RE: Dominance in other Countries? (Full Version)

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



Message


antipode -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (10/30/2008 8:41:34 AM)

As far as sex is concerned, the United States isn't free at all, it is rather puritan, which is why you get these weird excesses. Being European, and living in the States for the past 23 years, I have a good comparison. Back in Europe, prostitution is mostly legal, sex is seen as a recreational activity, you can take your partner or a friend to a sex club where you can actually have sex with other consenting adults without having to jump through legal loopholes, and women don't use sex as an advertising mechanism to attract a suitable husband. Sex is uncomplicated, and an advertisement for skin cream can have a breast with nipple in it without entire right wing States threatening to secede from the Union.

Most importantly, in most Western European countries sex education is mandatory, there isn't an opt out for parents "who know better" (this is to some extent changing to accomodate the Muslim influx in Western Europe). Initiated in the early 1960s, this method of educating has kept the adolescent birthrate and VD percentages controlled, with the exception of the UK and Ireland, which are as weird as America is, it is apparently a very Anglo-Saxon things to semi-criminalize sex - here in Virginia, cohabitation is still against the law!

This is from my perspective, of course. I actually fly a lot of my playmates in from Europe, because they are so relaxed about sex, it is just another recreational activity, no hype, no pressure.




knees2you -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (10/30/2008 9:22:54 AM)

quote:

What I really wish for is Jesus to stay as much as possible where he belongs: in a church.[8|]

 
Jamaica has what is called Hedonism.
A friend of mine here in Vegas went.
Pretty much anything goes there.[sm=dancing.gif]
 
Always, knees[sm=cactus.gif][sm=pullit.gif]




stella41b -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (10/30/2008 2:13:44 PM)

America land of the free? Land of the free my left foot, and I have two lines of numbers scrawled in biro on the inside cover of my passport that America may not be the open, free, tolerant el dorado some people may like to think it is.

I disagree with Rover that 'control of the masses' is the preserve of the left wing governments. Now stretchng the definition of 'left wing' like bubblegum so it applies to our own government in the UK we have more diversity legislation than any other country in the world. I can also share with you all the attempts of the Polish far right and Lech Kaczynski in driving both the LGBT and BDSM communities underground. This is the same Lech Kaczynski who as President of Warsaw declared all BDSM studios and events illegal, who has labelled gays and lesbians 'sexual deviants' and even issued pamphlets in high schools on 'warning signs of homosexuality' in which it was asserted 'homosexuals and lesbians tend to base their relationships on S/M, beating, whipping, even to the point of drinking each others' urine and eating each others' faeces.'

I don't see this as a left or right issue, in fact I don't even see this as a political issue, but more of a social issue.

Yes where you live may seem tolerant and free, especially if you are in a heterosexual relationship which for all intents and purposes looks "normal", but does this mean that society is really all that free and tolerant? Maybe, but only from your perspective.

So okay, let's change that perspective to that of a gay male, a transgendered female, a lesbian, a polyamorist, and try to put yourself in their shoes. Also, can you generalize to the extent of an entire society and country? I think not.

I live in London, a world city, the capital city of traditionally one of the most open and tolerant societies in Europe. But this is just a generalization. It just doesn't work out like that. Now you can take a train any direction out of London and once you get beyond the orbital M25 motorway you come into England proper. London is in England but London isn't England, there is a difference. And as you travel around you come to realise that tolerance and diversity isn't as uniformly widespread as we think it is. I have spent time in Dover, Kent, and it isn't either free or tolerant. I have spent time in Southampton, also in the South of England, and got a completely different impression.

Here in London it's generally tolerant but you cannot always take this for granted. I live in a district known as Nine Elms, which lies between Vauxhall, Stockwell and Battersea Park. Here it's free and tolerant, as it is in Vauxhall with Torture Garden, the Coliseum, and the various LGBT pubs and clubs like the Royal Vauxhall Tavern and Barcode. Go down into Stockwell and despite its reputation as a dangerous place to be nobody will harm you. Not so in Clapham.

I run an SLGBT support group in West London. It was originally meant to be an LGBT group but I added the 'S' to make it a Straight, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered group specifically so it could embrace both the LGBT and BDSM communities. This is a group which has been formed to work at promoting acceptance, diversity and tolerance in the community and thereafter in society. Not everyone who is heterosexual is vanilla, and it just seems strange to me to be advocating diversity and tolerance using an approach which is non-inclusive.

Nor am I basing my opinion here on those people in society who feel persecuted because I am well aware that there are those in both the LGBT and BDSM communities who actually prefer to feel persecuted, in fact some of them get off on it and there are some who will use religion or politics blindly as justification for their persecution.

I can make an example of my own experiences with the black community here in London. On the one hand there is the ten months of systematic harrassment and abuse I went through whilst living in a hostel for the homeless at the hands of a Jamaican born female manager and largely African staff who believed I was the Devil incarnate and when I was sexually assaulted in the hostel they sided with my attacker. It is my refusing to back down or give in and taking this manager and her staff on through repeated complaints with the hostel organization which led me to be given the support group together with my stance with the homeless and among them the gays, lesbians and transgendered. But I have also experienced many gestures of support and kindness from other black people and therefore cannot say that black people as a whole are intolerant.

I am basing my opinion here solely on the level of oppression that one can face from others not for what you do in the bedroom, but for being who you really are, for living the lifestyle you genuinely want to live in relationships which you genuinely want to form.

This brings us back to Spanner, that now infamous case in Manchester in 1987 where the police acting on a video they had received, which they perceived as acts of sadistic torture decided to mount Operation Spanner and arrest 16 men for taking part in homosexual BDSM activities. The police steamed in making raids on various addresses and arresting those involved.

The apparent "victims" were alive and well, and soon told the police that they were participating in private homosexual BDSM activities. Although all of those seen in the videos stated that they were willing participants in the activities depicted on the videos, the police and Crown Prosecution Service insisted on pressing charges. Sixteen men were charged with various offences, including "assault occasioning actual bodily harm" (ABH).

This is what led to the setting up of The Spanner Trust and also Backlash, a movement working against the proposed criminalisation of the possession of 'extreme pornography'.

Now from the way I see it there cannot be any real diversity, freedom or tolerance until we have the heterosexual community working with the LGBT community together to work towards the same goal of acceptance, diversity and freedom but in a much more informed way.

These are issues I feel which exist in every country including the United States. I am planning to relocate across the Atlantic, to be with my family in Toronto, but here I could speculate a little and wonder. Would someone like me be free and safe for example living in a small town in one of the Southern states in the US or in the Mid-West? What is the answer?

But to me freedom is when someone genuinely doesn't face any oppression on account of their skin colour, sexual orientation or gender and when society returns to being an inclusive one. And from the way I see it we still have some distance to go to achieving this and it's very unlikely that I will live long enough to be part of such a society.





moonvine -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (10/30/2008 2:46:12 PM)

Yes, I know about Hedonism, it is a tourist place.  I meant among the natives:)  I love Jamaica...only place I have ever been where I can walk around and have men following me around telling me how beautiful I am and stuff...I've considered moving there, but dunno if it is worth it just for ego purposes, heh.




Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (10/30/2008 3:11:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b

I disagree with Rover that 'control of the masses' is the preserve of the left wing governments.


If that's what you took from my post, then I either didn't state it clearly enough or you misunderstood it.  I intended to demonstrate that the left is equally complicit in the intrusion upon personal rights in the US.  Since the poster I replied to had layed the blame entirely on the right, I intended to provide equal example on the left.
 
Truth be told, and I know I was quite clear about this in several posts, I believe that excessive government, whether it be in the control of left or right at any particular time, is the source of infringement upon our rights.
 
You see, the United States differs from all other countries that I'm aware of in that the government does not bestow rights upon its citizens.  In the US, the citizens bestow rights upon the government.  And that is supposed to offer us greater protection from abusive government and loss of personal rights... because the government does not bestow them to us, it can  neither take them away.
 
And it is intended to provide greater constraint upon the government, because the government cannot obtain or exercise rights that the citizens themselves do not have to give. 
 
For instance, a citizen cannot forcibly take the property of another citizen in order to give it to someone less well off (ie: no one can play Robin Hood).  And consequently, while we have graduated income tax rates for support of public functions, the government cannot take money from one citizen and give it directly to another citizen. 
 
Which is why there is much recent hulabaloo about "spreading the wealth" in our current election cycle.
 
John




stella41b -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (10/30/2008 3:16:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

If that's what you took from my post, then I either didn't state it clearly enough or you misunderstood it.



Reading back what you wrote and agreeing with you on this, it's a case of 'mea culpa'. In other words, I misunderstood. My apologies.




Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (10/30/2008 3:18:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

If that's what you took from my post, then I either didn't state it clearly enough or you misunderstood it.



Reading back what you wrote and agreeing with you on this, it's a case of 'mea culpa'. In other words, I misunderstood. My apologies.


No issue... there was much back and forth and small items can be lost in the fray.
 
John




flower2007 -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (10/30/2008 3:55:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

You see, the United States differs from all other countries that I'm aware of in that the government does not bestow rights upon its citizens.  In the US, the citizens bestow rights upon the government. 


That's how it's *supposed* to work.  In reality, it doesn't work that way, at least lately.




Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (10/30/2008 5:13:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: flower2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

You see, the United States differs from all other countries that I'm aware of in that the government does not bestow rights upon its citizens.  In the US, the citizens bestow rights upon the government. 


That's how it's *supposed* to work.  In reality, it doesn't work that way, at least lately.


So true.  It's what happens when people do not vigilantly defend their rights.
 
John




Aswad -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (10/30/2008 7:13:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreedyTop

If it wasnt for the seasons there, Aswad, I'd move there...LOL


The seasons aren't a problem, you know. Just pick a spot with little variation.

Health,
al-Aswad.




spankablemilf -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (10/31/2008 8:51:40 AM)

Way to go Rover.  I agree wholeheartedly :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian

Eight years of religious zealot conservatism in power has a lot of people nervous about being visited by men in black suits. 


Not to burst your bubble or anything, but it's the left which curtails your personal rights under the guise of helping you "do what's good for you" (anti-smoking laws, fast food laws, gun laws, etc.), and limiting your rights associated with private property (see Kelo vs. New London).
 
The truth of the matter is that we are not a sympathetic constituency to either side, and it's dangerous to think that one side, or the other, is our "friend".  The best government is that which governs the least.
 
John




stella41b -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (10/31/2008 3:17:13 PM)

I've just read twice that Jamaica is open and tolerant. How about Saudi Arabia and Iran then?

No wait, I can even find better examples. How about Nigeria and Sierra Leone? Judging by some of the messages I receive BDSM in Nigeria is BIG.




Aswad -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (10/31/2008 11:55:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: flower2007

That's how it's *supposed* to work.  In reality, it doesn't work that way, at least lately.


Actually, that's exactly how it works in reality.

The majority of citizens just happen to want a lifelong TPE relationship with the state, without safewords and outs.

Obviously, the state is a very accomodating partner for those who want exactly that; what state isn't, really?

Health,
al-Aswad.




came4U -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 12:26:01 AM)

BDSM is not tolerated in most areas of the world...It violates civil rights (for good reason). This is the reason why if we want to live in a somewhat seemingly 'civilized' world that all this bdsm nonsense should be/remain behind closed doors.  Enough with the kink-flamers who deliberately impose their display of their kink in public. 

The day women or men (like dogs) are on leashes, women kneel in public or panties are torn off at a restraunt for someone's exhibitionist entertainment is the day all civility is gone from the planet (AGAIN). 

Have some class, have some decorum and  don't be a heathen in public. Scening in public is a downright violation of the human rights of another and offensive by law (thank God) in most places (for good reason).

That is all I ask from someone I know in the lifestyle, here or abroad. (Europe, Asia, etc).




flower2007 -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 1:31:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: flower2007

That's how it's *supposed* to work.  In reality, it doesn't work that way, at least lately.


Actually, that's exactly how it works in reality.

The majority of citizens just happen to want a lifelong TPE relationship with the state, without safewords and outs.

Obviously, the state is a very accomodating partner for those who want exactly that; what state isn't, really?


Problem is, in the US, we have a piece of paper that limits the control of the state.  Unfortunately, it tends to be ignored by those people who want that lifelong TPE relationship.  :-)  Sad for those of us who were depending on that piece of paper.




Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 6:17:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: flower2007

That's how it's *supposed* to work.  In reality, it doesn't work that way, at least lately.


Actually, that's exactly how it works in reality.

The majority of citizens just happen to want a lifelong TPE relationship with the state, without safewords and outs.

Obviously, the state is a very accomodating partner for those who want exactly that; what state isn't, really?

Health,
al-Aswad.



At its inception, voters were required to be land owners in the United States.  Not because the founding fathers wished to restric the vote... land was cheap and easy to come by.  Property rights were sacred. 
 
The reasoning behind this requirement was that voters should have a stake in what they're voting for (or against), and the only taxpayers were land owners (there being property taxes but no income taxes).  What they feared was a time when those who didn't pay into the system outnumbered those that did pay into the system, and simply voted for more and more government largesse at no cost to them.... paid entirely by someone else.
 
Having given the universal vote, we have now arrived at that point in America that our forbears had feared.  Half our population pays only 3 % of our federal income taxes.  What incentive do they have to vote to restrict government growth or spending?  It's not coming out of their pocket.  It's "free" and they're constantly looking for more "free" stuff.  Like "free" healthcare.  With politicians (in both parties) who are anxious to promise the "free" goods to them for their own personal gain... to be re-elected.
 
And so not surprisinly we have a rapidly expanding governement, and national debt. 
 
Are they getting what they wanted?  Sure thing.  Are they getting what they deserve?  No, they're getting much more than they deserve. 
 
John




MsDonnaMia -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 1:05:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover
Half our population pays only 3 % of our federal income taxes.  What incentive do they have to vote to restrict government growth or spending?  It's not coming out of their pocket


from what I understand the top 1% earn a lot more than the bottom 50% combined..that's why they pay a larger percentage of the taxes. And money isn't coming out of the bottom 50's--very shallow--pockets? They might argue that a little considering everything is taxed these days.

The less money you have the more of a burden taxes are. a thousand dollars is a night out on the town for the top 25%..lets not forget that reality. [;)]




Rover -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 2:20:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsDonnaMia

from what I understand the top 1% earn a lot more than the bottom 50% combined..that's why they pay a larger percentage of the taxes. And money isn't coming out of the bottom 50's--very shallow--pockets? They might argue that a little considering everything is taxed these days.


You might think this, but you'd be wrong.  According to 2002 statistics, the top 5 % of taxpayers paid 53.8 % of federal income taxes, but made only 30.6 % of the income. 
 
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm
 
Increasingly, the tax burden is being shouldered by fewer and fewer people, who pay a higher and higher percentage of the bill. 

quote:


The less money you have the more of a burden taxes are. a thousand dollars is a night out on the town for the top 25%..lets not forget that reality. [;)]


Except that income tax is not equally shared in that manner.  Each American does not contribute equally.  Half pay little to nothing at all.  Beyond that, the tax rates are graduated so that the more you earn, the more you pay in both percentage of income, and in total dollars.
 
Any way you slice it, half the folks are continually voting to spend the other half's money.  And they have no incentive to stop that gravy train.
 
John




flower2007 -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 3:12:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: came4U

quote:

Problem is, in the US, we have a piece of paper that limits the control of the state


The Constitution of the United States of America is a problem? say what???



You *do* realize you're posting to a strict Constitutionalist, right?

Aswad said people like being controlled by the governenment, and the government is more than happy to oblige. I was stating that argument is a problem, at least the in the US, because we have a piece of paper that doesn't allow the governent to control like that.  Chill out.




stella41b -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/1/2008 4:03:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: came4U

BDSM is not tolerated in most areas of the world...It violates civil rights (for good reason). This is the reason why if we want to live in a somewhat seemingly 'civilized' world that all this bdsm nonsense should be/remain behind closed doors. Enough with the kink-flamers who deliberately impose their display of their kink in public.



Nothing violates civil rights in this world more than intolerance towards others, bigotry and oppression. Therefore I say enough with those people who insist on imposing their own hierarchy of values and morals on others. By kink-flamers who deliberately impose their display of kink in public you mean events? Or as a means of self-expression?

quote:

ORIGINAL: came4U

The day women or men (like dogs) are on leashes, women kneel in public or panties are torn off at a restraunt for someone's exhibitionist entertainment is the day all civility is gone from the planet (AGAIN).



All I can say is if you see this then you sure live in an interesting neighbourhood.

quote:

ORIGINAL: came4U

Have some class, have some decorum and don't be a heathen in public. Scening in public is a downright violation of the human rights of another and offensive by law (thank God) in most places (for good reason).



Heathen? Ah right, got you. So you're basing your justification and your views on an outdated book which is totally irrelevant to today's modern society called the Bible? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the syntax you're using suggests this) But you know the reason you got a pastor or priest standing up in church is that the Bible requires interpretation. It's not there to be used to spout hatred towards your fellow man.

I'm not going to get into the 'judge not' bit but just wanted to point out that Jesus himself spent a lot of time among the lepers, prostitutes, perverts and sinners.





Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875