Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Defineing "predator" to be banned in the scene


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Defineing "predator" to be banned in the scene Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Defineing "predator" to be banned in the ... - 5/27/2008 8:20:19 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
I spoke reasonably to those who were being unreasonable, and finally reminded the 'powers that be' of my precondition to accepting anything even vaguly resembling a leadership role...'Do not involve me in these games'... 
I withdrew from the board (but not the group or community), and kept my support by showing up to every event I could.
And every time someone would bring up the latest conflict, I would repeat 'Do not involve me in those games'.
It was a couple of years before I even found out why the couple that 'everyone thought highly of' was suddenly no longer around.

And so far, the more I focus on friendships, helping out when and where I can, getting to know people better, and avoiding drama, the better I like 'the scene'.

As far as the poaching issue, it is not unique to any one place, and I've seen the very people who shouldn't be allowed  near newbies offer to be part of the 'welcoming comittee' as 'mentors'.  It was dealt with quietly and behind the scenes by, as Michael said, people with integrity... not by holding hearings on rules violations.






(in reply to LuckyAlbatross)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Defineing "predator" to be banned in the ... - 5/27/2008 9:08:32 PM   
gypsygrl


Posts: 1471
Joined: 10/8/2005
From: new york state
Status: offline
I need to begin with a series of qualifications...

I don't think it's necessary to decide on how to define  'predator'.   Its really not relevant to the issues you've raised for discussion and raises so many side issues, it just distracts from a productive conversation.  Additionally, the whole idea that someone could be 'banned from the scene' is kind of silly to me as it assumes some kind of organized, governing body that has the power to decide who is able to be kinky.  There isn't a person or group of people with that kind of power, and there's no institutional framework to support that kind of power.  The most anyone can do is refuse someone the ability to participate in the activities of this or that group.   Finally, and this is the end of my qualifications, at one time not too long ago, I was banned from all the groups in my area.  I'm sure that's important information and influences my take on this issue. 

quote:

But what about the following

* Asks the dominant repeatedly to play with doms partner and refused, then starts approaching submissive? (no is supposed to mean no, some leeway but at some point this is harassment right?)
* Touching. This is difficult, slack must be given to newbies but at what point is the line drawn? Clearly someone who does it often should be thrown out but where is the grey area?
* Violates boundaries? To me this is easy, if someone either gets violated frequently or violates frequently, they are not ready. In fact the only person I have thrown out was a submissive who always seemed to get her limits violated. If that happened today I would probably require her to negotiate prior to any play AND have a third party sit in on those negotiations.
* Violates scene boundaries - this is tricky as some people SET poor scene boundaries, there is always the little clique that plays with each other and wanders in and out of their scene. Newbies often mistake that for permission and enter the scene at which point the drama ensues as they become indignant. That I can forgive, for ME, what drives me nuts are people who talk loudly near quiet scenes but that isn't a high crime.



These are the really hard ones

* Personal relationships are filled with drama - I was guilty of this, I ripped out a few hearts, one went gay I think and another I know moved out of state. At what point is someone to broken to allow in? I certainly was in some ways but at the same time I have grown immensely due to being in the scene.
* Goes after fresh meat-I tend to end up with partners who are new to the scene although my last had been in longer than I had. Where is the line past which that behavior is predatory?


In deciding how to deal with people doing these kinds of things, I would look for a combination of eye-brow raising behaviors repeated over a period of time.  Any single one of the behaviors might be explained away but if enough are present, and enough people have actually witnessed the problematic behaviors, there could well be cause for concern.  This is intentionally vague, because the tolerance level for various behaviors is going to depend on the individual group in question.  Small, close knit groups where everybody knows each other and rarely gets new members are going to be very different from large open groups that have people coming in and out all the time.

As far as how to deal with the person...I have only one suggestion: talk to them, not about them.  Do it quietly and discreetly then decide what action to take, preferably in conversation with them.  


_____________________________

“To be happy is to be able to become aware of oneself without fright.” ~Walter Benjamin


(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Defineing "predator" to be banned in the ... - 5/27/2008 9:28:19 PM   
Emperor1956


Posts: 2370
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline
FR:  Michael, I think its simple.  Two broad rules for two settings.  First, for public events:   Adhere strictly to the law.  Second, for private events:  My house, my rules.   Let me elaborate:

Second rule is easy -- If I'm sponsoring the event, in my home, or a private setting, then I will decide who I invite and what behaviors will be allowed.  If I'm a guest at a private event, then my host/hostess has the right to make those decisions.  Unequivocally.  If I disagree I may vote with my feet.  To do otherwise is to be rude.

The first rule is a bit tougher, but not really.   STICK TO THE EXTERNALLY IMPOSED RULES.  Those that break those rules (or any one of them) are kicked out.  You will find that you needn't evaluate character, watch play for signs of abusive behavior, or get inside anyone's head.   Over 18 (or 21 if appropriate in your jurisdiction).   No sales/use of alcohol (which is prohibited by most license laws).  No drugs.   Depending on where you play, there may be restrictions on nudity, on sharing/spilling fluids, on penetration.  Unfortunately for those that love that sort of play, the DMs or hosts of the party should still enforce the rules.  I might make an addendum and screen out registered sex offenders as discussed above.  But otherwise, in a public venue, you have the venue well managed, you have access to security, and you let people in.  This is really no different than the rules at a concert, or at most bars.

My point is simple:  if you stick to the letter of the law in public play parties, you will find that you screen out most of the problems.  Granted, you might not get the sociopathic abuser/murderer who is stalking your group for her next victim -- but I bet your screening techniques won't catch that one either.  If someone is abusive, dangerous or just plain bad acting, and you and the other sponsors of the event see that behavior, you are free to tell him or her never to come back.  But absent actual bad behavior right in your face, I am very chary about country-club style blackballing on who may and may not attend an event.

E.

_____________________________

"When you wake up, Pooh," said Piglet, "what's the first thing you say?"
"What's for breakfast? What do you say, Piglet?"
"I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting today?"
Pooh nodded thoughtfully.
"It's the same thing," he said.

(in reply to gypsygrl)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Defineing "predator" to be banned in the ... - 5/28/2008 2:52:07 AM   
julietsierra


Posts: 1841
Joined: 9/26/2004
Status: offline
To me, a predator can't be defined by what he or she does on a given night. It's not about them coming to a party drunk or meeting the new people or even having drama in their relationships and lives. Those are the things that tend to blur the discussions of this topic all the time. And let me say right up front that yes, a predator can't be defined as just a male dominant. Predators exist on all sides of the D/s fence. They are male; they are female. They are dominant and they are submissive and everything in between. Often they can be counted on to always be around to help when it comes to whatever needs to be done, thus creating good will with those who would have the power to kick or ban them from whatever they are attending. Lines get blurry, y'know?

But the one thing a predator can't hide is his or her resume. To me, a predator has a very long resume. In our case here, when you sit in a room full of women and every single person in that room can relate that they've had problems with that person - some of it dating back 10 years (meaning that for 10 years, they've continued to have problems with that person that they've tried time and again to resolve, both on their own, by going to their dominants and by going to those who host the parties and events in which he hunts and are still fighting that fight.), then it's time to stop making excuses for behavior and start recognizing that there is probably a SIGNIFICANT problem.

The biggest problem is that as a whole, people don't like doing this stuff. Dominant or submissive, we don't like the possible rifts taking a stand can cause. No one really wants the fight or the drama. So, we all stick our heads in the sand, fall back on the old "there is more than one truth" excuses and do nothing. We hope that "he'll get the message this time" even though experience tells us that he won't. We look for people who genuinely do like him (and he will always have those who do.) and use that as an excuse to not get involved. We look for anything we can so that we don't have to do what's distasteful to us. (I mean, we will, but it still doesn't make it any more palatable.) And "we" means the hosts, the dominants, and anyone else who typically seems like he or she can effect change as well as the submissives this is happening to. None of us is exempt.) And yes, as submissives, we've all heard the additional recommendations to "speak up. Stand up for yourself.. Let him know how you feel."  We have done that - repeatedly, to no avail.

But I can tell you what one such predator has accomplished around here. He has a VERY long resume. If anyone around here even obliquely says anything at all regarding their experiences with this person, every other person they're talking to can and does respond, "you mean _____?" And they are dead on every single time. In this situation, the person is a dominant. This person has accomplished what few, if any before him have ever accomplished. He's united many of the submissives so that we now finally watch each other's backs. For the first time in a very long time, the submissives around here are angry, and we're angry beyond words.

We are angry enough that now, everyone watches him and makes no bones about interfering when he acquires a new target. We are angry enough that now, we are speaking up loudly and often when things happen - even if they don't happen to us - and we're willing to do this as a group. We've reached the stage where we're willing to take the heat because no one else will. And we are not willing to be polite or respectful in how we do this anymore. We've figured out that this person uses the fact that for the most part we do try to be polite and respectful in our dealings with others against us and we're not buying this anymore. Nor are we buying the whole speel about cliques and the propensity to wrongly accuse. When an entire room of women is angry because they all have personal accounts of their unwanted interactions with this person, we're done buying the company line about "two truths" and "he's not here to defend himself." We've finally realized that in regard to our own perception of safety, the only truth we're concerned with is the one that gives us some respite from this person.

What's been interesting is that since he got wind of our intentions, he's become a lot more aware of the fact that people are watching him. He's toned down what he does and has become a bit less "intrusive." And no, this person's actions are not limited to just being what might be considered socially inept. They run a LOT deeper than that. This in turn has made the events we attend more comfortable. However, we're under no illusions. He's been down this road before and leopards don't change their spots. But for now, things appear to be better. 

In rhe end, around here, how people are dealing with someone they consider to be a predator now is that right or wrong, we're making sure his actions are noticed and we're making sure he knows they are. (And yes, I know this way leaves him open to attack even when one time it might not be warranted, but doing nothing has left us with nothing else to do.)

More than anything, we just wish he'd leave us alone.

juliet

< Message edited by julietsierra -- 5/28/2008 3:01:43 AM >

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Defineing "predator" to be banned in the ... - 5/28/2008 3:39:13 AM   
ExSteelAgain


Posts: 1803
Joined: 7/2/2006
From: Georgia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael
Frankly, I went to a party many years ago and BROUGHT drama with me that seriously screwed up what would have been a great event.


Imagine that...Michael bringing drama .

Seriously, your rules work well enough, except the point that Tigress picked up on about the guy who "fucks them up." Some guys have an outgoing personality and are able to come onto new people easily. Even though I'm much different than that, it's to their advantage and they shouldn't be slammed because of it. Maybe I'm a little jealous that they can come onto strangers so easily and I can't, but I wouldn't judge them in a negative way for that ability.

If such a Dom is doing something wrong in his personal relationships that is a matter for friends and acquaintenances to discuss with him and his partners, but not a matter for club rules. If the dominant is nice enough in the club and following your other rules, who is to judge what actually happens in his relationships?

If he breaks a heart or two, that's life, living and loving.

< Message edited by ExSteelAgain -- 5/28/2008 3:41:51 AM >


_____________________________

You can paint a cinder block bright pastel pink, but it's still a cinder block. (By Me.)

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Defineing "predator" to be banned in the ... - 5/28/2008 6:11:41 AM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline
I guess I wasn't clear enough or people just were intent on hearing what I said however they wanted to.

The things I posted were not the rules I proposed, they were topics for discussion.  I wanted to see WHERE people drew the lines on such issues and if they had other issues they felt a line should be drawn.

(in reply to ExSteelAgain)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Defineing "predator" to be banned in the ... - 5/28/2008 6:28:17 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

quote:

If we collectively had the stones to call these assholes on their bullshit and cut them OFF-there would be a great deal less of it going on. 


Setting aside the "one true way" objections and the "two sides to every story" truth, I have some questions about what standards groups should use to ban members.

Obviously someone who does any of the following
  • Storing body parts of ex lovers in refrigerators




Does that mean ANY bodyparts?  Even the minor ones that they'll never miss?

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Defineing "predator" to be banned in the ... - 5/28/2008 7:33:56 AM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

These things go past simply maintaing basic order in a social enviroment and move into policing and monitoring adult interactions.

They do indeed.  However, given that many of the interactions within a BDSM-oriented social environment might have an appearance of conduct that would be illegal in a vanilla environment, some level of policing becomes inevitable--either by group members or by actual policemen with badges, guns, and news crews in tow.



Fair enough. I'll agree with that if it's a play party and the issues stem from public play, but not when the issues are stemming from a private interpersonal relationship and private activities that are just spilling over into the group via drama.

I mostly attend munches when I go out and things I do happen in my own personal relations and are done in private. Someone who approached me and attempted to intervene in those affairs to moderate would get a shoe up their ass.

I would take a large degree of offense if a group I attended simply to socialize peacefully attempted to interject a degree of authority over MY "buisness".


But private issues spilling over into a group setting is one of those areas that rules (or guidelines) if you will are meant to address.  You can see it as a public setting and in a way, it is...but having rules in place also reminds people that this is a PRIVATE setting also and that the other members of the group are dues-paying members who have come to this group because their fees buys them into a certain physical setting and membership in a group in which the rules have made it clear what sort of behavior is expected of them and what they can expect to find. 

If you have a couple who constantly plays out their little dramas within the confines of a private club, then you need to consider things from an economic standpoint as well as from any other standpoint:  How long before the dues-paying members who follow the rules and enjoy the club because the rules are enforced and thus gives them access to other like-minded individuals become upset and disappointed by the fact that one couple acting out their drama can adversely affect their own headspace because they are allowed to get away with it because it is "their" business?  If it truly is their business and they want other people out of it, then have the courtesy to NOT bring it to the club, have the maturity to realize that you can't have it both ways...the "right" to force your business on others in a paid-for setting while expecting the "right" to not have them "invade" your business..., have the humility to understand that while at your home your rules are what count but that elsewhere, group standards are what apply.  If you don't like those standards, either work in the appropriate way to change them or form your own group.

(in reply to MadRabbit)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Defineing "predator" to be banned in the ... - 5/28/2008 8:07:25 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

The things I posted were not the rules I proposed, they were topics for discussion. I wanted to see WHERE people drew the lines on such issues and if they had other issues they felt a line should be drawn.


Speaking for myself, I prefer fewer rules, simpler rules, and a general reluctance towards banning/blackballing/blacklisting.  The broad rule of thumb for individuals in a group setting should be "Don't be excessively annoying, and don't be excessively annoyed."

Should I be hosting a party or other event, the rule would be the same as I apply to all my guests:  Don't disrespect my place, my furniture, my person, or my other guests.  Anyone not able to adhere to this basic guideline needs to leave.


_____________________________



(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Defineing "predator" to be banned in the ... - 5/28/2008 11:05:31 AM   
ExSteelAgain


Posts: 1803
Joined: 7/2/2006
From: Georgia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

I guess I wasn't clear enough or people just were intent on hearing what I said however they wanted to.

The things I posted were not the rules I proposed, they were topics for discussion.  I wanted to see WHERE people drew the lines on such issues and if they had other issues they felt a line should be drawn.



Okay, if we are defining what the rules should be, I think your first two groups are okay and backed by common sense. The last group I don't buy because it is judgmental and amounts to subjective blacklisting.

Keep in mind your statement about porn being hard to define but easy to spot was made by a Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart, who later recounted that view.

Predator is as nebulous a term as is porn. If someone breaks a specific rule kick them out, but don't do it because one or two people have said something about them....unless that is a rule your group has. Anyway, that's how I would handle it.

_____________________________

You can paint a cinder block bright pastel pink, but it's still a cinder block. (By Me.)

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Defineing "predator" to be banned in the ... - 5/28/2008 11:47:57 AM   
BlackPhx


Posts: 3432
Joined: 11/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956

FR:  Michael, I think its simple.  Two broad rules for two settings.  First, for public events:   Adhere strictly to the law.  Second, for private events:  My house, my rules.  E.


One of the best explanations I have seen in this entire thread. Ultimately we have to remember "One man's meat is another man's poison." The dynamics of a relationship, a type of play etc may not meet your criteria. We have seen that time and again on this board where people have been "squicked" by things others do or by pictures.

Play party rules are simplest set. The hosts set them, the attendees follow them or leave.

Club rules are also simple and many clubs post them visibly everywhere as well as have DM's ready to intervene. The first and foremost of the Common rules is "No means No". That rule applies in clubs, and in the law. Once the word No has been said to indicate the person is not interested..it stops.  No..this is not to say that the word No is not usually substituted for something else in a Club, usually Red, Yellow and Green, but call out Red and everything stops. Some clubs you can  buy Drink at, some are BYOB, some are Dry. It depends on the club, but you can count on it, if someone is drunk and out of control they are also out the door. Personally, when the drinking starts, I stop playing. I am happy with my body parts where they are and won't play when either of us have been drinking.

We have to remember how nearly everything we do looks to the vanilla world. I may love to have the back of my neck gripped..to someone not in the know, they may take it as me being forced to do something. We are proud of our bruises and marks, to an outsider, they are signs of either really bad sports days or abuse. So cool we remember how it looks to Aunt Bea but forget how it can also look to Uncle Fester.

My Kink is Not Your Kink, But as Long as Our Partners are Happlily Involved and No One is Getting Dead, Who am I to Tell You that Your Kink is Wrong and Vice Versa.

Invariably it seems that every group ends up forgetting this and implodes. Most often it seems to happen when Dominants try to tell other Dominants what to do by imposing rules they didn't agree to. Each wants to lead or if not lead, don't want to follow the one who is leading. I watch Hells Kitchen and laugh each week at the televised example of this. The dominance struggles are hilarious, often unconscious and it's usually the stealth Switch who lasts to the very end. Unfortunately that doesn't always seem to happen in Groups so they implode, usually around the 2nd year mark.

So back to One Man's Meat... How do we define a Predator? Outside of legal definitions we really can't, the best we can possibly do is say to someone who ASKS, So and So is an Edge Player, Rack, SSC from what I have seen and heard, but you have to negotiate what you want with them. You can tell them to check backgrounds IF you know there is something in there, like a restraining order, arrest for stalking or abuse, but you can't negotiate for anyone except yourself. You can keep an eye on a friend and be there if something goes awry, but realistically, the person who is right for me, may seem to be an abuser to someone else or vice versa. I think we pretty much have to stick to the legal definition of Predator and not try to label for ourselves. If you don't like the way someone plays, don't let them in the club or inviote them to your party.

poenkitten

(in reply to Emperor1956)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Defineing "predator" to be banned in the ... - 5/28/2008 12:31:34 PM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

If you don't like the way someone plays, don't let them in the club or invite them to your party.


This seems far stricter and more controlling than anything I have mentioned, why do you see doing that as less restrictive and or more fair?  To me it screams "your kink is not okay".

quote:

  The broad rule of thumb for individuals in a group setting should be "Don't be excessively annoying, and don't be excessively annoyed."


Annoying to who and how?  Again, this seems FAR more arbitrary and judgemental than anything I spoke of.

(in reply to BlackPhx)
Profile   Post #: 72
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Defineing "predator" to be banned in the scene Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.125