RE: BDSM, a step backwards?

RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (Full Version)

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

Message

thetammyjo -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/13/2007 2:12:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: Ryugen 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? I would say, as someone who survived both growing up and who has known many others, that the physical stuff is easy to deal with and move through but the emotional and mental stuff can last forever, always somewhere in the background for you to be aware of even if it is on the level of "That's not controlling me any more."

Rover -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/13/2007 5:48:34 PM)
I don't personally view power exchange relationships as either a step backward, or forward. They are merely testimony to the variety of relationship dynamics that appeal to, and work for, the human race. John

Noah -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/13/2007 5:59:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ryugen So, to begin on the topic; Is the BDSM lifestyle a step backwards in human development as a species? If you're speaking in evolutionary terms and BDSM is maladaptive then the BDSMers will inevitably--yes, inevitably--wane as a group. If your question encompasses notions like Spiritual Development then you would do well to put your question more clearly. For instance, does it address the individual, the group, or the species? quote: Is the most human of all traits the D/s setup, or is it something else? I have no idea what the above means. quote: Is the most human of all traits the ability to justify anything to ourselves? Whatever these questions mean, what depends on them? How much more important is the most human of all traits than the secomd most human of all traits? A lot? None at all? What are you trying to get at? quote: If the ideal human society is all equal then M/s and D/s relationships are against that. Poppycock. Even before acknowledging the debatability of the claim that "equal" equals "ideal". If equality is the ideal, don't the kinky people have an equal claim to personal fulfillment as against non-kinky people? If BDSMers are not allowed (by the ideal) to express themeselves while vanillas are, where has the equality gone? Hasn't your "ideal" generated a gross inequality, negating its own value? quote: 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). We can't note the difference you refer to until you share it with us. I don't know what thes words mean to you. 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. You can live a long and very BDSM-y life without ever thinking or uttering the word master or the word slave. quote: 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? That was a sadistic pile of clauses masquerading as an interrogative sentence. Anyway it made my head hurt (non-consensually) What are you talking about? 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)? Dominance and submission do not presuppose sadomasochism, even though they are often both present and even intertwined in a relationship. You haven't defined injury. Does the barber injure me when he cuts off part of my body? Do I injure myself with the permanent disfigurement of trimming my fingernails? Is the ear-piercer at the mall a paid abuser? If not, then why is the Sadist who makes the same sort of hole here or there? The personal trainer who says "Go for the burn" is saying "injure yourself in millions of minute ways so as to improve your health (or assuage your vanity) Is she an abuser too? Or is it okay to injure someone's hair, or nails, or skin, or muscles, etc, for the sake of self-improvement? Do you feel qualified to stand in judgement of what counts as self-improvement for all people in all times and places? Even for your neighbors and friends today? For my partners and I right now? A spirited game of basketball, football, or even tennis will almost necessarily result in some degree of injury (if only on the cellular level, as with working out). Are these and other similar sports immoral? That which can quite intelligibly be called "injury" is often a means of growth, or pleasure. So what, in the end, do you want to reserve the bad sense of the word "injury" to apply to? If I seek fulfillment in a BDSM relationship and you thwart me with your philosophy, who is doing injury to whom? quote: If the submissive is willing to undergo such things for whatever reason, is that enough justification for someone to inflict the injuries? Or to put it another way: why wouldn't it be? quote: But most of all, if equality is the ideal setting of humanity, is the entirety of BDSM a step backwards in human development? Define in depth the sense of the word "equality" that you intend, and the notion of human development you are thinking of. Then we can talk.

WickedPrince -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/13/2007 7:07:38 PM)
Noah, well said. I agree with most of your statements. Your comparison of kinky/S*M play with sports is a point I have made elsewhere myself. I would like to add these thoughts: If I do something that gives me emotional and/or physical pleasure and does me no long-term harm, is it bad for me? If the activity doesn't cause any sort of disruption in my ability to deal with my life otherwise any problems, can it be considered harm? If it does, who gets to decide that fact? IF we are indeed the free-est nation on the planet as we like to claim, then why should anyone other then ME decide what harms me as long as it doesn't disrupt my ability to be a productive member of society otherwise? We like to think of the U.S. as the "Bastion of FREEDOM" yet over most of the world we are considered the most sexually repressed nation on the planet. Isn't that the height of IRONY? How in the world would you defend our freedom by trying to place MORE restrictions on what two consenting adults can do in the company of other consenting adults or the safety of their own home? The dance of Dominance and Submission is something we do every single day that we leave our beds and step outside the safety of our homes. We submit to the laws of the city, state, and nation we live in almost every waking moment. You can't drive your car without obeying the laws of your local driving restrictions, such as obeying speed limits, driving on the proper side of the road, etc. We submit to our bosses at work in order to do our jobs and collect our pay. We dominate our children with rules about curfews, bedtimes, and other things they are allowed or not allowed to do. We dance the line with our spouses, taking control in some situations, and giving control in others (at least in the theory of "healthy relationships"). So when does it become wrong to expect obedience or give it? To dominate another or submit to them? And if we can't provide punishement to those who have agreed to give us obedience when they don't obey, isn't that the same as if our government passed laws without giving us punishments for not following them? If I'm involved in a "normal relationship" with a romantic partner and I tell her that I don't want her to have sex with anyone else, and she does, and I punish her by leaving; how is this differant from punishing a submissive who has accepted my dominance and agreed to obey my rules or accept the consequences? Would you suggest that the fact that my partner is abusing me through her "sleeping around" isn't something I have a right to punish by leaving? Or should I have no choice myself but to accept this abuse in order to avoid punishing her? Trying to quantify some situations as abuse simply because they have a BDSM aspect is a slippery slope that I wouldn't go anywhere near.

bipolarber -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/13/2007 7:11:52 PM)
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're making the assumption that consentual erotic slavery is somehow the same thing as literal, historical slavery. Sorry, but no slaves in the history of mankind have ever been able to say "safeword" and go down to Starbucks for a coffee and a cool down when things get too intense. We're all quite aware that our M/s and D/s realtionships have no legal standing. All slaves are free to walk out the door at any time, and no professional "slave hunters" will track them down and drag them back to someone who's abusive. The social system does not support the "slavery." (Luckily, it also doesn't interfere with how people conduct their sex lives, relationships, or marriages... yet.) 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? Others can and will judge others, no matter what their life choices are. I choose to submit to a strong and powerful erotic "other." It makes me happy, makes them happy, and no one gets damaged. "Humane?" I'm not sure of your meaning. If, as I think you do, that perhaps BDSM is somehow more ethical, I think it can be. But then, any relationship based on comunication, the well being of your partner, and their continued consent (and perhaps enthusiasim!) is a good thing. I could care less what the uninformed think. 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 was just watching a TV news show earlier... they were replaying the video of some skateboarder who came off a half pipe, and fell 4 stories to the bottom of the ramp. (It's been a few months of recovery, but he seems to be fine.) Can you tell me the sense behind that? Or Football? Or mountain climbing? Is it abuse to allow people to box, until they have long term brain damage? (None of these activities bring the participants closer together emotionally, or even lead to an orgasm!) Everything contains an element of risk. Even dull boring vanilla sex. I'll take the "extreme sports" version of sex, thanks. But most of all, if equality is the ideal setting of humanity, is the entirety of BDSM a step backwards in human development? Equality? No. Although we beleive that "all men are created equal" that doesn't mean things stay that way. Legally, yes, everyone should be given the opportunity to rise to the highest level of their own gifts. However, I know there are plenty of people out there who are smarter than me, better looking, and maybe there are even a few who are better in bed. (Remains to be seen, but I admit the possibility.) No, the IDEAL human setting is one of freedom, not equality. Freedom to explore your limits, your desires, and perhaps even push yourself farther than you ever thought you could. Sexual freedom is primary to the "pursuit of happiness" you often hear about. This means that you, and I, and everyone else has the freedom to "get off" in whatever way we see fit, so long at that does not hurt anyone else's freedom to do the same, or cause them non-consentual harm. No one is trying to bring legalized slavery back. (Not even the Goreans) No one wants it. With few exceptions, most people involved with BDSM are doing so voluntarily. If you've hung out with kinky folk at munches, play parties and at major leather events, you would know that they are some of the most balanced, happy and friendly people you can find. Maybe that's because they know of the inate power imbalance in human relationships, and have found a way to deal with it in a safe, erotisized manner. As one author I know once stated it, "Most human beings know they have these desires, like a fire inside their heads. BDSM folk are the ones who've built fireplaces for it. They keep it contained, put it to use, and make sure it doesn't get out of control." Hardly a "step backward," I'd say.

simplyserves -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/13/2007 7:48:32 PM)
D/s explores how two people, who are seemingly opposite, can find a balance and compliment each other. A square peg for it's opposite, the square hole. I'll go into the fallacy of the idea of "backwards" the way your using it later, but even excepting your terminology it seems to me that D/s acknowledges a reality, it doesn't create it. Your question seems to imply that the BDSM lifestyle is a step backward because it compels people to behave in a way that might be regressive. In fact many people are dominant or submissive regardless of the lifestyle and all it provides is an outlet and structure that doesn't result in grid lock by clearly defining roles. It's a social tool, a shared set of terms and ideas. The idea that it is a step backwards hardly seems to have merit. quote: ORIGINAL: Ryugen Is the BDSM lifestyle a step backwards in human development as a species? No, the question has no foundation. What constitutes a step backward should be relatable to or the converse of what would be a step forward . The idea of human progress in a biological sense is largely a myth. Ancient humans where as developed as modern humans biologically. Even if this wasn't true, we have not and can not take steps forward or backward. Evolution isn't a linear process. Much of it is lateral and much of it is circumstantial. Giving it a direction or a sense of forward vs. backward is a false assumption. quote: ORIGINAL: Ryugen If the ideal human society is all equal then M/s and D/s relationships are against that. There is no such thing as equality. Advantages or disadvantages a person may have are not meaningful in the larger scope. They're completely dependent on circumstances of environment, culture and other shifting realities. What's an advantage today may have been a disadvantage yesterday or 1000 years ago. Be that as it may, there is no equality. Some one will always have the advantage even if it's just timing. I don't see how something that is impossible can be an ideal. An ideal maybe improbable, but it is always possible. The closet thing to equal and much more sensible is the idea that the ideal human society is tolerant or fair minded. Tolerance is born from diversity, and D/s is, if anything, diverse and celebratory of that diversity. In fact, at it's root, D/s is an exploration of how to seeming opposites can find a balance. If there can be a value of progress imposed on a culture this would certainly qualify. quote: ORIGINAL: Ryugen Does the physical injury done to a submissive, no matter how small, constitute abuse even if it is consentual Abuse isn't a quantifiable idea. It's entirely relative. Nothing inherently constitutes abuse. If you asked this in more applicable way, can it be abuse, then the answer is obviously that it might be to some people. A more definitive answer isn't possible with out ignoring the subjective nature of what abuse is or isn't.

RedMagic1 -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/13/2007 9:55:51 PM)
There is a big difference between causing pain and causing damage. Human relationships based on mutual respect, trust and love where each seeks to build the other is a tremendous evolutionary advance. Arranged marriages ain't even a thing of the past in many parts of the world. How this love is expressed -- whether people whack each other with a flogger or hand each other posies and puddytats -- or do both [;)] -- has nothing to do with evolutionary advancement. Spanking and birching go back thousands of years, as does giving the object of your affection pretty flowers. Where you are going is more important than how you are getting there.

BondageSlaveMN -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/13/2007 10:24:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: simplyserves quote: ORIGINAL: Ryugen Is the BDSM lifestyle a step backwards in human development as a species? No, the question has no foundation. What constitutes a step backward should be relatable to or the converse of what would be a step forward . The idea of human progress in a biological sense is largely a myth. Ancient humans where as developed as modern humans biologically. Even if this wasn't true, we have not and can not take steps forward or backward. Evolution isn't a linear process. Much of it is lateral and much of it is circumstantial. Giving it a direction or a sense of forward vs. backward is a false assumption. Hmmmmm. Are you positing that no evolution has occured between present day Homo sapiens and say Homo erectus? I beg to differ for if no evolution occured we would be identical as a species to our ancestors. The fact is that we are not. We have evolved large brains and vastly smaller/less effective muscles comparatively. Our two species represent differences in purpose. Homo erectus was concerned with bashing in the skull of it's prey whereas present day humans are more concerned with social and intellectual persuits. Clearly there is a biological difference. quote: ORIGINAL: simplyserves quote: ORIGINAL: Ryugen If the ideal human society is all equal then M/s and D/s relationships are against that. There is no such thing as equality. Advantages or disadvantages a person may have are not meaningful in the larger scope. They're completely dependent on circumstances of environment, culture and other shifting realities. What's an advantage today may have been a disadvantage yesterday or 1000 years ago. Be that as it may, there is no equality. Some one will always have the advantage even if it's just timing. I don't see how something that is impossible can be an ideal. An ideal maybe improbable, but it is always possible. The closet thing to equal and much more sensible is the idea that the ideal human society is tolerant or fair minded. Tolerance is born from diversity, and D/s is, if anything, diverse and celebratory of that diversity. In fact, at it's root, D/s is an exploration of how to seeming opposites can find a balance. If there can be a value of progress imposed on a culture this would certainly qualify. There definately is such thing as equality in terms of abstract social constructs. Ideally, we are all born with equal rights (the Bill of Rights says so in America). In practice, of course, no two persons have the same rights. One can say that we all have the same legal rights, but I could show in great detail that such a statement is false. Where does it say that ideals must be possible? Ideals are things that are strived for but may never be achieved. As such, we should strive for equality for all persons. This is the ideal for which we are reaching. Also, the ideology of "tolerance" only furthers the discrimination that it so adamently claims to fight against. For example, a person who says they tolerate homosexuals is merely stating that they indeed see a difference in status between the two lifestyles. They are really saying that they are the better for rising above the prejudice. They are mascarading around as righteous when in fact they still have the bias. Don't even get me started on the idea of "fairness."

MasterFireMaam -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/13/2007 10:28:27 PM)
I suggest that perhaps it's not a step back but a correction of a path we wandered down. Spiritual physical rites and cathartic experiences have been around as long as we have. BDSM seems to be a better way of getting our primal needs met without slaughtering animals or each other. Master Fire

BondageSlaveMN -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/13/2007 10:32:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterFireMaam I suggest that perhaps it's not a step back but a correction of a path we wandered down. Spiritual physical rites and cathartic experiences have been around as long as we have. BDSM seems to be a better way of getting our primal needs met without slaughtering animals or each other. Master Fire Hmmmm. That is an interesting concept. I'll have to contemplate that one for a while. Does that line of reasoning not imply that we all have a semblance of kink inside of us? Or are you saying that BDSM is a manifestation of some primal nature within us?

sexyred1 -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/13/2007 10:50:53 PM)
First posts like these give me a headache. Why? Not because of the abstract intellectual content, far from it. What gives me a pain is how so many who are interested in the "lifestyle" are simply the most judgemental of all. If you read between the lines, and I always do, for therein lies the truth...one can see that the OP for example, finds it disturbing to the nth degree that many choose to call themselves Master/slave and that, horror of horrors, those same folks like to consensually abuse and be abused by each other for pleasure. Why is it so difficult to understand that human beings are multifaceted creatures, with intellect, ego, superego and id. The id dictates our base animal instincts, that drive our biological and sexual instincts. Our ability to reason and think is what distinguishes us from lower life forms. But too many find a conflict between their baser instincts/desires and their intellect/guilt/spiritual sides. Some people are not holistic enough to recognize the various parts of themselves, and so, then, seek to attribute negative aspects to what they do not understand, such as BDSM. So, instead of just deciding to adopt certain aspects of the lifestyle that would pertain to him, such as, how did he put it, "he only sensually or sexually teases" his sub, instead, he posts and tells us ahead of time not to flame him as he goes on his merry way to put down the entire history of the evolution of BDSM behavior in human beings. I don't buy it for a minute. BDSM is clearly not a step backwards or forwards for that matter, it is just IS WHAT IT IS. And that depends on the individual perceptions of those involved. Nothing about society being equal has anything remotely to do with how people construct their own personal relationships. It is a pointless argument, if it is an argument at all. I will never, ever understand why people continue to globalize what is an aspect of human behavior, such as BDSM and try to invest it with something greater or more significant that what it really is. Attempting to analyze the meaning of what BDSM means to the history or future of the human race is just another way of trying to fit things into neat little boxes to make certain ideas that may be repugnant to some, more palatable. Perhaps this could be added to the Presidential debate circuit, I would love to hear the different political and religious views on this.

Leatherist -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/13/2007 10:59:40 PM)
1.When structure and rules are used as a substitute for common sense and the ability to relate-it's a step backwards. 2. When a dynamic is used as an excuse for codependence and abuse of another human being-it two steps backwards. 3. And when a fabricated "lifestyle" is used as an escape from reality-it's simply absurd.

BondageSlaveMN -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/13/2007 11:19:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 Perhaps this could be added to the Presidential debate circuit, I would love to hear the different political and religious views on this. Hahahaha. There wouldn't be a debate on this topic. In America, BDSM is much too taboo to be discussed academically in a public forum such as a political debate. Honestly, I don't think there is a country in the world that would consider BDSM to be a wide enough and broad enough topic to merit discussion on national TV.

Wolfie648 -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/13/2007 11:27:37 PM)
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. Allow me to point out the obvious to yourselves. Clearly I am supperior. Worship me.

BondageSlaveMN -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/13/2007 11:37:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wolfie648 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. Allow me to point out the obvious to yourselves. Clearly I am supperior. Worship me. Interesting... I doubt that words themselves have power. If a bum on the street walked into a police station and demanded that we invade Iran immediately because they have WMDs I seriously doubt we bolster the troups. If the president, on the other hand, said the same thing, there is a chance that we would be in Iran over night. Of course I am exagerating, but I think you get the idea. Words in the right social context have power. No offense meant to the OP, but words on an online forum are not going to make me think my kink is wrong unless someone can actually completely refute my argument and support their own.

MasterFireMaam -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/14/2007 12:37:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BondageSlaveMN quote: ORIGINAL: MasterFireMaam I suggest that perhaps it's not a step back but a correction of a path we wandered down. Spiritual physical rites and cathartic experiences have been around as long as we have. BDSM seems to be a better way of getting our primal needs met without slaughtering animals or each other. Master Fire Hmmmm. That is an interesting concept. I'll have to contemplate that one for a while. Does that line of reasoning not imply that we all have a semblance of kink inside of us? Or are you saying that BDSM is a manifestation of some primal nature within us? Both, if we're willing to admit it. We have all things in us...but we are taught by society what to suppress, sometimes for good, sometimes for not. Master Fire

simplyserves -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/14/2007 1:20:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BondageSlaveMN Hmmmmm. Are you positing that no evolution has occurred between present day Homo sapiens and say Homo erectus? No, my statement was meant toward homo sapiens, or "modern man". However my point is not that evolution hasn't happened or continues to happen, it's that evolution is not on a linear path or can be described accurately as having a forward or backward. quote: ORIGINAL: BondageSlaveMN There definately is such thing as equality in terms of abstract social constructs. Ideally, we are all born with equal rights (the Bill of Rights says so in America). In practice, of course, no two persons have the same rights. One can say that we all have the same legal rights, but I could show in great detail that such a statement is false. There is certainly the concept of equality and that it exists but there is no such thing in reality. The bill of rights doesn't supersede nature. Rights can be equal because they're conceptual, and we can attempt to apply them equally. We may come so close to succeeding that it's splitting hairs to suggest we haven't. That said the statement that "all men are created equal" while a powerful statement is also a simplification. Regardless of that it's certainly false. All men, or people, are not created equal. People are born different and some differences are more advantageous then others at varying times. quote: ORIGINAL: BondageSlaveMN As such, we should strive for equality for all persons. This is the ideal for which we are reaching. I disagree. I think we should strive for tolerance toward all people and to create a system that isn't competitive, but cooperative. quote: ORIGINAL: BondageSlaveMN Also, the ideology of "tolerance" only furthers the discrimination that it so adamently claims to fight against. For example, a person who says they tolerate homosexuals is merely stating that they indeed see a difference in status between the two lifestyles. They are really saying that they are the better for rising above the prejudice. They are mascarading around as righteous when in fact they still have the bias. Well, I guess that is one way to look at it. It's a bit cynical though. If a person doesn't like homosexuals but tolerates them then what's the problem? It's gonna happen and that seems like a pretty fair response on their part. Also, they are all the better for having risen above the prejudice, at least in my opinion.

Ryugen -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/14/2007 1:04:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BondageSlaveMN 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. While viewing all the responces, I have to say I liked this one the best. Thank you very much, MN, for your reply. To everyone else who replied, thank you very much. Although I would like to point out to those who didn't read them, the other posts I made. They may answer the questions posted by you of my original post. Although I thank you all for expressing your opinions and debates. This has been a very interesting thread and serves me well as reassurance that the bdsm community (at least here) is made up of intelligent and thoughtful individuals (which I already suspected from lurking across other threads). If any of those who have already posted would like to respond to my second post in the thread, I would be very interested to hear your thoughts, here is the link; http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1472621 Although, feel free to just let this thread drop off the main page and away from attention, this post of mine really only exists to thank those who have expressed their opinions and joined in the debate.

OrrisKitten -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/14/2007 1:35:58 PM)
I am just making a quick reply to bring maybe a different view into account here. I've, in the past, done some research on BDSM for a human sexuality course I took and its very interesting to look up academically. One thing that I came across that did not occur to me is this thought: In order for BDSM to exist, you must exist in a fairly advanced society. There are 2 things absolutely essential for BDSM to exist, 1. Leisure time. If you have to work constantly and have no time for leisure then you cannot possibly form this sexual preference. 2. A society that has had major oppression as a structure, whether past or present. Basically the argument was that if slavery did not exist then the exotic thrill of subverting that structure would not exist. I do have an actual quote that I can post up later, but I thought it was fairly interesting to consider. So according to this, not only are we advanced for being involved in it, but might even be superior for seeing the "usual" and making it different and using it for sexual pleasure by turning it upside down. In a way, a BDSM practitioner can be an activist for recognizing the act, changing it and making it consentual. Again, these are not my beliefs, just my interpretation of some articles I've read and decided to share.

sexyred1 -> RE: BDSM, a step backwards? (12/14/2007 1:41:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrrisKitten I am just making a quick reply to bring maybe a different view into account here. I've, in the past, done some research on BDSM for a human sexuality course I took and its very interesting to look up academically. One thing that I came across that did not occur to me is this thought: In order for BDSM to exist, you must exist in a fairly advanced society. There are 2 things absolutely essential for BDSM to exist, 1. Leisure time. If you have to work constantly and have no time for leisure then you cannot possibly form this sexual preference. 2. A society that has had major oppression as a structure, whether past or present. Basically the argument was that if slavery did not exist then the exotic thrill of subverting that structure would not exist. I do have an actual quote that I can post up later, but I thought it was fairly interesting to consider. So according to this, not only are we advanced for being involved in it, but might even be superior for seeing the "usual" and making it different and using it for sexual pleasure by turning it upside down. In a way, a BDSM practitioner can be an activist for recognizing the act, changing it and making it consentual. Again, these are not my beliefs, just my interpretation of some articles I've read and decided to share. hi there. I am sorry, but I am just not understanding the connection between leisure time and the ability to formulate an interest in BDSM. Especially if you believe, as I do, that you are either wired for it, or not. I had plenty of leisure time as a child when I first had these feelings and even though I work for a living now, I still have the desire and ability to participate. This made no sense to me. Not picking on you, but not I am not getting it.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.736328E-02