RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)?

RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (Full Version)

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

Message

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 3:22:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: CruelDesires The same mental health "professionals" who up until not too long ago deemed everyone who practiced BD/sM as sick and twisted individuals? The same legal "professionals" who let muderers like OJ Simpson walk free? [8\|] Using those "professionals" as a barometer for what is right and wrong is self defeating IMO. C-D This is part of what I was alluding to. Psychologists understand how malleable the structures of what is and isn't considered mental stability are. Ok, so this is relevant, in my mind, to the topic at hand, so I'm going to come right out and ask the question. Many of us, I'm sure, realize that some of the individuals who are "needful servants" will have struggled with their place in the world, and may have encountered "mental health care professionals" who declared them unfit to manage their own affairs -- or they may have become so overwhelmed with life and its transient structures that they committed -themselves- under these terms because the need for protection and structure was so great. Some of these individuals are likely aware, articulate, intelligent -- and extremely needful. Would anyone here take on an s-type who had ended up in they system in this manner? If so, what are your thoughts on the issue of this person having been declared "unfit" to choose to enter into (or exit from) a relationship? I give my oath that I will respond, but I hope to hear some others' opinions before I toss my biases into the ring. Calla Firestorm

catize -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 5:34:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: CruelDesires The same mental health "professionals" who up until not too long ago deemed everyone who practiced BD/sM as sick and twisted individuals? The same legal "professionals" who let muderers like OJ Simpson walk free? [8\|] Using those "professionals" as a barometer for what is right and wrong is self defeating IMO. C-D This is part of what I was alluding to. Psychologists understand how malleable the structures of what is and isn't considered mental stability are. Ok, so this is relevant, in my mind, to the topic at hand, so I'm going to come right out and ask the question. Many of us, I'm sure, realize that some of the individuals who are "needful servants" will have struggled with their place in the world, and may have encountered "mental health care professionals" who declared them unfit to manage their own affairs -- or they may have become so overwhelmed with life and its transient structures that they committed -themselves- under these terms because the need for protection and structure was so great. Some of these individuals are likely aware, articulate, intelligent -- and extremely needful. Would anyone here take on an s-type who had ended up in they system in this manner? If so, what are your thoughts on the issue of this person having been declared "unfit" to choose to enter into (or exit from) a relationship? I give my oath that I will respond, but I hope to hear some others' opinions before I toss my biases into the ring. Calla Firestorm I would like to address several issues here. In my state there are two criteria that must be met in order to commit anyone under a mental health/substance abuse petition. 1. The person must be proven to be a danger to themselves or others and 2. They refuse treatment. One cannot volunteer to be committed. Another point is that the process involves both the medical community (the doctor) and the courts; the judicial referee has the final say in whether this person requires intervention. The doctor then is required to report to the courts every 6 months regarding the person’s current mental state. Contrary to popular opinion, mental health professionals understand that people do get better and are more than willing to inform the court when intervention is no longer necessary. To be declared incompetent is a different process and is solely a legal matter, not a medical one. Just sayin’

Amaros -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 5:50:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW Ok, so this is relevant, in my mind, to the topic at hand, so I'm going to come right out and ask the question. Many of us, I'm sure, realize that some of the individuals who are "needful servants" will have struggled with their place in the world, and may have encountered "mental health care professionals" who declared them unfit to manage their own affairs -- or they may have become so overwhelmed with life and its transient structures that they committed -themselves- under these terms because the need for protection and structure was so great. Some of these individuals are likely aware, articulate, intelligent -- and extremely needful. Would anyone here take on an s-type who had ended up in they system in this manner? If so, what are your thoughts on the issue of this person having been declared "unfit" to choose to enter into (or exit from) a relationship? I give my oath that I will respond, but I hope to hear some others' opinions before I toss my biases into the ring. Calla Firestorm "The way it is now, the asylums can hold the sane people, but if we tried to shut up the insane we should run out of building materials". --Mark Twain If anything, I prefer people who are a bit mad.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 8:15:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize I would like to address several issues here. In my state there are two criteria that must be met in order to commit anyone under a mental health/substance abuse petition. 1. The person must be proven to be a danger to themselves or others and 2. They refuse treatment. One cannot volunteer to be committed. Interesting to know that there is no voluntary commitment in some states -- here in TX, as well as in NY, GA, and NC (which are the only states that I've dealt with this in), one can commit themselves for periods of up to 90 days, under voluntary commitment. Involuntary commitment requires a judges order and can only happen if the person is considered to be a danger to hirself or others. CFB

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 8:33:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW Would anyone here take on an s-type who had ended up in they system in this manner? If so, what are your thoughts on the issue of this person having been declared "unfit" to choose to enter into (or exit from) a relationship? There is a predisposition by many to lump all the intellectual capacities together when trying to assess the 'fitness' of someone. We would not say that about the physical (for instance, the the lack of a left leg somehow impairs someone from being capable of making sensible decisions). As with anything else, each of our flaws and each piece of our individual baggage is something that rests most comfortably on finding a partner that is compatible with it. I have been in relationships with others who would be prone to heavy panic attacks, were still nursing the effects of previous mental trauma (sometimes those things never totally heal in us)...but I do well in situations like that. I've become rather good at being a calming and serene counterpoint during such times and it balances well. For other situations (such as heavy drug users or those recovering from the use of them) I'd feel less comfortable. So that someone has, at one moment in the past or another, been deemed to be 'unfit' for any specific amount of time is of less consequence to me than what put them in that place. There are times in any of our lives that we could have 'qualified' to be admitted for a week or so to the psychiatric center of the local hospital, if only to give us an entirely different and sterile environment to run away to for a while. It doesn't automatically stamp the individual with a permanent scarlet letter.

KnightofMists -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 9:11:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Who is anyone to state what is right or wrong for another person? and People that abuse and commit genocide hope that you answer No One has the right to state what is wrong or right for another. It is simple to think and hope that abused and victimize individuals desire to be help and protected. But that is not reality... it is alot more complex than that. "all that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke My compliments for to Erin for having the courage to speak her judgement and to stand what she believes in. This is not to say that she is right or wrong in her judgement... but it is good men doing nothing to suggest that she shouldn't judge and speak her mind. I find it very troubling this whole concept that we shouldn't speak and challenge things in our lifestyle or any lifestyle for that matter. I see alot of good men doing nothing. I have been away for a few days... ironically... I was dealing with employee harassement issue in one of my northern locations. An issue that was brought to me because... "A good man" choose to do something. In fact, yesterday... I told him that he has my respect... even though he knows that a significant number of the work force is going to be condemning him for speaking out. But since he spoke out.. quietly and discreetly a few more have confided in there concerns. It troubles me that so many good men have done nothing. Do I just blindly suggest that they are not good men. I think that is making it much to simple of answer. Good men do nothing... the question is why they do nothing. This is not a simple question to answer, particularly since there is many different answers that are equally right depending on the person and situation. I find the manner of what prop shares on the boards to be extremely troubling. I am of the opinion that she is mentally unstable. However, I have difficultly thinking much of what she shares to be completely truthful if not being outright lies. there is much of her situation that has not been shared and I believe that those things could very well change my judgement or just validate it but not for the reasons I see at this point. but in the end... it is not the judgements of prop.. be they positive or negative that I find troublesome... it is that we shouldn't make judgements in the first place. In fact, I find a certain hypocrisy to suggest that don't judge.... unless it's good, which I see being promoted in a subtle way.

Icarys -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:00:02 AM)
quote: and People that abuse and commit genocide hope that you answer No One has the right to state what is wrong or right for another. I love how you wrapped abuse with genocide to make your dramatic point. Abuse in this lifestyle has many meanings to many different people. If you don't believe so then we will have to disagree. So be it. The things that are described in regards to prop to me are disturbing as well. Yet somehow caning someone is okay? I don't believe in hitting out of anger.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:03:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero [So that someone has, at one moment in the past or another, been deemed to be 'unfit' for any specific amount of time is of less consequence to me than what put them in that place. There are times in any of our lives that we could have 'qualified' to be admitted for a week or so to the psychiatric center of the local hospital, if only to give us an entirely different and sterile environment to run away to for a while. It doesn't automatically stamp the individual with a permanent scarlet letter. Man, what culture have you been living in? In the America I know, there's a HUGE stigma about having been committed. My ex wound up having to lie about it to get most of her higher-paying jobs. The problem is, what you get when you come out of the hospital is precisely a Scarlet Letter - it's a socially prominent stamp on your record that tells everyone to judge you, regardless of how cool and worthwhile of a person you might actually be. You're correct that it doesn't damage you as an intellect, but it certainly does irredeemably damage your social reputation.

RCdc -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:08:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Who is anyone to state what is right or wrong for another person? and People that abuse and commit genocide hope that you answer No One has the right to state what is wrong or right for another. It is simple to think and hope that abused and victimize individuals desire to be help and protected. But that is not reality... it is alot more complex than that. Thing is KnightofMists, is that a consenting person is NOT the same as someone commiting genocide or inflicting abuse on a person who doesn't want it. Sure we can speak up and voice an opinion - and erin knows on a personal that I love her and respect her views - but the thing is that until someone feels abused it is their choice. You cannot make a person leave abuse if they accept it. You cannot make someone give up drugs unless they want to. You cannot make anyone believe something is wrong for them, just because it is wrong for you(generic). You can say,'its not my choice' or 'it's not for me' but to say that it is wrong across the board, to me is wrong. Using genocide in the same breath of a couples/groups personal relationship is kind of erroneous. Best regards the.dark.

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:10:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth Man, what culture have you been living in? In the America I know, there's a HUGE stigma about having been committed. My ex wound up having to lie about it to get most of her higher-paying jobs. I realized my wording expressed the wrong sentiment. Rather than: quote: "It doesn't automatically stamp the individual with a permanent scarlet letter." I should have written: quote: "It shouldn't automatically stamp the individual with a permanent scarlet letter." I understand how the public generally sees it, though...yes. quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth The problem is, what you get when you come out of the hospital is precisely a Scarlet Letter - it's a socially prominent stamp on your record that tells everyone to judge you, regardless of how cool and worthwhile of a person you might actually be. You're correct that it doesn't damage you as an intellect, but it certainly does irredeemably damage your social reputation. Agreed. I was trying to speak to the group here in a way that would perhaps instill reflection on that predisposition.

RCdc -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:14:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists but in the end... it is not the judgements of prop.. be they positive or negative that I find troublesome... it is that we shouldn't make judgements in the first place. In fact, I find a certain hypocrisy to suggest that don't judge.... unless it's good, which I see being promoted in a subtle way. I am a big promoter of judgement. Years ago when I was naive, I didn't. But now - judgement rocks. The human race wouldnt of survived without it. But the issue lies with what and how we are judging. Our own lives and how we live it, the circles we exist in and what we accept for ourselves are great - it rocks far beyond anything else. Someone elses'life choices by our own standards, morals and ethics? Not so much. Should we use judgements to run someone elses life, or only to control our own? I believe my answer would be pretty easy to judge.[;)] the.dark.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:17:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I should have written: quote: "It shouldn't automatically stamp the individual with a permanent scarlet letter." And in this case, I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree with you. Huh. On this note: quote: This is part of what I was alluding to. Psychologists understand how malleable the structures of what is and isn't considered mental stability are. - vs- quote: Thing is KnightofMists, is that a consenting person is NOT the same as someone commiting genocide or inflicting abuse on a person who doesn't want it. Sure we can speak up and voice an opinion - and erin knows on a personal that I love her and respect her views - but the thing is that until someone feels abused it is their choice. The two above quotes might actually help me hone in on a point I've been trying to make for awhile. So far, we have two popular "modes" of ethics when it comes to BDSM: SSC and RACK. And in both modes, we have the definition of safety (either positively, by mentioning Safety directly, or negatively, by addressing Risk). In both modes, we have the definition of Sanity (either strongly, by mentioning Sanity directly, or weakly, by mentioning Awareness). Note that these are both Values-based ethical systems. What would the BDSM equivalent of Realpolitik be?

RCdc -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:26:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth What would the BDSM equivalent of Realpolitik be? Not to use either? I used to use RACK, but it is pretty pointless so I ceased. I know people like to consider this a community... and in a sense it is - but people need to realise it isn't a following and that there are no rules or regulations. There is no political structure, moral worth or set of ethics - it isn't a religion. There isn't even a universal 'likemindedness'. It will be great when the majority of people realise this. the.dark.

GreedyTop -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:28:31 AM)
adores thedark

Ialdabaoth -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:29:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth What would the BDSM equivalent of Realpolitik be? Not to use either? I used to use RACK, but it is pretty pointless so I ceased. I know people like to consider this a community... and in a sense it is - but people need to realise it isn't a following and that there are no rules or regulations. There is no political structure, moral worth or set of ethics - it isn't a religion. There isn't even a universal 'likemindedness'. It will be great when the majority of people realise this. the.dark. But what does that leave you with? How do you define 'consent' if you throw away the "community's standards" of safety, awareness and sanity? Do you even use 'consent' as a moral concept? If so, how do you define it, and if not, what do you use instead?

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:32:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth Note that these are both Values-based ethical systems. Well, that kind of inescapably must be, no? At the lowest common denominator we find the individual wordlview and perception. The contrast between concocting one's own path to personal fulfillment and the ability to achieve it. It is a construct born of human sentient value. This is one of the main reasons I'm probably skeptical of commentary that attempts to wholly encompass the subjective nature of this entity into objective parameters. quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth What would the BDSM equivalent of Realpolitik be? Maybe it's the part of me that finds difficulty divorcing the pragmatic from the fact that it is, essentially, just a further dressed up version of a theoretical framework...but I think it comes back to the foundation of self-fulfillment ethics. Freedom to seek what you desire while having it not infringe on that very freedom in another.

VivaciousSub -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:33:07 AM)
quote: Some of these individuals are likely aware, articulate, intelligent -- and extremely needful. Would anyone here take on an s-type who had ended up in they system in this manner? If so, what are your thoughts on the issue of this person having been declared "unfit" to choose to enter into (or exit from) a relationship? I have been committed to the hospital once, and entered voluntarily twice. Speaking for myself, I would consider myself to be aware, articulate and intelligent - but NOT extremely needful. After my last hospitalization about a year ago - the one where I was committed - I took on the challenge to do what was necessary to get myself better. I haven't had a mood swing in a year, a personal record for me. At that particular point in time - and for some time before and after - I wasn't fit to be in a relationship. I couldn't even handle myself well, so how was I going to be able to relate well to someone else? However, the way your post is worded alarms me, specifically the part about "who had ended up in the system in this manner". I am horrified to think that I am not worthy in some way of finding the relationship I seek and that I might be considered a burden or damaged goods. That is deeply wounding. Another point to consider: The fact that I got better means that I stopped deciding that I always knew what was best for me and submitted to the hard work and rigor of the healing process. I turned over my pride and my life and put them in the hands of people who knew better than I did what was best for me. I'd say that doing so made me a better sub, not worse.

RCdc -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:40:15 AM)
It leaves you with a bunch of people who take responsibility for themselves and who they are involved with without other people sticking their noses in unless they are asked. It leaves you with people behing honest instead of blaming some set of other peoples 'rules'. Do I use consent? In my life and reality? Not really(see above in this thread as I have already discussed it). I don't believe it exists other than in a paradoxical sense. Safety? Depends on who you are with and the expereince you have. Sanity? Meh - I enjoy my insanity - if that is how I am defined. Awareness? I am self aware. I know what I like and I don't like. I think everyone does - BUT - many people lie to themselves. They hide .inshadows. I exist in them. It's the lies in BDSM that are the issue overall. Considering trust is such a big thing in wiitwd, kinda ironic hey? the.dark.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:42:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth What would the BDSM equivalent of Realpolitik be? Maybe it's the part of me that finds difficulty divorcing the pragmatic from the fact that it is, essentially, just a further dressed up version of a theoretical framework...but I think it comes back to the foundation of self-fulfillment ethics. Freedom to seek what you desire while having it not infringe on that very freedom in another. Well, to be honest, that doesn't feel very much like realpolitik to me. Realpolitik involves region destabilization, "bait and bleed", deliberate escalation and detente... it has everything to do with infringing on the freedoms of another, and getting away with it, ethically as well as pragmatically. And for every Pol Pot there's a Henry Kissenger - someone who half the world wants to string up for war crimes and the other half praises as "willing to make hard choices to preserve Freedom".

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/27/2008 11:46:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth Well, to be honest, that doesn't feel very much like realpolitik to me. Realpolitik involves region destabilization, "bait and bleed", deliberate escalation and detente... it has everything to do with infringing on the freedoms of another, and getting away with it, ethically as well as pragmatically. And for every Pol Pot there's a Henry Kissenger - someone who half the world wants to string up for war crimes and the other half praises as "willing to make hard choices to preserve Freedom". Then I was misunderstanding the context of the word as you were using it. I was, I admit, unfamiliar with the term and deferred to the definition described as: quote: " politics based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives" (from the MerriamWebster site) ...at which point I thought you were asking what sort of practical framework should be applied flatly to BDSM and also to the consent issue therein. My response was geared towards that presumption. Sorry for the confusion.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875