RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (Full Version)

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



Message


TreasureKY -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 3:59:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

What BDSM activities are always wrong .. not for just for you but for anyone? Why?


Hmm... I'd say any activity ending in death, but I'm not sure I can say why.  Even though the "victim" was consenting, I'm not sure that makes it okay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

Is there an activitiy within BDSM which if engaged in by someone you would believe them to need mental health therapy?


Lots, but that is my own personal opinion formed from an empathic standpoint and based on my own morals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

Would you deem a dominant who engages in the activity to be automatically abusive despite the consent?


If it were an activity ending in death to the submissive, abusive isn't the term I'd use.  Suffice it to say that it would be negative, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

If someone were engaging in a practice which you deem is wrong for them, would you point this out online? In person?


Perhaps to either.  I can always express my opinion.  I might decide it was a wasted effort or I might decide wasting my time is okay.  It really depends.

Of course, that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to or adhere to my opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

Would you consider someone calling YKINOK to be wearing a BDSM Police Badge and is it okay for someone to wear that badge?


No.  I don't acknowledge any BDSM authority.




JohnWarren -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 4:05:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist

Dolcett.


I was approached a few years ago by a BDS member who told me she had Dolcett fantasies and asked if I could come up with a scene.


It took a lot of thinking for this one but here’s how it came out.  She was ordered to appear at my house where she met a group of “diners.”  Naked, she was blindfolded and tied with her arms over her head and her legs apart.  I told her we were going to baste and cook her slowly.  Now, Liquid Latex doesn’t have much of a smell, particularly if you open it a few minutes early to allow the ammonia that they use as a preservative to escape, but just to make sure she had no olfactory clues, I was burning a bit of pine scented incense. It also added to the “we’re going to have a barbecue” atmosphere.

I used a brush to paint her chest and belly with “flesh-colored” Liquid Latex.  It actually was a pretty good match for her skin tone.  After she’d been basted, two of us used hair dryers to speed the drying and to give the impression she was being “cooked.”  I noticed that she was getting quite wet and inserted a vaginal ball connected to a Pulsetron (mentioned elsewhere).  It’s my fervent belief there is an inverse relationship between common sense and sensual stimulation and I wanted her in a mode to believe anything.

When I painted the skin, I neglected on step that most Liquid Latex users take.  I didn’t rub on any body lotion before putting on the Liquid Latex.  This meant that the tiny hairs on her skin were embedded and trapped in the layer of Liquid Latex.  This was intentional.

We continued the process for about half an hour, alternating “basting” and “cooking” until we had a fairly thick coating (about five coats) and had even used a brownish red to cover her nipples most realistically.  Finally, I said, “It’s time to dine, Colleagues,” and took off her blindfold.  She was pretty well lost in subspace with the “basting,” the “cooking,” and of course, the “Pulsetron.”

As one of my friends, lifted her head so she could watch, I drew a knife down her sternum, eased the tip under the layer of Liquid Latex and then slowly pulled a strip off.  The result was half scream, half gasp and eyes the size of dinner plates.  Later, she told me the trapped hairs had ripped out with just the right intensity to feel as if she was being skinned.  Then, I circled the nipples, which at this point were about the size of grapes, and yanked off one covering and then the other and made it look as if I had popped them into my mouth.

The scene continued with each of us, cutting loose and then pulling off a bit of “skin,” and progressed to four people simultaneously doing knife play all over her body.  It wasn’t a true Dolcett, but for a woman who had believed she’d never approach her fantasy in real life, it was more than adequate for her.




adoracat -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 4:13:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist

Dolcett.


Now that's an answer. [:D] 

Celeste

edited to add: Fellow forum posters - please note that while I would love to discuss Dolcett, to do so is against the TOS and I'd rather this thread didn't get pulled. Thanks in advance.


Yes, google it if you want to know-don't ask here.


i did.  um.   i didnt click the links.    and i can see exactly why this isnt something to discuss here.

kitten




Loveisallyouneed -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 4:13:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren

for a woman who had believed she’d never approach her fantasy in real life, it was more than adequate for her.


I have great respect for ingenuity of this calibre.

Bravo!




ShaktiSama -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 4:39:19 AM)

I am firmly anti-cannibalism.  Sure, that makes me a prude to some people, but screw them.

I also think you should probably not have sex with the dead.  Unless they signed a consent form allowing you to have sex with their corpses when they were still alive.  I guess that falls into a grey area, like a lot of BDSM contracts. 

I was against bestiality until I realize how much smarter many animals are than the people they have sex with.  Now I think it's ok for vanilla people to have vanilla sex with consenting adult animals.  But no BDSM.  And I'm also against necrophiliac BDSM.  So no BDSM necro-bestiality:
[sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]






Loveisallyouneed -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 5:07:01 AM)

More vanilla-approved activities that risk death and/or permanent injury:

Full-contact sports (amateur or pro) such as football, rugby, hockey, soccer.

Parachuting, hang-gliding, anything involving flight.

Scuba diving, underwater spelunking (exploring underwater caves), ski-dooing, anything on or in water deep enough to drown in.

Surgery. How is the average individual to make an "informed consent" regarding which therapy is best suited for his/her illness, unless the indvidual has studied medicine to the degree requird to be a professional with an "informed opinion"?

Climbing Mt. Everest, trekking across Antarctica, news reporters/photographers in war zones, police, fire-fighters ...

Obviously the vanilla world tolerates a lot of risk without considering the individuals "crazy" enough to be stopped.

So why is it in bdsm people assume adults are incompetent because there is a risk of death or injury involved?

If we still allow anyone, even kids, to walk into the boxing ring and come out like Muhammed Ali, what exactly is being judged when YKINOK is invoked?




TreasureKY -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 5:21:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

... So why is it in bdsm people assume adults are incompetent because there is a risk of death or injury involved?


For what it's worth, please note that I didn't say anything about the risk of death.

Treasure
(Who futilely hopes that people read what she writes with the same care that she takes in writing it.)




RavenMuse -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 5:44:24 AM)

The phrasing of the question removes any of My objections which tend around consent andr isk awareness of those involved. So long as those involved are ALL open, honest and consenting.... Whatever My perspective about the actions themself, it is OK... even if I am not wanting to have it under My nose, it is OK.

The easiest thing to enter into that equasion to make it NOT OK in My eyes is lies, cheating, deception... and that extends to not just the immediatly involved people but also any directly effected.




Loveisallyouneed -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 5:59:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

... So why is it in bdsm people assume adults are incompetent because there is a risk of death or injury involved?


For what it's worth, please note that I didn't say anything about the risk of death.

Treasure
(Who futilely hopes that people read what she writes with the same care that she takes in writing it.)



I wasn't trying to personalize this.

The concept of "Your Kink Is Not OK" is based on ethics, most often a judgment of something deemed to be sufficient evidence of incompetency.

Risk of death and injury is usually the evidence cited to 'prove' the kink should be judged "not ok".

Essentially, YKINOK is a public effort to humiliate/shame anyone involved in an unapproved kink, to replace the judgment of the adults involved with the judgment of outsiders who are not in any way involved.What makes YKINOK so reprehensible is its effort to take control of others, to create a "Ten Commandments" for bdsm and expect/shame/humiliate everyone else into abiding by them (or at the least, pay lip-service to them). It is the premise upon which net-copping is constructed, with gangs of self-righteous advocates trying to make bdsm "safe".

The alternative to YKINOK is "Live and let live". Your kink doesn't have to be okay for me, just as long as you are happy with it.

Considering what would happen if the vanilla world decided to practice YKINOK on bdsm, I'd prefer to advocate LALL any day.





Real_Trouble -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 6:00:11 AM)

Let me counter by asking the OP to clarify slightly:

Do you mean what is wrong from a legal basis (because, like it or not, this will include permanent disfigurement, anything that significantly and unduly endangers the life of a partner, etc, even if such conduct was consensual)?

Or do you mean from a moral basis, in which case I would be inclined to suspect that most of what is unacceptable is not going to be BDSM-specific, but rather unacceptable in any circumstances.




stella41b -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 6:20:21 AM)

Quite a few years ago the medical professional believed it could cure transvestism through ECT or electro-convulsive therapy. The patient (male) would be required to attend an appointment during which he would be required to wear women's clothing. He would then be required to masturbate during which time he would be verbally humiliated by a psychiatrist and subjected to a series of electric shocks. This was known as aversion therapy.

Perhaps someone could explain the difference between this mental health therapy and say, a Dom of either sex equipped with a TENS unit meeting a submissive transvestite.

What is BDSM? Is not BDSM forming relationships with kinks and fetishes included between consenting adults where these relationships are based on human interaction involving a broad spectrum of diverse and different behaviours, rituals, attitudes, cultures, subcultures and lifestyles?

The very basis of a BDSM relationship is interaction between two or more humans. You cannot dominate yourself. If you are on your own, who can you submit to?

The basis of any interaction in a BDSM relationship is a transaction, the sadist needs the masochist, the control freak needs the doormat, a taskmaster needs a slave, and so on. I am being of course simplistic here, but I guess you can get my drift, in that you cannot satiate a need to dominate someone unless you find someone willing to submit to your domination, which as many Doms of both genders will tell you can be quite a challenge.

We have BDSM 'play'. It is called play for a reason, it is not real, it is nothing more than a role, a game, a series of transactions. However 'play' is only a small part of BDSM, where participants adopt a particular role or set up a scene involving various activities designed to provide satiation of a need to dominate or submit. This is to a varying degree only part of a relationship which is formed more or less like any other.

In a way BDSM play can be seen as a game.. very much like the games of Transactional Analysis developed by Canadian psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Dr Eric Berne in the 1950's. What Berne did was to revise Freud's three ego states - the ego, superego and id into three ego states - Parent, Adult and Child and use these as a study of interaction between humans in the form of transactions, which would lead to strokes, payooffs, games, rituals and so on. His work served to popularize various psychoanalysis techniques and he is the author of twobest selling books 'Games People Play' and 'What Do You Say After Hello?' His theory was based on the assumption that our lives are all following a script and that we can resolve a lot of issues and problems simply by rewriting the script.

However if we were to replace the three ego states Parent, Adult and Child with Dominant, Switch and Submissive what would we have? Would it be really that difficult to draw a parallel between BDSM and TA (Transactional Analysis)? I think not. More can be found on Transactional Analysis at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis

And this is precisely the problem with YKINOK. If we are talking about something going on between two consenting adults, two adults who know each other, trust each other, who are aware of what they are doing, and who know the other person a bit more than a couple of meetings over coffee or a few exchanged e-mails, where is the risk of harm? Provided of course that there is complete honesty, trust, clear open communication, and that there is no permanent or long lasting physical, emotional or psychological damage caused to one or both parties involved.

The other thing is is that people tend to judge activities or relationships based on what they see or how they appear. They are usually unaware of the underlying reasons or motivations involved, those cravings from the soul that may lie behind such a relationship or activity. It is also worth bearing in mind that mental illness, especially when it comes to depression, psychosis, self-harm, self-abuse and so on can be hard to identify and diagnose correctly even for members of the medical profession, and even when the case history or medical history of the patient is known. Therefore how accurate can the assessment be of someone who hasn't had any clinical training?

But the thing is most people don't mind their business any more. They feel entitled to have an opinion not just about themselves and the people in their lives but also anyone else they come across. The social art of getting to know someone appears to have become a minority interest. The Internet is a two-edged sword. It's educational, informative, powerful in communication, but it not only provides artificial intelligence to idiots it also networks them and some of these idiots are encouraged by assuming everyone thinks like them. We rarely ask questions or bother to find out, we rarely try to understand, we just discover someone, we discover someone's nature and we make our assumptions and draw our own conclusions. Everything is fine until we hit a 'red flag' - quite often something we don't understand or accept - and we just move on or walk away.

One of the problems is BDSM, with it's supposed unconditional acceptance of someone for who they really are, kinks, fetishes and eccentricities included, has a tendency to turn perfectly rational, sane, intelligent human beings into complete dipsticks and wassocks overnight. Some people react to entering the BDSM community like a dog entering a butcher's shop left unattended but well stocked - they go nuts. Restraint and common sense goes right out of the window.. Women who appear socially respectable, hold down good jobs, have families, etc will travel across the country on a whim and beg to be raped or beaten.. Men will e-mail strange women demanding castration, to be shat on, peed on, beaten, locked in the fridge for weeks on end, people suddenly find Masters, Mistresses, and slaves all over the place.

But while being utterly ridiculous, perhaps rather squicky or having the makings of a comedy these people are merely further evidence that kink and stupidity are two of the most fundamental elements of human nature. Those who deny the existence of one or both in my opinion have very little understanding of human nature.

But this is why YKINOK is not acceptable. It is the modern day equivalent of net curtain twitching, of thin lips and harsh judgments. It is nothing more than stigmatizing other people on the basis of their behaviour, way of living, appearance and even we have 'tribal' stigma. You just have to mention Gor to some people to elicit a laugh or get someone to shake their head. Few people understand it, I myself am one of them, but I accept and respect Gor as part of the BDSM community just as much as I respect the leather family, the polygamists, people like me into the period lifestyle, whatever. But people tend to think in terms of 'us' and 'them', they start attaching labels, jumping to conclusions, forming assumptions and creating stereotypes.

Believing people to need mental health therapy on the basis of what kinks they're into is rather elitist and fascist as a way of thinking. It is judging someone to be inferior or ascribing false characteristics to them, in this case mental illness, based on your own preconceived notions and assumptions. I have already shown how 'mental health therapy' and such practices as psychoanalysis can resemble what we do in BDSM, though they are not the same, there are different motivations and I wouldn't be as foolish to suggest that BDSM activities should or could replace clinical medical help where necessary. But we live in an imperfect world where people do get abused, they get hurt, broken, emotionally damaged, and no matter how weird someone is, what lies in their past, what baggage they have, I feel they have the same right to acceptance, to happiness and to emotional fulfillment as the next person and this in this community is a right which is inalienable.

I feel that you shouldn't form a definite opinion about someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes, and that it's best to try and achieve a healthy balance between interest in yourself and an interest in others. Try to find yourself in other people and find other people as a part of you. Given where there is evidence of rational thought, communication and mutual understanding in my mind there can be no place for YKINOK anywhere in BDSM.




chamberqueen -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 6:31:13 AM)

I thought that this was a fascinating question:  Is there anything that is not ok?

If I was writing to rulebook, having a session where either top or bottom was out of control (from anger, alcohol, drugs, mental disease, etc.) would be banned.  Knowingly having unprotected sex while carrying an STD or AIDS would also be outlawed.  Most things are up to the participants, but anything couched in lies is morally reprehensible.

Was I ever in a situation where things went from ok to not ok?  Yes.  I could have called the police but how do you explain that something went from consensual to no longer appropriate?

Should there be BDSM police?  Impratical.  Even dungeon masters are hated if they step in when they believe there may be a problem.  It would be nice if there was some type of database where people could look up a user's name and see whether that person has done untrustworthy things but it's simply not available.




tsatske -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 6:51:57 AM)

quote:

Oh but I get it all the time: two consenting adults developing their own brand of bdsm without consulting or obtaining permission from the 'local bdsm community'.


everyplace has it's own 'bdsm community'. I am lucky enough to live in the center of the country where, while there is not as much community as there is in other places, I can choose to drive a bit more to participate in a F2F community who matches us pretty well. Others, I am aware, have less options.
This place (collarme) has a 'community' and that community has community standards. My form of BDSM does not fit well within those standards. I do not constantly push it in peoples face and go trolling for fights, but I have, on occasion, been pushed to the point where I do get mad. I have definitely encountered YKINOK here.
This community does not like the word 'no-limits slave'. I can deal with not likely the word and usually just avoid it. But, as Leatherist said, even the concept of 'Blanket consent' bothers many people. They want me giving my consent on a - uhm - daily? hourly? 120 beats per minute? (wait, theres more than one way to take that, and the alternate sounds even better).
My contract says he can kill me. dismember me. disfigure me. starve me. sell me, or give me away. In fact, my contract says that, in order to release me for anything other than dishonorable behavior, he has a responsibility to either kill me, sell me, or otherwise place me in an appropriate (His judgement) situation.
Now, you can make the valid point that we are not going to do any of those things. But, if you can wrap your head around the fact that the consent is important to us, with or without the actions, then the consent is, in and of itself, an action, separate from the actions that the consent is 'covering'. And, here on collarme, that action, the action of that consent, is a very not okay thing. I have been told flat out that anyone who engages in that behavior - in that kind of blanket consent - needs to be institutionalized.
It is also an important piece of the lore and wisdom that is Collarme that every sub has the right to walk away. My relationship, however, is not so structured. Provided that he accepts the responsibilities in my contract, he has the right to end our relationship, for any or no reason. I, however, do not. While I can beg for release, He has said he is likely to give it only for a 'good reason' (yes, again, His judgement.) My contract says specifically that if I run, he will come and find me, and bring me back to him by 'as much force as is necessary'. Granted, He has said point blank that should He have to do such a thing, He would most likely beat the hell out of the girl and then release her, with dishonor. (without feeling He had to place her).
However, during my recent pregnancy I had real concerns that I would finish losing my mind and run. Pregnancy does that kind of thing to crazy people, and I am certainly crazy. Our contract was modified to say that if I ran while pregnant, he would not only find me and bring me back to him 'by as much force as necessary', but would keep me, 'by as much force as necessary', until the end of my pregnancy.
Do such contracts put him in at least as much danger as me? Of course. He is promising to take actions that we believe are ethical, but which are clearly illegal. My family would probably fully support him, because they see how sane and stable I am with Him in my life, but that does not fully negate the risk to him.
I notice other no-limits slaves on the boards, btw. They get my attention, I watch and read their posts. We choose friendships with people that are like us - not only with those people, I like a variety of opinions and friends. But we do seek out others who live life somewhat like us, to reaffirm our grip on reality, in spite of all those who are about to tell me how crazy I truly am. (save your breath, i know how crazy I am. I have been officially sanctioned and certified as crazier than your average bedbug.)




Loveisallyouneed -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 6:55:56 AM)

Brilliant essay, Stella.

I only had one problem with it:

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b

And this is precisely the problem with YKINOK. If we are talking about something going on between two consenting adults, two adults who know each other, trust each other, who are aware of what they are doing, and who know the other person a bit more than a couple of meetings over coffee or a few exchanged e-mails, where is the risk of harm? Provided of course that there is complete honesty, trust, clear open communication, and that there is no permanent or long lasting physical, emotional or psychological damage caused to one or both parties involved.



First, I challenge the notion that an absence of risk or harm is always desirable by all right-thinking people. For a lot of us, risk is an exciting and essential element. There is no challenge to overcome if there is no risk.

As for your proviso, I agree that all of these ingredients are essential, but what I question is who should be the judge of such matters, and what specific criteria would you apply to define terms like "emotional damage", "psychological damage", or "long lasting". Even "long lasting physical damage" can have a wide range of interpretations, depending upon the vanilla-ness of the judge.

Otherwise I'm in agreement with you.




Loveisallyouneed -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 7:06:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: chamberqueen

I thought that this was a fascinating question:  Is there anything that is not ok?

If I was writing to rulebook, having a session where either top or bottom was out of control (from anger, alcohol, drugs, mental disease, etc.) would be banned. 


What about a sub/slave out of control with love/lust?

quote:


Knowingly having unprotected sex while carrying an STD or AIDS would also be outlawed. 


Unless between people who are all already infected.

quote:


Most things are up to the participants, but anything couched in lies is morally reprehensible.


Half the fun of sensory deprivation is encouraging the sub/slave to believe she has been abandoned.

quote:


Should there be BDSM police?  Impratical.  Even dungeon masters are hated if they step in when they believe there may be a problem.  It would be nice if there was some type of database where people could look up a user's name and see whether that person has done untrustworthy things but it's simply not available.


Are we dispensing with moral ethics such as "innocent till proven guilty by a court of peers", legal representation, the right to confront one's accusers, etc?

Any idea how many subs and slaves would be listed because thousands would accuse them of being "fakes"?

Threatening to put someone on the black list could be seen as a form of coercion.

But this is exactly what YKINOK advocates: a kangaroo court where one is judged by his/her popularity, not upon certifiable facts.

"Impractical", no, all it takes is a website and a willingness to face lawsuit for libel.

But it is damned unethical, nonetheless.




Loveisallyouneed -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 7:16:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tsatske

quote:

Oh but I get it all the time: two consenting adults developing their own brand of bdsm without consulting or obtaining permission from the 'local bdsm community'.


And, here on collarme, that action, the action of that consent, is a very not okay thing. I have been told flat out that anyone who engages in that behavior - in that kind of blanket consent - needs to be institutionalized.



And because they can't rid themselves of you by institutionalizing you, they resort to marginalizing you, ridicule, insults, any form of nasty anti-social behaviour to convince you to leave.

They personalize it. It is no longer about the kink. It is about you advocating your kink merely by existing in a public venue.

A kangaroo court is held, frequently if you don't get the hint.

And they paint themselves as heroes saving the poor newbie sub/slave from bad ideas advocated by bad/crazy people.




RCdc -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 7:22:57 AM)

Hmmm... I don't know.
There is no kink that bothers me at all so I say - y'all do whatever if its all making ya happy.
 
The 'I don't know' however means that if I believe all kink under the stipulations you mentioned are ok, then by that, I have to accept those people who's kink it is to tell people their kink is not ok.
 
Ah the tangled webs we weave![;)]
 
the.dark.




CreativeDominant -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 7:49:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

Brilliant essay, Stella.

I only one problem with it:

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b

And this is precisely the problem with YKINOK. If we are talking about something going on between two consenting adults, two adults who know each other, trust each other, who are aware of what they are doing, and who know the other person a bit more than a couple of meetings over coffee or a few exchanged e-mails, where is the risk of harm? Provided of course that there is complete honesty, trust, clear open communication, and that there is no permanent or long lasting physical, emotional or psychological damage caused to one or both parties involved.



First, I challenge the notion that an absence of risk or harm is always desirable by all right-thinking people. For a lot of us, risk is an exciting and essential element. There is no challenge to overcome if there is no risk.

As for your proviso, I agree that all of these ingredients are essential, but what I question is who should be the judge of such matters, and what specific criteria would you apply to define terms like "emotional damage", "psychological damage", or "long lasting". Even "long lasting physical damage" can have a wide range of interpretations, depending upon the vanilla-ness of the judge.


Actually, while there may be a wide range of interpretations, the standard for physical damage is any impairment of the function that was there before.  If...before suspension...your submissive could abduct her arm 90 degrees and then, during suspension, you deliberately do something that puts that limb in a compromised position that leaves it, after suspension and a reasonable term of therapy, unable to be abducted beyond 45 degrees (or 60 or 30, anything less than 90), then you have caused permanent physical damage.  Psychological damage is best interpreted by a battery of tests administered by licensed psychiatrists/psychologists but it too can be determined.
My question would be...why would you want to go there? 
Yes...vanilla people do things every day that could be interpreted as insane by someone.  Jumping out of airplanes (raises my hand), riding motorcycles (raises my hand), racing hot rods (raises my hand again), going to see a doctor, etc., etc., etc..  But these are all things that we choose to do on our own.  And except for going to the doctor, what happens to us...or does not...is largely due to our own skill and expertise.  If it can be found after an accident that it was due to the chute malfunctioning or to a faulty tire on the cycle...as examples...the manufacturer can be sued.  In the case of going to the doctor...well, that is the closest analogy to BDSM play.  A person decides they want to have a procedure done.  They go to a doctor and the doctor concurs.  The doctor has them sign an "Informed Consent" form explaining all that can go wrong with said procedure.  Something does go wrong.  How often do you suppose it is proven in court conclusively that the doctor did nothing wrong versus how many times the doctor just settles or he is proven to have been wrong?  But in BDSM, you can have informed consent up the wazoo and have something go wrong and who does the submissive sue?  The dominant who hurt her?  And would the dominant then offer up the defense of "but she knew the risks going in and still consented to it"?  As you yourself noted, how well do you suppose that would stand with a judge? 
Perhaps it is not a matter of whether or not you CAN go there, it is a matter of logic and common sense dictating whether or not you should go there.
This is why I also disagree with the idea of "consenting to be killed".  Sorry...in my opinion, anyone consenting to be killed in this sort of play is NOT operating with a full deck and since I believe that murder is wrong and that suicide-by-another is wrong...and they are definitely illegal...then they would be examples of YKINOK.  And, whether it be due to ethics or scientific reasoning, any activity that holds a greater than acceptable risk...you KNOW that the likelihood is more that they will than that they won't (and if you cannot decide that, then again, why are you even going there?)... that someone will be left physically/psychologically/emotionally harmed forever is not O.K..  And finally, the idea of consenting while sober to playing while intoxicated by alcohol or other, stronger mind-altering drugs...where a person loses control of their inhibitions and their ability to function at a normal level...is not okay.






MadRabbit -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 8:03:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

My questions: What BDSM activities are always wrong .. not for just for you but for anyone?


I'm not a true believer in anything and I don't agree with the idea that an activity can always be wrong. It really comes down to context and the individuals involved.

Someone might find being pissed on and called a "slut" to be the most erotic and wonderful thing in the world, but the next person could experience the act, not be able to process it right on a mental level and take a huge blow to their self esteem.

The examples of YKINOK that we typically see on Internet message boards usually are the product of people taking a kink or an activity and cramming it into one context with certain parameters and then attempting to apply that as a universal truth.

Corporeal punishment is the same as spousal abuse.

Humiliation play lowers the self esteem.

The Daddy/daughter dynamic and play is an outlet and haven for pedophiles.

While these things might be true in certain scenarios and are probably happening somewhere in the world, it's silly to think they are the universal scenario for everyone.

I am as guilty as anyone when it came to the whole "No Limit" thing. I had my opinions on it and they were the "right and absolute" opinions. Luckily, some private discussions with ownedgirlie slowly led me to think of things in a different way and see how myopic I was being.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
Is there an activity within BDSM which if engaged in by someone you would believe them to need mental health therapy?


Depends on the context. If I thought that behavior was pathological and self destructive, I would recommend they talk to someone. People consent to destructive behaviors all the time. Alcohol abuse, substance abuse, self mulitlation... By the legalized notion of sanity/insanity, they have "free will" in these scenarios and are therefore making a choice to do these things, but just because they consent to it doesn't make it any less "unhealthy".

Take smoking, for example. The other day I saw a 19 year old smoke his first cigarette. He was fully informed of all the health risks and problems associated with smoking. He knew all the facts. He made a consensual choice to smoke his first cigarette without any influence from addiction. Despite all these factors, however, smoking is still a "destructive" behavior and therefore can logically be deduced as "bad" or "wrong".

At the end of the day, people can have all the information and free will and they will still make bad decisions. At the same time, we can only do so much to try and save them from themselves. I can spend everyday trying to make this kid see the light about smoking and probably won't have any impact. Finally two years from now, when he has a pack and a half a day habit, yellow teeth, and can't run 100 yards, he might finally hit himself on the head and go "Wow, this is really dumb".

I'm all about informed consent, but just because they are completely informed and make a choice doesn't negate that the behavior or activity can still be harmful to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
Would you deem a dominant who engages in the activity to be automatically abusive despite the consent?


Once again, it depends on the context. I think that people can easily consent to destructive behaviors, I also think that just because its consensual doesn't automatically negate it as a form of abuse. For example, if someone were to repeatedly consent to something unhealthy for them from a place of weakness such as low self esteem or a desire to degrade themselves and the other person were to accept that consent when they knew fully well that what they were doing was having negative effects on the person's overall mental healthy, that would come off to me as "abusive" or at the very least "careless" and "irresponsible".

If consent negated abuse, then abusive relationships and spousal abuse couldn't logically exist. If someone is consenting to stay in the relationship with obvious knowledge of what the partner has been doing to them, then how could it be abuse?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
If someone were engaging in a practice which you deem is wrong for them, would you point this out online? In person?
ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

Never online, but if I thought somebody close to me was doing something unhealthy for them and I felt I knew enough about the scenario for that conclusion to be educated, then I would point it out.

Internet correspondence simply doesn't provide enough information. Psychiatrists spend weeks getting to know patients before making a diagnosis. It's a bit silly to think that I could do it in three paragraphs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
Would you consider someone calling YKINOK to be wearing a BDSM Police Badge and is it okay for someone to wear that badge?


It depends on the context. In the contexts listed above on Internet message boards, yes, I would consider such close-minded condemnation to be the BDSM Police Badge and I won't consider it to be okay.

I would probably wonder who exactly these Internet entities think they are....




Loveisallyouneed -> RE: BDSM Activities: YKINOK (4/21/2008 8:10:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

since I believe ... then they would be examples of YKINOK.



Exactly.

Personal prejudice dictates YKINOK.

It is not an objective judgment, but purely subjective.

There isn't even an objective way of determining exactly what the risk is for any potential outcome, as accidents, if any, are vastly under-reported.

So we are imagining what the odds are of any given risk actually occurring, not taking into account the individuals who are actively involved and their awareness/ability in managing those risks.

Regarding your example of assisted-suicide, I will point out that the state of Oregon approved this, last I recall (tho' I stipulate the conditions for approval are quite stringent and would exclude anything conjured by Leatherist's example).

While I personally would not participate, what if someone with terminal cancer wanted to go out in a blaze of glory instead of slowly suffering in a hospital bed till the end?

Assuming, as dictated by the OP, that the individual was competent and consenting, what would be the legitimate objection by outsiders?

NOTE: I in no way advocate anyone end their life, or the life of another. I raise this as a matter of intellectual honesty only.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125