at any time of her choosing. The dynamic exists as an outright lie to create a false sense of security.  If you look at the recent studies on happiness you will find that most couples that have this “bliss” also have this false sense of security. The danger however is if you actually believe you are in control of anything.
I of course do not believe that the dynamic we have is the one way or the way it is suppose to be, everyone divvies up the roles within there house differently but I think there is something to be said for having a defined roll within a group no matter what that roll may be.

“Is the most human of all traits the D/s setup, or is it something else? Is the most human of all traits the ability to justify anything to ourselves?”

In part I think sort of. Our ability to justify lends a big hand in our ability to adapt… it’s a necessary evil.

“If the ideal human society is all equal then M/s and D/s relationships are against that. Slavery (and I know this is a matter of semantics) is something that has been outlawed and is far in our past. Is revisiting it merely going backwards? (please note that I said slavery and not enslavement, please note the differences between them).”  I think of it as a relationship dynamic not as a true social dynamic.  People have rights and can exercise them at any time but choose not to because the way they are being treated is the way they want to be treated. Anything else and they walk so its not real.

“You can toy with semantics as much as you want, but everyone should know that words have power, and with mere words, you can muster resources to build entire nations. Therefore the terms Master and slave do have effect on those using them and those hearing them. While some people judge those in the BDSM lifestyle merely by the semantics used and those using the lifestyle as an excuse to abuse others that get in the media, does that make BDSM humane?”  I think you are correct as far as how different people view things. At face value it would be. However remember we are talking about who has authority. Control really does not exist. Is it a bad thing to choose a domestic leader… beyond that what it is that people do sexually is just all fun for the most part… not really an element of the dynamic however it may prove or reinforce the dynamic and false sense of security within the relationship. The people you see in the news most often have gone off the deep end and is not really what the majority of us would be into or approve of.

“Does the physical injury done to a submissive, no matter how small, constitute abuse even if it is consentual (please put a lot of thought into this question and not answer with a simple yes or no)? If the submissive is willing to undergo such things for whatever reason, is that enough justification for someone to inflict the injuries?”

I think this is a very complicated question.  I feel that abuse is abuse even if it is consensual abuse.  Some subs have very unrealistic fantasies that think they want to go ahead and try.  At some point you have to say that a persons wishes and thought are unrealistic and insane so you cant just do a blind thing and say “Because she told me to do it” Someone at some point has to know the limit and its open to interpretation where that limit lies. Because of that its better to say that yes its abusive even if the person says do it to me because if you end up in front of someone else questioning it … they are going to draw the line in some other place.
In that respect I think that although it is consensual all subs need to retain the right of basically calling the cops if they have to and we as Doms if we are doing things right should have no problem holding accountability for what it is that we do.  You may be able to say that you didn’t assault someone but if you break an arm you fucked up big time so to speak.  Ignorance is not an excuse and saying that she told me to do it is not only undomly but taking a total opposite stance of what we build our lives around.  Remember that above all else is the safety and security of those under our charge as we have pledged ourselves to that and the only way a sub can truly be a sub to a dom is if the sub feels safe and taken care of and feels totally secure in that manor.  You have to be willing to die for what you believe in and in this case the thing you believe in is your sub and if that wavers deep down inside you have to fake it until you get squared away. As a Dom, nothing is really about how I feel even though everything has the outward appearance of it.

(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 11:49:55 AM   
Tigrita


Posts: 484
Joined: 8/16/2007
From: California
Status: offline 		Note:   Haven't read other replies, wanted to go on my own gut before my opinion was influenced by other comments.  May reply again after I read other people's points.

I think this is a very valid question.  Personally, I enjoy BDSM because it brings out and indulges primal instincts that are very satisfying to me in a private, personal context.  I've never really thought about it in broader social terms. 

BDSM does have a lot of inherent contradictions in my perception when  I think about it.  I think of the BDSM community as a minority, and yet I see aspects of D/s in pretty much every relationship I encounter whether personal, or professional, or civil.   I enjoy the taboo aspect of the activities and the power exchange dynamic, yet I also wish the world was more accepting of more open and complex sexuality and alternative lifestyles.  So, what is the perfect world?  How would it really come to fruition for all who remotely desired it to be able to be out and proud.  Would it be a shift in how society functions?  Would it be a positive one, or like the OP proposes, possibly a negative one?  What would the consequences be?  What would it be like in a world where you could say to anyone, 'Hello, I'm _____ , and this is my slave ______" and they would understand and respect what that means (as much as any of us can understand what that means without debating the definition of slavery).

Just one example, would we be comfortable with a collared president?  This is the most extreem example, but we'd have to take into account that their decisions and personal powers would be subject to those of another.  So we'd basically have to elect their dominant too.  So, can a collared submissive be elected in their own right to lead a country, and if not, is that discrimination?  Many submissives have positions of leadership in their lives, is it fair to the people they lead to not realize that their decisions are subject to another's?

To answer the OP briefly with my gut reaction since I only have a few minutes before an appointment, I don't think BDSM is a step backward in terms of personal relationships and personal expression.  BDSM is not a civic structure, and thus I don't think it can represent a backwards step for society.  I do think that a lot of things about how society functions would have to shift in order to fully embrace BDSM at the personal level as a socially validated lifestyle choice.  I have to go now, but I will write more later this afternoon.

I hope I didn't take this in too different of a direction and hijack.


_____________________________

~ Tigrita

There is no right path, only the path you take.

Success is making life happen, versus just letting life happen to you.

"Many of the things I enjoy, I enjoy because I don't enjoy them." - Charlotte

(in reply to Ryugen)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 11:50:20 AM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ryugen

I'm very much enjoying this conversation and these trains of thought, so I'll give to you another few questions;
If, by someone submitting themselves entirely, establishing themselves as a slave to their master, and by definition, becoming property of their master, does that mean they are no longer equal to a human in a vanilla relationship? By not equal, in this instance, I mean less than. Equivalent to their masters pet dog, for instance, except an incredibly well trained pet dog.


Pfft... semantics... Actually, I know people who treat their dog better than other humans and hold said pet in higher respect.  I think it really does come down to what or how someone defines equal.  For example, that dog could probably sniff out it's masters sock quicker and better than the master could should it be trained to do so.  Does that make the dog more powerful than the master and therefore the master less equal?  Or does it just mean that the relationship they have is equal, but their inequality within that relationship makes them equal?
 
quote:

To those who said that discovering oneself is more important than equality, or that that was the ideal human pursuit (or anyone who's interested in responding); Do you consider that (your opinion about the idea human pursuit) a selfish opinion, keeping in mind that you can only really help others if you help yourself first?
 
 
I don't believe that equality is less important than self discovery.  I believe that self discovery equals equality.  And I also believe you cannot help people.  People help themselves.  100% self responsibility.

quote:

I'm afriad I do not find any justification in inflicting injuries on anyone else, even if both parties consent. If pain is what pleases you and gives you release, or whatever positive things it does for you, I do not think that is healthy for your mind or body (or perhaps even soul, if you believe in that). However, I hope we can agree to disagree on that one. Then you may ask what punishments I would visit upon a slave of mine, I would say; sexual teasing. I admit, I do gain pleasure from turning someone on and seeing them squirm as I stop just before they orgasm. Although, I have learned that foreplay makes the main event a lot more satisfying for all parties involved.


It could be argued that you are inflicting mental abuse.  Is mental abuse a better form of abuse than physical?

quote:

Also, I have noticed there is no clear cut definition of BDSM for the people of this forum, however this specific forum is called "General BDSM Discussion". I would have to say, for me, the term "BDSM" is not all the acronyms it encompasses. Not necissarily I should say, although it can be. On these boards I have been given the idea that the term "BDSM" and anything to do with the acronyms it encompasses and is consentual. Although it appears many people disagree as to whether an M/s relationship that is consentual falls under the banner of BDSM. For me, I would say it does.


I stick with what BDSM means for me - regardless of others.  I don't encompass consensuality.  I believe that this word is used to justify BDSM activities.  I am of the belief that there is no such thing as a consensual activity or relationship.  I don't have a need to justify to anyone so - ergo - consensuality is in itself oxymoronic.
BDSM is the four things it is an acronym for - no more or less.

the.dark.

< Message edited by Darcyandthedark -- 12/13/2007 11:53:15 AM >

_____________________________
RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to Ryugen)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 12:02:27 PM   
Ryugen


Posts: 69
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark
quote:

I'm afriad I do not find any justification in inflicting injuries on anyone else, even if both parties consent. If pain is what pleases you and gives you release, or whatever positive things it does for you, I do not think that is healthy for your mind or body (or perhaps even soul, if you believe in that). However, I hope we can agree to disagree on that one. Then you may ask what punishments I would visit upon a slave of mine, I would say; sexual teasing. I admit, I do gain pleasure from turning someone on and seeing them squirm as I stop just before they orgasm. Although, I have learned that foreplay makes the main event a lot more satisfying for all parties involved.


It could be argued that you are inflicting mental abuse.  Is mental abuse a better form of abuse than physical?

the.dark.

 
I had not considered that. Hmm, very good point. I like the other questions you posed in your post, thank you very much for responding. I think, in the end, Anything inflicted on another person can be defined as influence. Admittedly, if you look at anything inflicted on another person that has any negative effects in the opinion of the person who the influence is inflicted on, it could be considered as abuse. Although I'd have to say my personal definition of abuse is an influence inflicted on another person that is against their human rights. Admittedly, I have not defined what I think are basic human rights, and have chosen to do so because I think I could not encompass my entire opinion in mere words.
 
I would choose sexual teasing over inflicting injuries perhaps because it is less evident except in behaviour undertaken by the person who it is inflicted on (i.e. the slave). Perhaps also because it is not damaging in any way that I can see. Admittedly, I might be ignorant of something in which case it would lead to damage I was unaware of, but must confess that I see nothing wrong with what I do in this respect. I admit that I could be wrong, and that I have not outlined all my actions and that every situation is different and therefore must be treated as such.
 
Thank you all for your responces, once again I feel that I must add that I am enjoying this debate immensely and am delighting in reading every responce, short and long.

_____________________________

I live, and am learning.

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 1:45:04 PM   
BondageSlaveMN


Posts: 80
Joined: 12/11/2007
Status: offline 		You will see that I have just recently joined this site and that this is actually my first post, but this is the kind of academic discourse that I most enjoy in life. The questions you ask are of a moral nature more than anything. In short, no one will have the correct answer to your inquiry since there is no model of moarlity that can account for every situation. That said, I will make it known that I believe in a very radical model of individualized morality. That is that morality depends on each person's personal beliefs and the only way to be immoral is to purposely and willingly corrupt one's own belief structures so as to make something that was previously immoral into something that is moral. For example, a person who believes that is is wrong to steal changes their beliefs for the sole purpose of making it ok to steal. In this radical view of morality, the term morality carries very few consequences because it allows psychopaths the luxury of claiming their wrong doings to be willfull and right because they are consistent with their beliefs.

From this perspective, D/s relationships and inflicting pain on a willing submissive is no less moral than building a house for a poor family to live in. Again, ideals are relativistic and are in no shape or form absolute. Ideals for one person will be different than ideals for another and neither person's ideals can be considered "greater" than those of the other. Every action can be justified in some fashion, except for a person who commits an act that they know to be wrong and has no rational justification for perpetrating. Again, in this case the person has willingly and intentionally subverted their own belief system and is immoral in their actions.

From this extreme relativistic viewpoint, it boils down to "if it's not your business, it's not your's to cast judgement upon."

It is really more important and interesting to anaylze the question from a standpoint of acceptability. Is it acceptable within the current context to perpetrate an action? Head hunting is an acceptable method of showing a coming of rights in parts of the world to this day. Head hunting, of course, is not acceptable in my home city, Minneapolis, MN. As such, it was be unacceptable for me to walk next door, lob off my neighbor's head and display it on my mantle. So then the question you must ask yourself is this: "Is it acceptable for a dom to subject his slave to pain if the sub is willing to receive it?" From this perspective, we see that it is in fact acceptable. You will not go to jail for inflicting pain onto your sub should the sub truely welcome it (at least not in my locale). This may not be the case in other areas of America where popular view differs.

To address the initial question of whether or not BDSM represents a step backwards, I must put forth a somewhat abstract argument. What is the ultimate purpose of humanity? What is the ultimate purpose of the social constructs of "civilization?" The ultimate purpose of humanity, on a biological level, is to reproduce and ensure the greatest success of human kind as a species. In an honest assessment, we are not doing terribly well in this department. Bacteria have outdone us many times over and we have completely undermined natural selection in terms of Darwinian theory (whether you believe in evolution or not, it is an irrefutable fact that natural selection operates in wild populaces). Civilization's ultimate goal is to build a society in which all persons are happy. Note that I did not say free, I said happy. For some persons, being owned and subjected to physical pain is gratifying and does in fact make them happy. So long as this D/s coupled dynamic does not infringe upon the happiness of other members of society, it cannot be unacceptable or unethical even when operating under a different model of morality than the one I outlined above (go ahead and bring up Hume or Aristotle or Mill and I will point out how my statement is supported by their models as well).

We can argue the semantics of the abuse topic all day long. For my purposes, I will use the first definition as given by Dictionary.com:
to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.

This definition seems fairly consistent with other dictionary sources.

From this standpoint, inflicting physical pain or injury upon a willing recipient is not even considered abuse since it is not improper use of the subject. The subject intends and as a result is intended for the receipt of the action.

Lastly, from a sociological viewpoint, is BDSM a step backward? Sociologically, we care if we are making progress as a society. A better question is to ask: does BDSM impede social progress? The answer to this question could be easily debated, but I would hedge my bets that volutnary servitutde does not in fact impede the progress of society as a whole. One could argue that resources would be better served another way and as a result greater social progress would be accomplished and they would in fact be correct. Society and humanity can ALWAYS be made more efficient, but we are not machines. We are imperfect beings operating in an imperfect social construct in an imperfect world. To expect absolute efficiency is unreasonable.

So, to wrap things up. I feel and have argued that BDSM can neither be seen as a good nor a bad thing in terms of a greater social context. I, of course, am operating under my own social context. If I lived in a different place with different rules I might believe differently.

(in reply to Ryugen)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: BDSM, a step backwards? - 12/13/2007 1:56:31 PM   
BondageSlaveMN


Posts: 80
Joined: 12/11/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ryugen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark
quote:

I'm afriad I do not find any justification in inflicting injuries on anyone else, even if both parties consent. If pain is what pleases you and gives you release, or whatever positive things it does for you, I do not think that is healthy for your mind or body (or perhaps even soul, if you believe in that). However, I hope we can agree to disagree on that one. Then you may ask what punishments I would visit upon a slave of mine, I would say; sexual teasing. I admit, I do gain pleasure from turning someone on and seeing them squirm as I stop just before they orgasm. Although, I have learned that foreplay makes the main event a lot more satisfying for all parties involved.


It could be argued that you are inflicting mental abuse.  Is mental abuse a better form of abuse than physical?

the.dark.

 
I had not considered that. Hmm, very good point. I like the other questions you posed in your post, thank you very much for responding. I think, in the end, Anything inflicted on another person can be defined as influence. Admittedly, if you look at anything inflicted on another person that has any negative effects in the opinion of the person who the influence is inflicted on, it could be considered as abuse. Although I'd have to say my personal definition of abuse is an influence inflicted on another person that is against their human rights. Admittedly, I have not defined what I think are basic human rights, and have chosen to do so because I think I could not encompass my entire opinion in mere words.
 
I would choose sexual teasing over inflicting injuries perhaps because it is less evident except in behaviour undertaken by the person who it is inflicted on (i.e. the slave). Perhaps also because it is not damaging in any way that I can see. Admittedly, I might be ignorant of something in which case it would lead to damage I was unaware of, but must confess that I see nothing wrong with what I do in this respect. I admit that I could be wrong, and that I have not outlined all my actions and that every situation is different and therefore must be treated as such.
 
Thank you all for your responces, once again I feel that I must add that I am enjoying this debate immensely and am delighting in reading every responce, short and long.


I find it interesting that you make a distinction between teasing versus pain. I brings up an interesting thought in my mind. You portray pain as a bad thing but teasing as less bad. I wonder what makes one worse than the other.

Personally, I find a certain combination of magnitude of pain and kind of pain to be highly gratifying. For example, paddle me and I will do anything you want for a minute more, but pull a knife on me and you better hope you have quicker reflexes than I do because I intend to take the knife from you and get the heck out of dodge. Teasing, to me, is similar. Tease me for a while and I will adore you, but at some point the frustration becomes too great and it is no longer enjoyable.

I feel that an healthy D/s relationship involves a sub who knows themself and a dom who knows what their sub likes. Perhaps a sub does not like to paddled, but the positive association with the knowledge of being unable to stop their dom and the loss of control far outweigh the disdane of the paddling. In this situation, the sub still leaves the scene for the better despite the fact that something was done to them that they were not particularly fond of.

For example, I do not particularly like CBT, but if I have done something wrong and my Master punishes me with CBT I feel comfortable and reassured in knowing that I have received the punishment I deserved. In the end, I have come out ahead and I have grown. In other words, I have progressed. Is this not good for society. Perhaps I do a better job at work because my dom has instill a better work ethic in me.

(in reply to Ryugen)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> BDSM, a step backwards? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094