RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive

RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (Full Version)

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

Message

Leatherist -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/5/2008 10:35:03 PM)
Twisting things totally out of any realistic connection to the op, and then getting a laugh at the reactions?

Amaros -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/5/2008 10:46:14 PM)
To whom are you referring, I guess is the implicit second part of the question.

Leatherist -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/5/2008 10:48:05 PM)
No one in particular-does it really matter? It's only a message board.

Amaros -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/5/2008 10:53:07 PM)
Allrighty then.

Leatherist -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/5/2008 10:55:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros Allrighty then. People take this shit way too seriously. You can't save the world from it's own idiocy. All you can do is push it out of your own. But first, you have to recognize it for what it IS.

Amaros -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/5/2008 11:01:35 PM)
True, but there is a certain futile nobility in trying - call it my masochistic side. From a more personal standpoint, a few bad apples spoil the barrel.

Leatherist -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/5/2008 11:08:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros True, but there is a certain futile nobility in trying - call it my masochistic side. From a more personal standpoint, a few bad apples spoil the barrel. I try not to get all in an uproar over the drama of it all. Keeps the blood pressure down, and I have better things to do with my focus. Darwin rules. Fuck em-the gene pool can always use a good cleaning. [:D]

Amaros -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/5/2008 11:15:39 PM)
Irishmists Post is in some ways, just as harrowing, but as it is not immediately obvious her condition was terminal, I wouldn't necessarily expect anyone casually aquainted with her or her state of miond at the time to attempt to intervene - although I'm sure she probobly narrowly avoided the intervention of less casual aquaintences on several occasions. In her case, BDSM gave her a second chance and probobly saved her from eventual self destruction - the factor of explicit self destruction in such a calculated and bizzarre way as the case in question cannot help but arouse curiosity, even if it's only our vicarious, voyeuristic fascination with the darker aspects of human nature - that way lies madness, and I've got kids.

Leatherist -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/5/2008 11:27:11 PM)
Which is what makes mind fucks so fun.. That we probably will not-but that we COULD.

Amaros -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/6/2008 4:28:47 AM)
Yeah, and in in very real sense you actually hit that on the head: in terms of group selection values, that is the real danger - it's the ahor, the release of pure, unsublimated Dionysian energy, madness. The trick, in my opinion, is to pace yourself, I mean, we don't spend all our time fucking and the deep neurotic fear of uncontrolled sexual energy is mostly just that: a neurosis, you gotta sleep sometime. The psychosexual dynamic here though involves the erotophobic orthodoxy who are so addicted to ritualized behavior that they develop no internal controls through praxis or experience, so the danger of going over the edge is very real one for them, their ability to establish internal limits has atrophied - thus, under conditions of increasing social stress you often get orgies of violence - the late mid to late Eighties for example, the reaction formation to deeps seated identity issues (when not simply sheer desperation) triggered by the increasingly apparent psycopathic indifference of the mainstream political orthodoxy - it was much steeper recesssion than republicans will ever admit: then as now, people were being evicted from their homes, entire families of otherwise law abiding, tax paying citizens living in their cars, the whole winner/loser dichotomy - what chance did homie from the ghetto stand? At the same time, it was the era of the coke/crack whore, the Pussy posse, etc. and the sexual revolution took a bit of a misogynic turn. The debauchary of pre-war Germany is another example, and the choices in such a situation become pretty simple: fuck or fight - usually both, depending a lot probobly on how much uncompensated rage you're repressing, and levels of perception of inequality. Anyway, we're entering into another phase of the same stressors, republican policy right on schedule, and as GDP drops, the violence will rise - maybe the intervening period of relative stability and prosperity will help. Ironically, as might have occured to you, this rage can also be channeled into Dionysian sexual energy - it the reason the birthrate rises along with violence in stressed populations - WIIWD channels this aggression into mostly hedonic behaviors, and and is actually a pretty adaptive approach as it blows off steam while at the same time providing just enough social controls to keep that Dionysian energy sublimating into Apollonian cultural complexity and socialization, without all the adolescent ranking that goes on over on the orthodox side - which the weaker sex of course, gamely (mostly) takes the brunt of, but again, the mainstream BDSM community is pretty egalatarian with regard to gender roles, You can pretty much find whatever your comfort zone is somewhere. In any case the requirement under these conditions is to step down consumption, and sex is relatively inexpensive - the whole consumer dynamic centers on heightening sexual tension to the breaking point and then frustrating it in order to induce you into buying more toothpaste and deoderant - advertising and marketing has, to a large extent, replaced religion. That's my theory anyway, it's the mindless anoetic panic that really causes the shit to go south, and as I think everybody in here feels instinctively, the really dangers to themselves and others are the orthodoxy who ritually approve of the worst excesses of the most depraved psychopaths at the top of the formal Alpha hierarchy while making frantic noises about how everything is going to hell everytime somebody fucks their brains out. There will be those among us, of course, who see nothing but opportunity, so be it. But, it kind of bothers me when I see this sort of perverse voyeuristic psychological hedonism justified as individuality, even if I'm a big fan of perverse hedonosm in general, voyeuristic or otherwise - we, of all people, ought to be able to draw a line, however fascinating it might be to watch, and in short, I see this as a symptom. If it comes to that, I'm sure we could eat each other, although I should mention that insects are almost pure protein. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I've got nothing else to do at the moment.

rulemylife -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/7/2008 10:20:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Considering your approval of cannabilism I would have thought that calling you Hannibal would be the highest of compliments. You clearly have not been reading my posts, or perhaps simply not grasping what I have been saying. What I have said is that both the desire and the act can occur in rational people of sound mind but with values that differ from those prevalent in the west. And I have said that it is none of our business if anyone does so. Comments on my own preferences are irrelevant to the arguments presented. Regardless, I neither crave, nor value, your insincere compliment. Health, al-Aswad. Well, despite my vast intellectual inferiority, let's just assume I'm somewhere near your highly evolved intelligence. Can we do that, I mean just for shits and giggles? I understand very clearly the point you are trying to make. My point is the desire to do that level of harm to oneself or another is not what you try to portray euphemistically as a cultural difference. Rational people do not choose to harm themselves or others to the point of removing body parts, much less making a casserole with them.

rulemylife -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/7/2008 10:46:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hisannabelle quote: Second, there is just no evidence of any culture valuing amputation for any reason other than as a punishment, if anybody has ever heard of any culture anywhere, engaging in amputation for cosmetic or spiritual reasons, I'd be happy to hear about it - piercings, tattoos, even torture, etc., Penitentes, and other forms of ritual self mutilation, sure, but not amputation, and people do some pretty strange things to achieve spiritual states. greetings amaros, as i've already posted, on bmezine (which is a body mod website), there are people living in the modern western world who do amputation (including of the genitals) along with other forms of extreme body modification. i am most familiar with death and dying in buddhist practice, so here are some quotes: The passage describes how the bodhisattva, known in Japanese as Kiken, imbibed and painted his body with fragrant oils, wrapped himself in pure garments, and then set himself on fire. This act is praised as ‘‘the prime gift. Among the various gifts, it is the most honorable, the supreme.’’5 The Buddha S ´ a¯- kyamuni explains that if one seeking supreme enlightenment ‘‘can burn a finger or even a toe as an offering to a Buddha stu¯ pa, he shall exceed one who uses realm or walled city, wife or children, or even all the lands, mountains, forests, rivers, ponds, and sundry precious objects in the whole thousand-million world as offerings.’’6 This story from the Lotus provided the most common scriptural foundation for East Asian monks and nuns, from medieval to modern times, who lit themselves on fire as Buddhist offerings. - from "Passage to Fudaraku" by Moerman, in The Buddhist Dead, edited by Cuevas and Stone. Moerman's article is primarily concerned with the medieval Japanese monastic practice of weighing a boat with stones to drown oneself (known as the passage to Fudaraku), which was often a publicized and celebrated event, but also mentions other instances of ritual suicide as well as, as I quoted, instances where self-harm (often in the form of amputation or burning of fingers/limbs) was practiced but not suicide. In textual accounts of monks that appeared in collections of hagiographies under the rubric of self-immolation, we find a range of acts such as allowing insects to feed on one’s blood, slicing flesh from the body, and burning the fingers or arms. Not all of these necessarily resulted in death. - from "Fire and the Sword" by Benn, in The Buddhist Dead, edited by Cuevas and Stone. This article is primarily concerned with the politics of self-immolation in Buddhist China, but as the quote shows, also mentions instances of amputation, burning of fingers or limbs, and other forms self-harm that did not result in death. on page six of "Self-Immolation in Buddhist China" by Jan Yun-Hua, she mentions that after the 10th century, some changes in textual emphasis led to a growing tendency to replace immolation of the entire body with the sacrifice of an arm, a few fingers, or just one finger. This article is located in History of Religions vol. 4 no. 2 (Winter 1965) pp. 243-268 if you would like more sources regarding suicide in buddhist practice or the tantric practice of visualizing cannibalism (which may or may not have been practiced in actuality in the past - this is debated among scholars - but is a really widespread practice among tibetan buddhists today - i am actually initiated into it), i'd be happy to help. if you or anyone would like to discuss more about buddhist death and dying (or buddhism in general) i'm always available by message on the other side. respectfully, a'ishah. So, if I want to become a good Buddhist I don't have to set myself on fire anymore? I only have to burn my fingers or cut off an arm? What a relief!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good to know. Two thumbs up

mzbehavin -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/7/2008 11:10:26 PM)
There are other ways to partake of a persons essence ritualistically, or even of their life force, without eating them. Cant we just evolve? TheMacabre seems to be very en vogue lately. Sometimes it seems sensationalist.

Amaros -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/8/2008 10:59:02 PM)
People often turn to magical thinking during times of social stress and upheaval, racism is a form of magical thinking for example, a "goat" - i.e., if you can manage to eradicate the "source" of whatever evil you imagine yourself to be suffering from (usually mere bad managment, political-economic miscreance, but also natural disaster, etc., but usually blamed on gays, Jews, witches, liberals and other assorted heretics, etc.), you can appease the gods and restore the balance. Culture wide pathologies of this nature are usually aggreagates of individual pathologies - Kramer and Sprenger managed to get their misogynic, erotophobic fantasies embedded into the inquisition, via the Malleus Maleficarum, leading to the spread of theories and practices which continue to inspire many of us to this day.

Owner4SexSlave -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/9/2008 1:52:54 AM)
It really does not matter what anybody posts or thinks or what laws are passed, or what the social conditions of any society is at any given time. It's not gonna stop some people from damn well doing whatever they please. We can at best, perhaps attempt to understand the madness to why people do the things they do. However, just understanding it won't change the fact that some people will eat other people. Will wack off body parts and whatnot. I suspect there has been deeper thought put into this matter on people on this message board, compared to the thoughts of people actually engaging in this activitity. A lot of people simply don't know or understand the historical evolution of cultures and societies. Hell, like somebody is taking time to think about that while the butcher knife is dropping hard to the table and a finger goes flying. People have been doing crazy shit for years! In fact all societies and cultures have their share of crazy people doing crazy things. Any society that did not, well.. it would be that proverbial Utopia, Nirvana or Heaven that many people have images about. I think it's perfectly normal for any culture or society to have so called fucked up people stepping outside the norm and doing fucked up things. Call it standard statistical deviation. Whatever.... The question the OP raises.. is on par with "When is watching too much TV a bad or unhealthy thing?" When is doing anything to what point becomes unhealthy or destructive.

SirDominic -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/9/2008 9:20:52 AM)
I’ve been following this thread on and off for quite awhile. I have always believed that as long as an activity is between consensual adults it is okay. I’m finding that belief being tested when we begin to talk about such extremes as amputation. Consenting or not, is such an activity sane? How does one determine what is sane? I believe the typical answer is that this is determined by the majority of the society in which one lives. Have sex with a nine year old in the U.S. and you are off to jail. In other parts of the world, nine is considered a marriageable age. Can something be both sane and insane depending on the health of an individual’s mental state? If so, is amputation an acceptable activity for those who would be considered mentally healthy, but totally improper if one is considered mentally unstable? My concern hangs on this conundrum. If someone has been brainwashed by a skillful manipulator, I cannot accept that anything they choose to do is necessarily sane, no matter how eager and willing they are to comply. Take, for example, the religious cult whose charismatic leader so twists the brains of their followers that the latter cut off everything about their prior life. They no longer identify parents, or siblings, former friends as existing; they live solely for the cult leader. Is that sane? Sometimes these kids are abducted against their will by their parents, and with counseling come to believe that although they believed with all their hearts they loved their place in the cult at the time, they now believe it was all a sham. Are they now “saved” from the cult, and are sane again? Or have they been brainwashed by normal society to now believe their experience in the cult was bad for them. Regardless, if someone is this easily manipulated to believe whatever, or whomever has the most control of them at the time, is this someone who can truly be a consenting partner in something as extreme as amputation? The answer for me is straightforward, mirroring the OP’s words “Anything is acceptable as long as it is between consenting adults and it does not cause permanent mental or physical harm”. My answer for someone else is much harder to pin down. Is it my responsibility as a functioning member of society, to attempt to stop activity I perceive as harmful, even if the people involved are all consenting? At what point does the dividing line appear between minding my own business, and deciding to interfere in what I perceive to be a harmful situation. I do not know I can answer that question.

maga -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/9/2008 10:15:05 AM)
Every body have differenta rank or capacity to handlle pain when bdms become unhelty or distructive i guess when you can handlee any more or you can't stop or not respect other bundries

IrishMist -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/9/2008 12:00:12 PM)
quote: Rational people do not choose to harm themselves or others I deliberatly did not include the part about taking off body parts because the 'action' really has nothing to do with what I am going to say. You state that 'rational people do not choose to harm themselves or others"... First off; what is YOUR definition of rational. Not a dictionary definition...but YOURS. Secondly, I would like to point out that rational people harm and hurt others every day; sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally. Of course, I am using my own definition of rational...most probably differs from yours; but hey, that's ok.

Amaros -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/9/2008 12:16:46 PM)
I think a condition that is either going to cause debilitating and irreversable damage, and/or is terminal is more than enough reason to investigate and determine if in fact the informed consent requirement is met and the consentee is in condition to grant consent - presumably, close relatives or friends will do this anyway, while a professional in almost any capacity would be required to do so by law if I'm not mistaken. In this case, both criteria, the lesser and the greater, are met. It would be a tough call, I don't like the idea of interfering with somebody elses dynamic, but in this case the outcome is so extreme as to raise questions as to whether a capital crime is being commited - if so, you could be prosecuted for conspiricy to conceal - seems to me if she were so intent on this she'd have taken more steps to conceal it - the fact that it came out in the open at all argues that it's a pathology of some attention getting/needing thing - she had to know that nobody was going to sit by and not say anything, for better or worse it violates current social norms on a very fundamental level - just not an everyday thing, or something you can chalk up as just a particularly freaky fetish. Thing is, by law, you simply cannot consent to great bodily harm or death, the very act of consenting raises questions as your sanity - that is the current principle in praxis - precedents would be set in order to modify or extend it. As another poster pointed out, just because there are cultural antecedents doesn't mean they were rational either - plenty of things our forebears did that we have decided are bad ideas: slavery, human sacrifice, etc.

Aswad -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (7/9/2008 10:53:19 PM)
Pardon the delay, I'll have to chunk this up a bit. quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros Self discovory through denial then - I'm forced to oversimplify in several places here, I'm writing a post for laymen, of which I am one, not a book for graduates, so not everything is going to be as nuanced as some might like. Nuance reduction, not a problem. I'm just saying that everything up to the hyphen is about as accurate as saying "BDSM is about beating up your wife and running her life for her, and her getting soaked when people treat her like that." quote: Certainly an interface, but there is every indication that as we tend to lump objects and their associated processes and behaviors into discrete symbols, sort of shorthand You confuse intelligence, openmindedness and linguistic proficiency. They are covariant but not directly proportional. High function in some regions in the brain (partially set by DRD4) determine the granularity of associations. That is a barrier in communicating a complex concept, because the recursion depth is limited, as is the scope and stack size, and recursive disjunctions are idiomatically banned in many languages. When concepts are stored at language-level granularity, some concepts cannot be conveyed. When the granularity is atomic, or near-atomic, any concept that can be arrived at through reason and existing frameworks can be conveyed. Remember, abstractions can be layered. Apart from that, an apt, accurate and astute observation. Namaste. quote: Conjecture - most genetic abnormalities that affect language also affect the hands and forearms, which appear to be directly connected to the speech centers of the brain which suggests they evolved in tandem. There are integrative functions that cover both areas, but my memory isn't fresh enough to say which ones. You might want to look at the basal ganglia and connected circuits, along with recent work on the cerebellum. quote: Beside the point, or rather reinforcing it, as this is an example of subjective consensus reality formation which is, by definition... subjective. Yup. Although, for color, it follows a set pattern. quote: I'm not much of a mathmatician. Few are. quote: Sorry, you'll have to demonstrate this - as I said, it's never been demonstrated. Rule may have some references for hyenas. Mine is my own "field work." If you want to learn, go looking into it for yourself; I have too much other research to do this for you, much as I'd like to. (Really, I'd love to try to document this, as it annoys me that it hasn't been documented, but I have literally 4000 years of research and work planned out, and it's not at the top of the list by far.) By the way, "food" is an abstraction. And cats can recognize that human eyes are eyes. Those are just indisputable examples to start you down that line of thought. quote: It may well be a quantitative value rather than a qualitative value, a factor of neural density in the cerberal cortex, but at some point it quantitatively drops below the point where it is practically relevent. It is well known that your wolves have complex behavioral and social adaptations, but in qualitative terms, I don't think they have much need for higher level abstractions. Quite so. But bear in mind that a feral child exhibits many of the same "shortcomings." quote: unless they learn to talk though, we'll probobly never know. Or unless we learn to understand what is said. [;)] quote: I don't know wheter to agree or disagree, I don't know what a "normal" state is, in an objective sense, it's a subjective term - typical perhaps, but mental states are essentially adaptations, and how "normal" the state of mind is is pretty much a factor of the stressors or stimuli it is an adaptation to - it might be easier if you furnished and example. Actually, that's a good point, and it's more relevant, I think, to simply restate that the issue isn't whether this violates consensus (it does), but whether that necessarily implies a state of mind wherein key faculties involved in decisionmaking are actually more compromised than in an average person. quote: DRD4-R7, right, I'm not a geneticist either. Nor am I. Just happen to have an interest in that gene. As for the entry, one can of course peg the axle anywhere, but if consent is a metric of correctness of participation in something (widely recognized; note the appeal to integrity and uniform application of concepts, i.e. abstractions, as opposed to memorized cases, the bit you posit as distinguishing in humans), then the ability to consent or not becomes an issue. And an alcoholic can rationally say "no," then go get drunk anyway. A donor can say "sure, hope it tastes good," then fear grabs them. In both cases, the person is able to make a rational evaluation, but unable to carry it out. A handicap. However, a psychotic person does not possess full faculties of reasoning, and neither does a child, nor do people with certain kinds of dementia. In these cases, a decision reflecting their consent is beyond them to make. An impairment. That is one key difference, if we peg the axle to the notion that "consent makes right." quote: Since you mention just about every major continent on the planet, I'm not sure just how "widespread" doesn't apply, athe point being that something occurred, and shit happened - I might be accused of being Eurocentric, I can cop to that. North America, Europe, Scandinavia, Africa and Asia are pretty much the regions where technological development occurred most rapidly and in the greatest variety - Africa led in the development of metallurgy, contrary to popular belief - it was a definite step away from grubbing tubers. My point was that the allelle (exon 3, 48bp 7R) isn't widespread. The gene (DRD4), however, is necessary, as it is a feedback connection that maintains dopaminergic homeostasis (along with D2, which has less direct effects on cognition if memory serves). quote: As I mentioned, perhaps strongly enough, it is fairly well impossible to inniovate at all without rejecting cultural norms, to do anything outside a cultural norm is to violate it, and innovation by definition is change - once youve take that step, the entire thing becomes questionable, or vice versa. -nods- Let's try to steer this back to the context of the tenuous link to BDSM: consent. quote: The Golden rule is explicitly the "greatest commandment" - and is almost a perfect way to paraphrase reciporical altruism. You're missing some things about this being about making a community work smoothly, rather than about morals per se, but as I said, this will be a derail, so let's take it elsewhere if you care to pursue it. quote: Yes, the gaming thing is troubling, particularly with the addition of the phenomona of a truely global mass media. Indeed. Manufacturing Consent and other such works are quite interesting. quote: It only works if you adhere strictly to the rules of competitive self interest, and keep things in flux - Soon as you start trying to change the rules, rational self interest, ala rand (everyones self interest is rational - to them) etc., it stratifies, sclerotofies and gradually turns into feudalism and stasis. Well said. quote: Some people have more to lose than others, and a significant majority of people will simply value social stability and predictability over consensus formation through debate in good faith with respect to the empirical evidence, which often entails confusing contraditions, ethical dillemas, potential personal sacrifice, etc. i.e., rationalization of short term advantage vs. long term planning. Yes. Cf. the vote about forming the USA. As I recall, 1 in 3 were in favor. The minority prevailed by ignoring consent. US history loves them for it. quote: what would Jesus think. "Why did I bother?" [;)] Health, al-Aswad.

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875