quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed


And the fact they do not choose to object is proof to you they cannot object?
 
Just what battery of psychological tests are you running to determine whether this is true?
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed


And the fact they do not choose to object is proof to you they cannot object?
 
Just what battery of psychological tests are you running to determine whether this is true?
 

Google Stockholm Syndrome, Patty Hearst, Tokyo Rose, etc. The inability of abused to make healthy choices is well known. Consult any women's shelter professional to learn more.

quote:

On further thought, just which "women's shelter professional" would not make that assumption regarding any female sub/slave? Certainly to them choosing to be chained, whipped, etc is indicative of abuse no mattter how often a woman denies it: Battered Spouse Syndrome.

quote:

What BDSM activities are always wrong

quote:

ORIGINAL: tsatske

quote:

On further thought, just which "women's shelter professional" would not make that assumption regarding any female sub/slave? Certainly to them choosing to be chained, whipped, etc is indicative of abuse no mattter how often a woman denies it: Battered Spouse Syndrome.

LIAYN,
In every town I have ever lived in, I have sought out the women's abuse hotline and tried to volunteer. I tell them that I am a submissive woman active in the leather community. I know I could just volunteer and not tell them that, but that misses the point of why I want to volunteer, which i try to explain when i attempt to volunteer.
The simple fact is, there is such a thing as domestic abuse in the Leather community. But if a woman ( or partner) gets to the point of reaching out for help, and calls the Domestic Abuse Hotline, they are not going to get any real help, that they can process and use.
The person on the phone is going to say, 'are you being hit? does he say mean things to you? well, then, that is abuse' But the caller knows that is not true. They know you can be hit and called a slut and all sorts of other things, and not have it be abuse. So they hang up no closer to making a decision than they were when they called, having gotten no help.
The truth is, if you are asking yourself, 'Am I being abused?' the answer is probably yes. But if people could process that simple fact on their own, we wouldn't need hotlines to help them. What those women need is someone to listen while they sort through for themselves that they are being abused, and decide to leave.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

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.

Hey Bob...if you are going to quote me, then don't take me out of context to prove your point.  The full quote was this...
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. 

Please take note of the portion I have put into bold.  That is an OBJECTIVE statement, not subjective and it is that portion of the statement, more than my subjective feelings about it, that would rule it out for me or anyone I am about to observe doing it or anyone I hear of doing it.

The premise for your statements was your belief. The legality of the actions was pulled in as support for your prejudice.

quote:

Not many years ago sodomy was "illegal". Did that make sodomists bad, or was the law stupid to begin with?

quote:

Oregon has made assisted suicide "legal". Does that change your position in any way?

quote:

Is it your position that people should be kept alive by all medical methods available even if every moment of their life is filled with excrutiating agony and all they want to do is die? Who would you have to be to condemn another person to a fate worse than death?

quote:

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.

quote:

non sequitor, totally off the topic.

quote:


Now...for most activities in BDSM, I will say this...you are right in stating that I have absolutely no idea what you are capable of given that there is no licensing board for dominants or submissives.  None whatsoever.  I have only your word that you are good at what you do or even expert at what you do.  That still does not stop me from stating this:  when it comes down to killing someone, whether it be murder or death-by-another as some sort of BDSM play...whether or not the one asking it to be done or wanting to do it is in full possession of their mental faculties...it is still illegal.  Now, if a submissive wants to trust you to tie them up, shit on them, leave them staked to the ground until fire ants come to clean up the defecation and bite the submissive until she is sick...then hey, not MY thing but if the odds are in her favor (she won't die due to exposure or some unknown allergy to fire ant bites or whatever), then go for it.

quote:

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).

quote:

Yeah...quite stringent.  The reason for the suicide have to be proven and deemed to be medically viable reasons and it has to be done at the direction of a doctor.  Hardly fits most BDSM play scenes, does it?

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?

quote:

Then, quite frankly, they should have the balls to do it without involving someone else in it that will be left to face the consequences of either having to defend themselves against, at best assisted suicide and at worst, murder.

So any compassionate individual who helped a loved one terminate his/her life is helping someone be a coward?

Again Bob, I was referencing suicide-by-another under the guise of BDSM play.  I was not referring to helping a loved one dying of a terminal disease to go out in a loving way.  And again, as long as it is illegal, then no...I won't do it personally but I would do everything within legal means to see that it is done.  Given my profession and my 25 years of helping people, whether they could afford it or not, your inference that I am less than compassionate is laughable...and a snide insult.

quote:

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

quote:

The legitimate objection would be the law.  Like it or not, Bob...we are governed by them.  And until they change the laws, the legitimate objections remain.  Scientifically, the objection would be that we do not have the legitimacy to determine whether or not this is something the person wants in the long term or is seeking in a moment of desperation.  That is why Oregon has panels of medical ethics experts to determine this.  Some, perhaps fuzzier in terms of legitimacy, objection would be the fact that, morally, we have no right to strip another of life...whether they ask us to or not. 

And those who disagree on moral grounds? Not so very long ago black people were enslaved, by law, for life with no hope of escape short of their owner's manumission. Did the law make this practice right?

If you wish to argue the law is always the final arbiter of morality, that is up to you. But there are far too many cases when the law merely enacted the personal prejudices of the majority, and in no way reflected a morality we would uphold today. Arguments against suicide, and assisted suicide, find their justifications in a religious book. If I do not subscribe to the religion, why should I feel morally bound to laws designed by politicians to placate a religious sect and thus earn their votes in future elections?

Is that the model of moral argument to be used to determine right from wrong: religious might makes right?

Personally Bob, I don't care what ethics or morality you subscribe to.  Live according to the way you want to live, legally or illegally.  As long as you are prepared to face the consequences of disobeying those laws and fight to change those that you disagree with rather than whine about the rest of society judging/holding power/disagreeing with the poor, downtrodden minority, then more power to you.  Setting me or anyone else up as lacking compassion because I don't hold with your belief that assisted suicide is O.K. in any circumstances is just the "subbier than thou" argument.  The fact that I or anyone else would call something wrong for others when you would not does not make us wrong and you right...witness your own disbelief in punishment (as mentioned by MadRabbit).  I seem to recall a thread where you went on and on trying to convince others that your opinion was the right one and that the rest of us were wrong, though you were not judging us. 
You don't get to have it all ways, Bob. 

< Message edited by CreativeDominant -- 4/22/2008 8:05:05 AM >

(in reply to Loveisallyouneed)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
This statement more than anything makes me realize how much you pick and choose as you go through certain poster's thoughts, Bob. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: tsatske

LIAYN,
First, I appologize if my post left the impression that I was directly answering what i believed to be a misconception on your part. I held no impression that you felt that submissive women were never abused.
I happen to agree with you. To say that someone has stockholmes or any other complex medical diagnoises based on a couple of paragraphs you read about them is ludicrux. Makes you wonder why all those good doctors wasted 20 years of their life getting a degree, and then go spend hours in conversation, to determine something that any idoit can figure out, apparently, from a quick 5 minute chat with a third party.
And, yes, i have never managed to successfully volenteer at a womens hotline. And I am not confrontational, i am sweet and soft spoken and make every attempt not to be offensive, as i explain how much i think it is needed.
Many people would assume that I am incapable of making my own decisions. I am a mentally ill woman who choses to let someone beat on her, obviously i need someone to step in an make better decisions for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

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. 

Please take note of the portion I have put into bold.  That is an OBJECTIVE statement, not subjective and it is that portion of the statement, more than my subjective feelings about it, that would rule it out for me or anyone I am about to observe doing it or anyone I hear of doing it.

The premise for your statements was your belief. The legality of the actions was pulled in as support for your prejudice.

Interesting that you...who through so many posts on this thread alone has taken pains to state over and over again that others cannot know what is in another's mind and heart when they play should presume then to be able to do so with me...by stating that it is my feelings that are the premise with the legal portion pulled in to support my feelings even though I stated this:
That is an OBJECTIVE statement, not subjective and it is that portion of the statement, more than my subjective feelings about it, that would rule it out for me or anyone I am about to observe doing it or anyone I hear of doing it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

Not many years ago sodomy was "illegal". Did that make sodomists bad, or was the law stupid to begin with?

I've never stated that every law was good.  On the other hand, not every law is bad. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: CalifChick

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
This statement more than anything makes me realize how much you pick and choose as you go through certain poster's thoughts, Bob. 

Bingo. 

Cali

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Bob, at this point, you have proven my opinion...and others...that rather than discuss differences over the topic at hand, you go through a post and find those things you disagree with, whether they are relevant to the topic or not.

Rather than quote you so that we can go through the whole miasma again, I am going to state this:

Your pointing to Steel's post in reference to my statement about what I had said being backed more by the objective feelings of the law rather than my subjective feelings about the scene being played is nowhere near relevant.

Second, I do not hold the law up as an absolute standard.  As an objective standard, yes.  Do I knowingly break the law every time I lay my hand, my crop, my whatever on the submissive?  Yes, I do.  I am willing to face the consequences and I know that, objectively if not in my heart or soul or mind, I broke the objective standard of behavior for the community at large...the law.
When you find the country that is not governed by laws, then you go live there...please.  But you know, Bob...for some reason, and I could be entirely off-base here, I have the sneaking suspicion that for all your protest against "stupid and judgemental laws", those laws that avail you the freedom to do what you wish to do or that benefit you are "good" laws, are they not?  Consequences of living in a free society Bob...not everything I agree with within the way I am governed, either legally or by my professional ethics or my moral ethics, are you going to agree with.  That does not make me more judgemental than you or more wrong than you or morally inferior to you or less compassionate than you.  Do I think that society has a bunch of "nannyists" in positions of power?  Yes, I do...I think helmet laws are silly and nannyist, I think requiring an adult to have to buckle themselves into a vehicle to drive is silly and nannyist, I think that the government telling a parent whether or not they can smoke in their own house or car when children are present is silly and nannyist.  Is there a purpose behind those laws?  Sure.  One of the reasons is supposed to be on cutting down health care costs to the rest of the public so that there is less chance of someone being left brain-damaged when someone crashes their cycle into a tree or of someone's child contracting lung cancer because of the parents' smoking or of someone being left seriously maimed because they didn't use a seatbelt.  Has anyone here noticed their health care costs going down?  My belief...those people are adults, they make their choices and, if something goes wrong, they should have to face the consequences of it, including having to pay for their own care.  But our society is compassionate...we pay for it anyway, despite the laws that are in place.  But let me guess...you Bob, the great protector of the right to do whatever we want, wants the government to do exactly as I have described; not only put those laws into place but cover the financial consequences and resources for others' idiotic behavior.

I'm done with this.  I apologize to the OP for being drawn into something way off topic.