RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (Full Version)

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



Message


BlackPhx -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/14/2008 9:26:51 AM)

The laws are still on the books. However:
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003),[1] was a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the justices struck down the sodomy law that had criminalized homosexual sex in Texas. The court had previously addressed the same issue in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute, not finding a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.
Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize homosexual activity between consenting adults acting in private. It may also invalidate the application of sodomy laws to heterosexual sex based solely on morality concerns.
The case attracted much public attention, and a large number of amici curiae ("friends of the court") briefs were filed. Its outcome was celebrated by gay rights advocates, who hoped that further legal advances might result as a consequence. Conversely, it was decried by social conservatives as an example of judicial activism .

Please note it invalidates ONLY the Sodomy laws. It does not invalidate or address laws against Assault, Battery or D.V laws that can be applied against those who practise BDSM. Also please note the articles that I pointed to are for 2007 in NY, and GA. The arrests made in Florida were just prior to Christmas 2007. We have just reached 2008 realistically. The ones against the men in the Mall and Sen Craig were not for sodomy, they never got to the sodomy part in Private that would have protected their acts. They were charged for signalling interest in homosexual acts and for in a couple of cases masturbating in a stall (would love to know how the cops figured that one out). Another man who was arrested for videotaping a bondage scene with http://www.local6.com/news/10755744/detail.html faces charges of False imprisonment, kidnapping and sexually battery. It is things like this that make the police look very hard at WIITWD.
The initial quote you chose was not from what I wrote. The second was and Lawrence V Texas does not address Consent in Battery or BDSM and does not apply. It would be wonderful if it did, but, that is a Supreme Court Challenge for another day. Perhaps you would be interested in making that challenge.

Consent is far from a straw argument. Without consent between the people involved, WIITWD is illegal. Period. Hit me with anything including your hand without my consent and you risk jail time, and please don't tell me no one has ever had buyers remorse the morning after and accused someone of rape. I think we just saw that with the Duke Lacrosse players in N.C. It happens. Whether you serve jail time or not, loss of job, friends, and a great deal of your savings defending yourself is a result that is not unknown. You may or may not be able to recover monies from the person who falsely accused you but don't bet on it and the state is under no obligation. Consent can be given and withdrawn, and if it is withdrawn all actions HAVE to stop. Having a written contract is good, but you know what, it really is not enforcable under the law, the best you can hope for is using it to boister your defense.

While the US promotes the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech and a lot of rights, it is very strict about where those rights infringe on the rights of others. I can pursue all the happiness I want as long as I do not break any of the 500+ local, state and federal laws. I can say anything I want, wear anything I want, as long as it does not break any of those laws and that I am willing to accept the consequences if it does. Here in Florida, a "rapper" was arrested for Obscene Language (something that should have been covered under free speech) because there were children present who could hear him. As Carlin said, I love this country for the rights and freedoms we used to have." At one time it was acceptible to beat your wife in La. as long as the rod was no thicker than the diameter of your finger. Now you go to jail.

poenkitten




Skully7000 -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/14/2008 12:43:17 PM)

My understanding is that RACK was meant to be a better explanation of SSC for the same arguments the OP made. we are not always safe, Sane is argumentative, but we can at least be Risk Aware and Consensual.

as for the legal matters: NCSF said having educational books goes a long way in defense cases because it proves that the consenting adults were trying to learn about the risks and how to do them in as safe a manner as possible.





Honsoku -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/14/2008 1:08:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackPhx

Honsoku

In the majority of states if not all, what we do is illegal. Just as the majority of states contend that no one with a terminal disease has the right to take their own life and there are only 2 that accept that a doctor can aid a patient with a terminal disease to die, none accept that we can consent to assault. If we are dancing in a club, at home, in privacy of any sort, and we attract the attention of a Police Officer, the one doing the whipping is going to jail under DV if not assault and battery. No longer is it the perogative of the person who was assaulted and battered in a D.V. case to drop or press charges. Those charges are brought by the state. However, the courts will in many cases at least listen if the partner is affirming there was consent on both sides for BDSM. They will stop listening the minute the one assaulted or battered says I withdrew consent. Contracts and video tapes of consent aside, the moment consent is withdrawn, jeopardy applies. If something goes wrong and the person says stop and the person does not stop, legally it becomes, rape, assault and battery and can in certain cases be charged as attempted homicide. Not something fun to try and prove it wasn't. Not unless you can get a jury of your true peers, others who are Dominants, Subs, Edge Players, etc.

Many doctors in E.R.'s will if they feel it is legitimately a case of BDSM not assault and battery or DV turn a blind eye, patch up the person and send them on their way. If they even think that it may have been D.V., they are obligated to report it or try to obtain help for the victim. This is a judgement call as they are when it may be a case of child abuse but not a gunshot wound.

But the line you quoted was about Consent revoked becoming Abuse. It does, legalities aside, if there is no meeting of the minds, no consent, then one person is suffering abuse. Abuse of trust, of self,  and the destruction of the relationship dynamic. The law has ruled, at least here in Florida and a few other states that I know of, that even if in mid-coitus, 5 seconds from orgasm, your partner (male or female) says Stop, No, or I don't want this and you do not immediately withdraw..it is rape.  Consent withdrawn. Not pretty, not fair, but reality.

This is why I say ALWAYS Consentual. Everything else is negotiable. The safety we agree on, the intruments, the scene, the level of play, on the edge or safely slightly strawberry, everything is subject to what we involved in the dance at that moment consider Sane, but everything must contain a level of Consent.

poenkitten


You talk about consent saying legalities aside and note that the legality fails in a lot of cases, then you use the legal limits of consent to support your argument. Using the legal limits of consent is hazy at best as large chunks of BDSM violate the legal limits of consent. By law (in most states), a person can not consent to being harmed. BDSM in general, and any kind of force play in particular, tap dances on consent's grave.

To quote myself:

quote:

Almost unanimously people have pointed to consent as the difference between abuse and d/s. I disagree with this on two counts. Firstly, many abusive relationships are consensual in nature. The person being "abused" frequently will not leave of their own volition and if removed will seek to return to the "abuser". How is this not consenting to the relationship? If your response is that because they return out of fear, how is that different than ensuring obedience through the threat of punishment? How many of you would lose respect for your dominant if he did not enforce the rules?

Secondly, many d/s relationships have non-consensual treatment as a major part of the relationship (at the very best, consent gets really fuzzy). I am reminded of something Tigrita said; "I don't really want to be submissive, I want to be dominated". The act of dominating another implies a lack of choice on the part of the person being dominated. There is an underlying current of force, of "make me", in a lot of d/s relationships. If force is used (whether it is psychological or physical), consent is arguably non-existent, as you can not consent to force else it is no longer force. If you fall back on "i consent to being there" then go back to the previous paragraph.

The difference is not consent but content. If you are content with your overall treatment, it isn't abuse. If you aren't content, then it is abuse (in the context of this thread).


We do a lot of things to other people without their consent that aren't abuse. We raise UMs, we house the insane and mentally incompetent, and pull/push people out of harm's way. There is no "meeting of minds" occurring. A person comes into the hospital unconscious and bleeding to death, he hasn't consented to being treated, but we would think poorly of the hospital that didn't treat him. That is an extreme example to be sure, but the point is still valid. Consent is not the dividing line between acceptable interactions and abuse. Even the states have realized this, which is why charges no longer have to be filed by the abused for the abuser to be arrested, and to some degree it is why we have good samaritan laws. The only way a relationship can exist without some level of consent is if the person was kidnapped, blackmailed, etc into the relationship.

The point is that we do things to each other without even reasonably implied consent that doesn't constitute abuse and people consent to being abused all the time. Therefore consent can not be treated as an absolute border between abuse and BDSM.




Leatherist -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/14/2008 1:16:49 PM)

I really don't worry a lot about legalities.. Except in the sense of choosing a partner who says she wants something at one point in time, and then changes her mind later on. Which is why the edgy sort of stuff I do usually won't cross the line into anything I could be prosecuted for.

I'm not into giving people that much power over me.




thetammyjo -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/14/2008 2:09:21 PM)

Can anything in life be always safe, always sane, even always consensual?

I think of these statements (SSC and RACK) more as ideals to be worked toward.

Trying to be as safe, as aware, as conscious, and as consensual as possible protects me, protects my slave, and protects my household. Wouldn't I be stupid to not want to protect all of that?




RedMagic1 -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/14/2008 3:43:08 PM)

poenkitten is correct.  Alumbrado is not.


Virtually all forms of WIITWD are illegal in Iowa, where I live.  Any type of "assault" -- impact, needles, you name it -- is against the law.  In many parts of the United States, virtually any form of sexual activity that is not blindingly vanillawhite is against the law.  Frankly, BDSM is a small subcategory of prohibited acts.


Here is an excerpt from an advice page by the NCSF about how to research the laws where you live.  I'll give the link at the end.

The question "Is SM legal in my state?" is not an appropriate research question. What we call "SM" includes a wide variety of behaviors, attitudes and acts without common legal terminology. For example, a state may not specifically prohibit "bondage" or "mummification", but every state has laws against holding someone against his/her will. The key term is not "SM" but rather "consent." Therefore, the better question to research might be "What types of consensual sexual expression are allowed under state and local laws?" or "How is consent defined by statutory and case law in the state?"

In many jurisdictions, only procreative consensual intercourse between married heterosexual couples in the privacy of the home is "legal." Therefore looking at all laws pertaining to sex may be a good place to start. Of course, sex laws are usually selectively enforced. And they can be contradictory: a local jurisdiction may recognize gay couples, but the state makes sodomy between people of the same sex a felony, then again, it doesn't enforce the law against anyone.

http://www.ncsfreedom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=261&Itemid=64




faerytattoodgirl -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/14/2008 4:19:12 PM)

SSC for me due to health reasons... things i cant do=blood play, needles, breathe play, circulation needs to be watched...and anything else that may involve my heart condition.  but i can take alot of physical pain so still plenty that could be done.






laurell3 -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/14/2008 4:41:46 PM)

Hell Iowa still has a minor assault that defines offensive touching by the VICTIM'S standard and not a reasonable person and it's still a serious misdemeanor to posess less than an ounce of marijuana.  We are not living in progressive areas.  But, arguing this point with Alumbardo is totally masochistic.  He has no ability to hear and quoting Lawerence which only applies to sodomy and has nothing to do with actions that cause injury is his repeated response.
You are correct though RedMagic, in Iowa and certainly in Nebraska, if one were open with their BDSM impact play it is quite possible we would be prosecuted for domestic violence regardless of consent.  It may be much less likely in other states, but we don't live there and you must take into consideration always the predilictions and biases of those involved with the law when considering it's application.




BlackPhx -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/14/2008 5:23:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honsoku

You talk about consent saying legalities aside and note that the legality fails in a lot of cases, then you use the legal limits of consent to support your argument. Using the legal limits of consent is hazy at best as large chunks of BDSM violate the legal limits of consent. By law (in most states), a person can not consent to being harmed. BDSM in general, and any kind of force play in particular, tap dances on consent's grave.

To quote myself:

quote:

Almost unanimously people have pointed to consent as the difference between abuse and d/s. I disagree with this on two counts. Firstly, many abusive relationships are consensual in nature. The person being "abused" frequently will not leave of their own volition and if removed will seek to return to the "abuser". How is this not consenting to the relationship? If your response is that because they return out of fear, how is that different than ensuring obedience through the threat of punishment? How many of you would lose respect for your dominant if he did not enforce the rules?


(Condensed and Snipped)

It may indeed seem murky to say laying the legalities aside and then note that the legalities fail in a lot of cases. That is partially because the LAW tries to regulate human sexuality without the lawmakers understanding the differences or embracing them.

Our Laws are enforced erractically. One officer may give you a ticket for going 10 miles over the speed limit another only a warning. They have discretionary powers and those same officers who might charge you with Domestic Violence, Kidnapping and other wonderful things, may upon looking at all your lovely toys, and a subject who bounces up and down saying "I said yes, I was having fun", turn around and say, "keep the noise down and the curtains drawn". Same discretionary powers in effect, even though they are required to bring in a person involved in D.V. They have the power to lay the legalities aside, or not.

There are an awful lot of people who have discretionary power over our lives. Boss's who can fire you for what you posted to a newsgroup or forum. Doctors who can report suspected DV or rape (rape fantasies are not uncommon and the difference between real and staged is not medically evident). Teachers who can misunderstand what a child has said and tie you up with Child Welfare. Neighbors who hear thumping and slaps and crying through a wall. Each and every one of them can cause us problems even with clear evidence of consent. It's not pretty, it's not right, but until the laws change we have to remain aware of them, and make sure that consent is active.

Here in Florida if you are sitting in a bathroom stall and tapping a foot, playing with/fixing your zipper, humming or several other things they consider suspicious in a Mens Room, you can be arrested for soliciting homosexual acts even though you are just sitting and waiting to finish what you went in there to start without sex on your mind. This while Sodomy is no longer illegal in private by the ruling of the Supreme court. So far they haven't targeted womens rooms and I hope they don't cause when we go in, often we are pretty late in discovering there is a serious lack of paper and we may reach under a stall wall and ask some one to pass some over.

I agree with you that BDSM tap dances on consent's grave at best, considering the laws as they stand now. But frankly it is all we have until such time as the laws are challenged and changed to reflect consent.

As for many abusive relationships being consentual, I must strenuously disagree. They can be coercive but not consentual. By the time an abuser begins to regularly abuse his partner, he has already destroyed self confidence in that person. They begin to believe it is their fault. Sam is a great provider, it is me, I should have, shouldn't have, I wore, I failed, I forgot, I deserve. They begin to make excuses for it, He was having a bad day, night, got fired, stress, the kids, the bills. It is a slow process and can include strikes, beatings before the full breakdown of the persons will/esteem, but you would be surprised at how much shame in the beginning that such happened plays into it, and family pressures, you married him, work it out. Also please dont forget the honeymoon stage, where the abuser can actually seem contrite, apologetic, tender. By the time the abuse is in full cycle the spirit is broken, one child may always be with the abuser to maintain control, and fear not love is the base. I can't leave, the kids need their father, I have no job skills, no place to go, no resources, he's always there.

Ok they finally get pulled out of there, rescued by an officer or Abuse Service. They are sheltered along with 25 other women and their children, have no money, often only the clothes on their backs, and few resources. Most of the services are geared for women and children, but men, hetero and gay are also abused and there is virtually No Support for them.  The Services do their best to get those they service welfare, medicaid, treatment and counseling, possibly even job skills, but they have left their homes, are not going to heal over night, and the abuser is promising it will never happen again. The police held them overnight in jail and they are out before the abused are even settled. MAYBE they draw some jail time and anger management, but that isn't going to change a lifetime of abusing. At the point a person is finally able to escape their abuser they are at the most dangerous point in the relationship. Death is a real threat, and restraining orders mean nothing, they don't stop bullets or knives. Abusers have stalked their victims and killed them after they have "gotten away".

When I worked for a RCSA center we had one woman brought in wrapped in a cast and a blanket. That was all she had. Her boyfriend had moved in with her and she spent 2 years handcuffed to a bed when he was not there, chained to him when he was, and the phone was locked in a safe when he was out of the house. The police found not one stitch of womens clothing in the house, no shoes, no coat,  nothing. That blanket came from them, she had not been allowed anything when he was out of the house. She weighed 90 lbs and should have weighed 140. He found, stalked and killed her a year after he got out of jail. He won't get out again, but, neither will she.

poenkitten





Honsoku -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/14/2008 7:15:31 PM)

Erin Pizzey: Prone to Violence (full text online) talks about the cycle of violence addiction that can brew in violent couples. It's not just because of coercion, manipulation, low self worth, or lack of options. There are women who will actively seek out abusive relationships, because they get high off the abuse. Sometimes it's the pain, sometimes it's the endorphin rush just before the abuse begins. People can consent to abusive relationships. Hell, some will actively seek them out. There are people who will willingly abuse themselves, why is it hard to grasp that others would seek out someone to do it to them?

It's hard to tell for sure how big the problem is, because this is the uglier side of abuse. This is the side that even the political activists don't want to acknowledge because it undermines the "victims are helpless" argument. Have you ever known a couple where one person would egg the other on to a screaming match? Or knowingly step on the same landmines in the relationship over and over? It doesn't make it right or healthy, but it does mean that both people can be complicit in the outcome. I would posit that endorphin addiction plays a role in many more cases of abusive and dysfunctional relationships than most people want to admit.




BlackPhx -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/14/2008 8:45:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honsoku

Erin Pizzey: Prone to Violence (full text online) talks about the cycle of violence addiction that can brew in violent couples. It's not just because of coercion, manipulation, low self worth, or lack of options. There are women who will actively seek out abusive relationships, because they get high off the abuse. Sometimes it's the pain, sometimes it's the endorphin rush just before the abuse begins. People can consent to abusive relationships. Hell, some will actively seek them out. There are people who will willingly abuse themselves, why is it hard to grasp that others would seek out someone to do it to them?



Ahh, but now you must ask, are they "victims" who learn to tolerate and accept the abuse, OR masochist/submissives who have found Abusers instead of the BDSM community? Look around you, from the mildest service submissive to the deepest pain slut, 19 to 99 aren't we all looking for persons who will hold us in some regard, fulfill our needs in ways that involve whips, chains, collars and cuffs. Aren't these forums and sites filled with Doms and Dominas, Tops and Masters all of whom in the eyes of the law and vanilla people would be Abusers? Precisely her definition it seems.

We have learned a lot since 1971-1982. The internet if nothing else has allowed people to connect, usually in some safety and learn about alternatives to finding abusers to answer the needs deep inside them. But there are still people who will find abusers before they find responsible people to answer those needs. To someone who saw abuse as a child, who lost her grandmother to it and worked with abused children and women, I would look like an abused wife especially after Master and I dance to both our satisfaction. Many of us would, who engage in sharps play, whips, clamps, branding, burns, and yes, those endorphins are wonderful. We are addicted to them and to the morphine like feelings they engender. So are joggers and marathoners. Whether I would be a sado-masochist without my parents influence, I really couldn't say, but I suspect the answer is yes. I have lived an extremely vanilla life, and one of rocky road with extra nuts, I prefer this. too long with out the dance and I become hungry in ways that have little to do with food.

But there is a major difference between my childhood and now, it's called consent. As a child not only did I not have consent, I had no desire for what was done. Now, I have a choice, and Master is that choice. By Law, I do not have it.  But I am with him by choice, his and mine and while our Dances may be abusive in the eyes of the law to us they are as precious as the times we spend doing nothing more than hugging and cuddling. I suspect Ms Pizzey would not understand those of us who engage in this life choice, She would see us as abused, addicted, deluded women and men seeking only to repeat the lessons learned in childhood. She would not be able to explain those who had happy childhoods, normal ones who seek this from both sides of the coin and that is a pity, because what we are is a pantheon of human sexuality, a cornucopia of delights, needs and desires who have found safe ways to express it and find our happiness.

poenkitten ( wondering if he has ever explored the furor the Kinsey Report caused between 1948 and 1953)





GreedyTop -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/14/2008 9:55:48 PM)

::standing ovation ::  beautifully said, poenkitten :)

And if I haven't said so before, I sincerely enjoy reading your posts, and those of BlackPhx :)




Alumbrado -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/14/2008 11:19:18 PM)

quote:

But, arguing this point with Alumbardo is totally masochistic.  He has no ability to hear and quoting Lawerence which only applies to sodomy and has nothing to do with actions that cause injury is his repeated response.



Thanks for tossing your credibility out the window.
My references to Lawrence are in response to any fraudulent claim that sodomy is still illegal in the US.
My comments on consent and mens rea applying to battery are exactly on point.
You are however, quite correct that you can argue with every  high school debate team tactic at your command, and I'm not going to be persuaded to ignore the facts and the reality and fall for the hoax.

If you had facts on your side, you wouldn't need to create strawman claims that I've said things which I haven't, you would address my points rationally, and factually.
But, since you are defending superstitious Chicken Little nonsense, you don't have those options.




Alumbrado -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/14/2008 11:25:44 PM)

quote:



Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize homosexual activity between consenting adults acting in private. It may also invalidate the application of sodomy laws to heterosexual sex based solely on morality concerns.


.........Consent is far from a straw argument. Without consent between the people involved, WIITWD is illegal.


So in other words, when I said that Lawrence invalidated the sodomy laws, and that consent could negate criminal charges of assault, I was completely wrong, but when you say the exact same thing, you know what you are talking about?

That's fantastic, keep it up.[8|]




Honsoku -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/15/2008 12:33:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackPhx
Ahh, but now you must ask, are they "victims" who learn to tolerate and accept the abuse, OR masochist/submissives who have found Abusers instead of the BDSM community? Look around you, from the mildest service submissive to the deepest pain slut, 19 to 99 aren't we all looking for persons who will hold us in some regard, fulfill our needs in ways that involve whips, chains, collars and cuffs. Aren't these forums and sites filled with Doms and Dominas, Tops and Masters all of whom in the eyes of the law and vanilla people would be Abusers? Precisely her definition it seems.


Why would I ask the question in relations to this? What bearing does it have in this case? Read the descriptions, they didn't "tolerate" it, they looked forward to it, they relished it. Are you trying to argue that these women were not abused? Almost sounds like you are trying to say that they asked for it...

A lot of the circumstances she describes would definitely qualify as abuse to any outside observer, even one versed in BDSM. The description wasn't that they enjoyed the pain, or pleasing him, it was for that high right before they got hit. A large chunk of them undoubtedly were submissive or masochistic. They were still being abused. Have you read the book before? I don't think you have, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to make this out to be BDSM being misunderstood. Pouring boiling water into someone lap exceeds what most people would consider BDSM. Broken bones, mutilation, and death are par for the course. I'm not going to even describe what happens to the UMs. These are not healthy relationships by any remote definition of the term. The point is that these women consent to such relationships, even though they are abusive. Read something that your master wrote, especially the first paragraph. I'll quote it for you;

quote:

While it is safe and sensible it is not as thrilling as being with a person that hovers at the edge of out of control. As an affirmed "nice guy" I have seen dozens of women I grew up with literally throw themselves at men (boys actually) that were really really bad for them. They lied to them, did drugs, hit them, cheated on them, and at any moment would explode in a fury of violence that could have cost them thier lives.


He has seen it happen. This is exactly the same sort of behavior I am talking about. Just because it is consensual, does not mean it is not abusive, and just because it is not consensual doesn't mean it is abusive.

quote:

We have learned a lot since 1971-1982.


What have we learned that invalidates what I have said?

quote:

The internet if nothing else has allowed people to connect, usually in some safety and learn about alternatives to finding abusers to answer the needs deep inside them. But there are still people who will find abusers before they find responsible people to answer those needs. To someone who saw abuse as a child, who lost her grandmother to it and worked with abused children and women, I would look like an abused wife especially after Master and I dance to both our satisfaction. Many of us would, who engage in sharps play, whips, clamps, branding, burns, and yes, those endorphins are wonderful. We are addicted to them and to the morphine like feelings they engender. So are joggers and marathoners. Whether I would be a sado-masochist without my parents influence, I really couldn't say, but I suspect the answer is yes. I have lived an extremely vanilla life, and one of rocky road with extra nuts, I prefer this. too long with out the dance and I become hungry in ways that have little to do with food.
But there is a major difference between my childhood and now, it's called consent. As a child not only did I not have consent, I had no desire for what was done. Now, I have a choice, and Master is that choice. By Law, I do not have it. But I am with him by choice, his and mine and while our Dances may be abusive in the eyes of the law to us they are as precious as the times we spend doing nothing more than hugging and cuddling.


Why do you keep bringing up the law? The law has never been a part of my defense of my stance nor my definition of abuse. I haven't claimed your relationship is abusive. How is any of this relevant to my point?

Just like your master is your choice, these women also kept going back by their own choice. Were they or were they not being abused?

quote:

I suspect Ms Pizzey would not understand those of us who engage in this life choice, She would see us as abused, addicted, deluded women and men seeking only to repeat the lessons learned in childhood. She would not be able to explain those who had happy childhoods, normal ones who seek this from both sides of the coin and that is a pity, because what we are is a pantheon of human sexuality, a cornucopia of delights, needs and desires who have found safe ways to express it and find our happiness.


I give Pizzey a bit more credit than that. I don't think she would have wholly understood S&M, but these consensual relationships were definitely abusive. This was not BDSM being misunderstood by "vanilla" people.

You are dancing around my point, without ever really either accepting it or countering it. You appear to be trying extremely hard to not touch upon a contradiction in your thoughts. Argue a person can not consent to an abusive relationship. Argue that all non-consensual BDSM-related treatment is abuse (and that's a wide variety of treatment). These are the stances you claimed by claiming that consent is the difference between abuse and BDSM. These are the stances I am saying are invalid.

quote:

poenkitten ( wondering if he has ever explored the furor the Kinsey Report caused between 1948 and 1953)


I am familiar with the report, yes.





sadomasokisti -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/15/2008 2:10:26 AM)

My view on SSC

Safe: Don't kill your self or any others.  Come back home safely, preferably without any broken bones and all limbs  in place (specially males).

Sane: Know what you are doing and be responsible for your actions.

Consensual: The main difference between our stuff and abuse or assault.





Honsoku -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/15/2008 3:05:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

The issue is that statements such as 'Unfortunately, most states operate under the idea that if consent can not be reaffirmed, that it is automatically considered revoked. So by law, anything done to someone bound and gagged is battery'.and 'In the majority of states if not all, what we do is illegal'  create an untrue impression....and the fundamental point of law is that people most certainly can and do consent to battery all the time.

Much of WIITWD is in fact, quite legal and the few cases of prosecution in the absence of clear neglect, abuse, money involved, extreme injuries/death, etc. are obvious travesties. 
For us to start buying into the false notion that we are criminals is to grease the skids for them to become the norm.



You are right and wrong at the same time. It was definitely poorly phrased on my part. People do consent
to battery all the time, it's called surgery and contact sports. however until 1998-ish  People v. Jovanovic: "Prior to this decision, courts in the United States, England, and Canada have consistently maintained that one cannot consent to any activity which could cause serious bodily injury or death, i.e. violence, with a few exceptions,19 voluntary participation in organized sports being the most common.20". Sex was not one of those exceptions. And, in recent times, our law makers have been influenced by the problem of domestic violence to grant the power of prosecution for assault to the State when domestic abuse victims are reluctant or too intimidated to complain.  That places the prosecutorial decision in the discretionary hands of local prosecutors who must dance to the tune of the political and religious environment encasing them and their own sense of sexual morality when confronted with the fact that the abuse occurred during consensual sex rather than nonconsensual domestic abuse. Though we know it is not domestic violence, explaining the difference to someone else is an iffy proposition.

Battery, while sometimes not explicitly illegal, frequently isn't explicitly legal either. In my state, according to the statutes, there are only six cases where battery is *legal*, and none of them involve consenting parties. So while there may not be laws on the books explicitly against BDSM (thus making it illegal), there aren't laws on the books explicitly supporting it (making it legal). It's a gray zone, treat it as legal at your own risk. What is right and what is the law, have little bearing on each other.




salacioussquiz -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/15/2008 7:05:21 AM)

In the UK it is considered that a person cannot consent to serious bodily harm. There was a case of RvHenson a couple of years ago where the woman had agreed to be his slave and then he beat and raped her continuously , there was no safe word. He tried to use a slave contract ( which was never produced in court) as a defence He was later found guilty of attempted murder.




BlackPhx -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/15/2008 7:45:55 AM)

I am reminded in regard to these women of the song by the Rolling Stones (corrected), two lines in particular: "You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, well you might find you'll get what you need"

Without talking to the women involved it is nearly impossible to know whether the treatment they recieved was indeed, what they needed without it being actually what they wanted. You have to remember, that everything written, fiction, non-fiction, thesis, all of it is written through the filters of the authors own experiences, observations, emotions, and slanted towards the audience it is designed to reach. No matter how hard we try, we are not computers, taking in and spewing out data without marking that data with ourselves.

I told you I have been married vanilla, like a lot of people, and I have been married rocky road with extra nuts. Do you think, that in those vanilla relationships, I did not "push" to get what I needed regarding pain? Masochists are very good at doing exactly that, pushing, and pushing until they get what they need and then reveling in it. Hell to be honest I can push a Midline Sadist if I am not getting what I need, until he is ready to explode and give it to me. Do I enjoy broken bones? Nope. Slows down the play horribly, but in my adult life I have had bones in my ankle broken, my jaw dislocated, a tooth broken, a ruptured ear drum, 3 fractured ribs and a few other things that were relatively minor. Not healthy, not safe, not sane, and yes Abusive. But who was abusing whom? Children should not be involved in such things, I made sure they were at a sitters when things were going to explode but it is when he turned on the children that I extracted myself from the situation. realistically however, if there had not been Ums, I probably would have stayed until he killed me. Some of my most powerful orgasms happened during those acts. What I do now, with my Master is far more healthy, nearly as satisfying and consentual on BOTH sides.

There are people who are JUST that masochistic, people who have that death wish, people like Sharon Lopatka, or the gentleman in Germany who desired to be cannabilized, others who are desireous of castration, genital mutilation (I have known a few including one man who hammered nails into his own testicles for pleasure (at a club in NY)), people who hang from hooks in their backs, pierce every part of their bodies with long needles. If you are unaware of some of the things that humans do in pursuit of pain and pleasure, please take a look at http://www.bmezine.com/index.html particularly the section on Extreme/Heavy Mods and Erotic Mods. While it is nice to think that everything that we do encompasses the full extent of BDSM and pain/pleasure play it doesn't, not by a long shot. There are people just that extreme who need and push, self inflict or find Sexual Sadists to provide it and they consent to what is being done. Is it abusive? To you yes, to me and most of the people here, yes, to them No.

You quoted my Master, and yes there are people who are attracted to the bad boys, and to people who were bad for them, but please note the "literally throw themselves at" that is telling. they are making a choice regarding the men they are seeking and continue to do so, going from one to another until they find what they seek. I have also known these women, many I have pointed to information on BDSM and healthy relationships within them. If they need this type of treatment, it is far better it is gotten in a healthy environment without drugs, alcohol and cheating, where they are valued, while still getting the thrill of the Bad Boy personae.

As to why I keep bringing up the law? It is simple really. Even if your sub says yes, yes, I love when you hit me, spank me, clamp my nipples until they turn blue, slap me, the Law says or decides if it is Abuse. If she feels you have gone beyond her limits, damaged her beyond what she is willing to consent to and accept, she can walk into any police station and you are defending your freedom from that point on. No matter what you two have done prior to that moment (and yes you can use it as a defense), when she withdraws consent and heads for help, you (generic) have a problem.

What is right for me may seem abusive to you, what is right for you may seem abusive to me, we can agree that your kink is ok, my kink is ok. I consent to my treatment and it gives me what I need, therefore it is not abuse in my eyes. My Master consents to my treatment therefore it is not abuse in his eyes. The law does not make that distinction. It steps in if it feels it is waranted, and based on the political atmosphere, morals of the community, etc. and says..Nope..this was abuse your going to jail..or not.

Pizzey may or may not have understood BDSM or SM dynamics, we don't know. Coming from an abusive background herself where her grandmother was killed, she may not have. It may have been totally unacceptible to her and made her incapable of wrapping her mmind around the fact that there are people who need this the same way we need air to breathe, but may not have found acceptible, healthy ways to feed that need.  

But yes it is possible to consent to things that to any other person on the face of this earth is abusive. Frankly I consider public displays of kink to non consenting adults and Ums abusive, but that's just me. The hidden chain is one thing, placing a parent in the position of having to explain why that woman is wearing see through clothing, a collar, is on a dog leash and led about by another person, to their child is another. She's Goth doesn't quite cover it and Walmart isn't the place for it.

If I am still missing your point, perhaps it is because it is not clear. Please feel free to lay it out list style and I will try and take it point by point.

poenkitten




GreedyTop -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/15/2008 7:53:50 AM)

~FR~

pssst..poenkitten.. that song is by the Rolling Stones... *grin*




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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.347656E-02