RE: On addiction and D/s

RE: On addiction and D/s (Full Version)

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

Message

Sarahsubmits -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 2:03:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW quote: ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits "Bring it on bitches?" Which part of I am through with talking to you did you miss? And it is because it is you are abrasive not correct. Why bother responding to just this? If you were going to respond anyway, you could have spoken on any aspect of the latest round of posts or you could have stood by your previous statement and said nothing in reference to his post at all-- but instead, you choose this immature rant. Is there a point? Dame Calla Because nothing is going to get solved this way. I've said my piece. I'm sticking with it. There is simply no point in arguing anymore with them or you. We are coming at this from different universes.

NihilusZero -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 2:13:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits Because nothing is going to get solved this way. I've said my piece. I'm sticking with it. There is simply no point in arguing anymore with them or you. We are coming at this from different universes. So you have no interest in addressing any of the questions I posed so as to be able to think more thoroughly about the reasons you are "sticking with it"? You have no interest in clarifying what makes you say something is "taking advantage of" and something else is not? No interest in sharing how you differentiate a situation when someone actually wants to do something yet could also be doing it from an addictive compulsion?

NihilusZero -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 2:18:30 PM)
I'll whittle some of the pertinent questions for easier visibility: quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero A woman has the ability to spend a couple of hours with a male prostitute or pro dom/sub. She is fully aware of his situation. The male in question has an addiction and he funds it by prostitution or being a pro dom/sub. Is the male prostitute being taken advantage of in this scenario? quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero A man has the ability to spend a couple of hours with a female prostitute or pro dom/sub. He is fully aware of her situation. The female in question has an addiction and she funds it by prostitution or being a pro dom/sub. The female in question happens to genuinely love what she does. She prostitutes or pros because she gets great income from it and is damn good at it. Is this, now, an example of being taken advantage of? If she genuinely likes what she does yet also could be doing specific things to feed an addiction, what makes it an occasions of being 'taken advantage of'? If she is making a decision that she would still make without the presence of an addiction in her life, can we still say she's being taken advantage of and, if so, how and for what reasons? quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Is choosing to get into a relationship with someone who's on a relatively heavy rebound "taking advantage of" them? quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero What about a local store owner who you know is being forced to reduce his prices in order to compete with a chain store in order to stay open. Are you taking advantage of him by purchasing his wares at an excessively reduced price? Are you taking advantage of him if his reduced prices still aren't cheaper that the chain store's and you choose to buy them there instead? And, if you do choose to buy from the local owner at a higher price...who now is being taken advantage of? Would you consider the fact that pity has made you make a decision you would not have otherwise made because of an "addiction" (I'm using the term loosely to cover anything that might compel us to do something we otherwise would not do) to feeling the need to help strangers at the expense of your own benefit?

Sarahsubmits -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 2:44:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits Because nothing is going to get solved this way. I've said my piece. I'm sticking with it. There is simply no point in arguing anymore with them or you. We are coming at this from different universes. So you have no interest in addressing any of the questions I posed so as to be able to think more thoroughly about the reasons you are "sticking with it"? You have no interest in clarifying what makes you say something is "taking advantage of" and something else is not? No interest in sharing how you differentiate a situation when someone actually wants to do something yet could also be doing it from an addictive compulsion? I have no interest, because to my mind, I already made it crystal clear. It seems obvious to me. I don't know why it isn't to some here, but I have reached the end of my ability to care about this discussion. There are only so many different ways that we can say the same things - slightly differently - over and over again. I have no interest in your questions because I do not buy their premises. I have no interest because if I tried to go into why - for God knows what time, I would be met with the same willful misconstructions of my words and the same endless semantics and posturing. I have no interest because I would actually hear some defense of why it is all good to be a crack whore. That is Rod Serling. I simply do not know how to handle that any more than I know how to debate with religious fanatics. I have no interest because the OP told me how he came to the same conclusion several days ago and abandoned this thread. I had to go and give it a try myself. I berated him for getting frustrated. I told him that if he made such good points without tripping off defenses, he might be heard. He said that I could lay out a proof like Euclid and that someone like variation30 would argue that there was no such thing as a triangle. He said that I could say it sweetly and you folks would change my words to take offense - like assuming I hated surrogate mothers. He said I could say it stridently and still have no effect, but at least vent some frustration. I'm now going to have to go tell him that he was right. I quit. I really do.

variation30 -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 2:49:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW Why bother responding to just this? If you were going to respond anyway, you could have spoken on any aspect of the latest round of posts or you could have stood by your previous statement and said nothing in reference to his post at all-- but instead, you choose this immature rant. Is there a point? Dame Calla well what else is she going to respond to? I doubt she has any critiques on either my logic, the studies I listed, or my thesis other than 'well that's just your opinion.' yet she has some sort of desire to get in the last word (who knows). I have my own ideas as to why this is, but it is not relevant to the topic at hand.

variation30 -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 2:52:27 PM)
no, you have no interest because this is not a position you hold for any other reason than 'it feels right.' that's why you have such a difficult time defending your positions against the socratic method or reductio ad absurdums.

NihilusZero -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 3:04:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits I have no interest, because to my mind, I already made it crystal clear. It seems obvious to me. As you keep saying...without actually explaining why it seems obvious to you. There are plenty of things in life that seem "obvious" that after thinking about them aren't so much anymore. quote: ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits I have no interest in your questions because I do not buy their premises. Questions are not premises. Even if they were, you haven't even explained where you think a flawed premise is. How about one question: A man has the ability to spend a couple of hours with a female prostitute or pro dom/sub. He is fully aware of her situation. The female in question has an addiction and she funds it by prostitution or being a pro dom/sub. The female in question happens to genuinely love what she does. She prostitutes or pros because she gets great income from it and is damn good at it. Is this an example of being taken advantage of? quote: ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits I have no interest because if I tried to go into why - for God knows what time, I would be met with the same willful misconstructions of my words and the same endless semantics and posturing. Is it possible to have a conversation about this where you are not presuming the people with opposing viewpoints are just trying to toy with you? I can't speak for anyone else, but if we can take each others' word that were actually engaging in a discussion with an intent to understand things and not with any ulterior motives, how about we just exchange single questions without pretense? quote: ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits I have no interest because I would actually hear some defense of why it is all good to be a crack whore. That is Rod Serling. I simply do not know how to handle that any more than I know how to debate with religious fanatics. Except religious fanatics do not usually strive to substantiate their points with logic and sensibility. And The Twilight Zone series has always been one of my favorite TV shows precisely because it does force people to take deeper looks at what they presume to be normal, "good" and "bad" (e.g. Eye of the Beholder). quote: ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits I have no interest because the OP told me how he came to the same conclusion several days ago and abandoned this thread. I had to go and give it a try myself. I berated him for getting frustrated. I told him that if he made such good points without tripping off defenses, he might be heard. He said that I could lay out a proof like Euclid and that someone like variation30 would argue that there was no such thing as a triangle. He said that I could say it sweetly and you folks would change my words to take offense - like assuming I hated surrogate mothers. He said I could say it stridently and still have no effect, but at least vent some frustration. Both you and he have continued to operate from a position that demonizes the opposing though because you both already made up your minds that certain things are "bad" just because you feel them to be. This topic has become the equivalent of an abortion debate where pro-lifers become more concerned with calling the opposing viewpoint 'pro-abortion' than getting to the understandings underneath. While you both have tried to paint those of us voicing an abstract deconstruction of human tendencies to paint things with the colors of morality, you've done so ignoring the fact that I suspect everyone here is not fond of abuse, or duplicity or non-consensual use. That's not the issue. Ialdabaoth laid it out superbly in a paragraph you seemed to have ignored: quote: The deal is, it's all shades of gray. And no-one can really say for sure how bad something is, except the person inside - and hell, sometimes not even then. Life is incredibly messy, and people make all sorts of mistakes. Hell, most of the time we don't even know what were the right decisions and what were the mistakes until years afterwords. It's hard enough figuring out what's right and wrong for our own lives; trying to figure out what's right and wrong for other peoples' is just downright scary. The best we can do is love them, try to counsel them, and yeah - sometimes intervene when we think that our sense of right and wrong is preferable to theirs. But that never means we're "more right" then them, it just means we think we are, in that moment.

Sarahsubmits -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 3:24:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I have no interest in your questions because I do not buy their premises. Questions are not premises. Even if they were, you haven't even explained where you think a flawed premise is. How about one question: A man has the ability to spend a couple of hours with a female prostitute or pro dom/sub. He is fully aware of her situation. The female in question has an addiction and she funds it by prostitution or being a pro dom/sub. The female in question happens to genuinely love what she does. She prostitutes or pros because she gets great income from it and is damn good at it. Is this an example of being taken advantage of? Just as one example, this is not my statement. It is a question of the Dark's that I answered about two pages back. My view hasn't changed. Neither has my reasoning. Around and around and around. I quit.

NihilusZero -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 4:31:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero A man has the ability to spend a couple of hours with a female prostitute or pro dom/sub. He is fully aware of her situation. The female in question has an addiction and she funds it by prostitution or being a pro dom/sub. The female in question happens to genuinely love what she does. She prostitutes or pros because she gets great income from it and is damn good at it. Is this an example of being taken advantage of? Just as one example, this is not my statement. It is a question of the Dark's that I answered about two pages back. My view hasn't changed. Neither has my reasoning. Around and around and around. I quit. I mentioned earlier, in case you skipped over it, that I edited the.dark's original question to form a new one, which is what is presented above. It's an entirely new question. I'm not implying you've made any statement at all, which is why I'm asking. Is the above an example of "being taken advantage of" and why?

Sarahsubmits -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 5:30:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: variation30 no, you have no interest because this is not a position you hold for any other reason than 'it feels right.' that's why you have such a difficult time defending your positions against the socratic method or reductio ad absurdums. Actually nevermind. Lost my temper.

variation30 -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 5:34:27 PM)
then you must have missed the links I posted in the 'dress for success' thread.

Sarahsubmits -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 5:37:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: variation30 then you must have missed the links I posted in the 'dress for success' thread. Don't push it.

NihilusZero -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 6:06:12 PM)
A man has the ability to spend a couple of hours with a female prostitute or pro dom/sub. He is fully aware of her situation. The female in question has an addiction and she funds it by prostitution or being a pro dom/sub. The female in question happens to genuinely love what she does. She prostitutes or pros because she gets great income from it and is damn good at it. Is this an example of being taken advantage of?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 6:29:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits . I have no interest because the OP told me how he came to the same conclusion several days ago and abandoned this thread. I had to go and give it a try myself. I berated him for getting frustrated. I told him that if he made such good points without tripping off defenses, he might be heard. He said that I could lay out a proof like Euclid and that someone like variation30 would argue that there was no such thing as a triangle. He said that I could say it sweetly and you folks would change my words to take offense - like assuming I hated surrogate mothers. He said I could say it stridently and still have no effect, but at least vent some frustration. I'm now going to have to go tell him that he was right. Wow. I'm going to have to make a mental note never to share anything with you in an e-mail that I don't want to see posted on the boards the next day! Did he say anything else?

Andalusite -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 6:57:53 PM)
NihilusZero and variation, I'd say that if she were under the influence of illegal drugs at the time, that yes, it would definitely be taking advantage of her/she would be incapable of consenting to sex or bottoming. Anyone allowing her to top them when she was under the influence of drugs is an idiot. In the larger sense, if her pimp or the person running the BDSM house is the one who got her hooked, they are taking advantage of her, even if she enjoys it, if she is feeling pressure to participate in order to get her fix. The clients aren't necessarily doing so, as long as she's able to consent to it without impairment at the time she was interacting with them, IMHO. If a man is the one being paid for sex or BDSM, the same goes for him, whether his clients are male or female. Someone who is mentally retarded or who has severe mental illness frequently is not able to consent, but it comes down to more of a case by case basis, including if medication can successfully treat their condition. Some crimes are judged as being less serious if the person is under the influence at the time, others are judged more harshly. For example, accidentally hitting someone if you are sober is probably not going to result in jail time, whereas hitting someone if you are drunk or high is almost always ruled vehicular manslaughter. Alcohol and drugs do impair people's judgement, reflexes, etc.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 7:12:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andalusite NihilusZero and variation, I'd say that if she were under the influence of illegal drugs at the time, that yes, it would definitely be taking advantage of her/she would be incapable of consenting to sex or bottoming. Anyone allowing her to top them when she was under the influence of drugs is an idiot. In the larger sense, if her pimp or the person running the BDSM house is the one who got her hooked, they are taking advantage of her, even if she enjoys it, if she is feeling pressure to participate in order to get her fix. The clients aren't necessarily doing so, as long as she's able to consent to it without impairment at the time she was interacting with them, IMHO. If a man is the one being paid for sex or BDSM, the same goes for him, whether his clients are male or female. See, now, I struggle with this perspective. If she's a regular user, what makes her any different than -me-? I take medication on a daily basis. Some of the medication that I take shares certain characteristics with some illegal drugs -- in particular, I take narcotic pain medication and tableted THC... the pharmaceutical equivalent of heroin and pot. The only difference is that my drugs are -legal-. I'm even willing to say that I am -strongly motivated- to take my medication. When I don't, my body curls up in horrific spasms, and the pain is absolutely awful, and not in any way that gives any kind of adrenaline rush or anything like that, either -- not even for an intensity fetishist like myself. My doctor got me 'hooked' on these medications. He gave them to me and wrote me new prescriptions for them on a regular basis, and encouraged me to keep coming back for more, paying steadily higher cost for my medications--but not being in pain and having nominal control over my limbs is -such- a motivator... Now... I also enjoy D/s and BDSM activities. I also have, in the course of my life, done some things that I didn't really -enjoy-, but to get where I wanted to go, I had to do them, so I did. I was compelled to do them, in order to get the results I wanted... I consented to do so, even though I didn't really -want- to... I just wanted what was on the other side. I also do things that I really enjoy that other people find... well... creepy. Sometimes, I agree to do those things when I'm taking my medications. Since I don't really go -without- my medications, it's hard for me to fathom a time when I -wouldn't- be under the influence to consent. Aside from the legality of the drugs in question, how is the prostitute, who does what she has to and what she wants to, any different than me?... and what gives me (or anyone else) the right to decide that a prescription or a societally-approved job makes any difference whatsoever about whether an individual is capable of giving consent? To me, it seems like the foundation of this argument isn't life or risk or consent or anything else, but judgments about the way other people live their lives, based on some pervasive, but not necessarily rational, societal preferences. If it is a matter of logic, then how is my situation any different than the prostitute who uses, and who knows what she's doing, is doing it because she enjoys it -and- has to do it to keep her life together? Dame Calla

Andalusite -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 7:33:27 PM)
I think it depends on how impaired you are by them. If you're impaired enough that it would be illegal for you to drive a car (and that is true of many legal medications), I think that consenting to sex or BDSM is starting to get iffy. If you're impaired enough to not have gross motor control or to the point where you can't think straight, that's where to me it goes into the realm of non-consent. It's like the difference between being a bit "buzzed" by alcohol, being drunk enough to flash the room and have trouble walking or talking, and being wrapped around the toilet or passed out. At the lower levels, probably not a big deal, but the more affected you are, the more it affects judgement, physical capability, and consent. MJ probably isn't enough to cause non-consent (judging only from 2nd hand info), but things like crack or crank probably would. I'm not an expert on dosages, though! Likewise, with mental illness, there are some conditions that don't interfere with consent at all, and others that can if the person isn't medicated, and others that are so extreme that the person is barely able to function. Some high-functioning developmentally disabled people may also be able to consent, but there's definitely a point where they aren't capable of doing so. I'm not a doctor or a lawyer, so I don't have a set standard for each condition, but I think that getting involved with someone who has a condition that affects their ability to consent should be done with caution. That includes casual encounters, casual playpartners, or hiring a pro-BDSM person or prostitute.

Sexycelticlady -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 7:54:38 PM)
It is refreshing to see people on this thread continue to try to use reason and show their open mindedness rather than in the case of the OP and Sarahsubmits doing exactly what they accuse others of and flouncing off in a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way. There is nothing wrong with either of you holding the opinion you do, but everyone else is also allowed to have an opinion and is also allowed to freely debate ideas on a thread such as this. What is apparent is that as soon as pertinent questions are asked or you are asked to defend your opinions you assume and accuse others of being nasty or stupid or any of the other attacks shown in this thread. People can only ever speak from a perspective that they currently hold. Those who are openminded and willing to grow and learn can gain a great deal from threads such as these and open discourse and debate is, for the most part, fun. I thank the OP for raising the issue. It is simply a shame that the arguments and debate have not been made in a reasonable manner. I also thank those who have shown a great deal of patience and time trying to explain their side of the debate without resorting to fallacious argument tactics. I learned a few thinks about the American political system [:D] Like other opinions in this thread, I consider personal responsibility to be uppermost in human interactions, and I value the right of other people to chose to live their lives in the manner they deem acceptable to them. I have no right to dictate to the next person how to live their lives beyond respecting the rights of others. If I see something that causes me concern I may or I may not mention it to the person directly and express my concern in an appropriate manner, but I do not have the right to chose their path for them. I can only support them by giving them the freedom to choose their own path. However, if someone commits a crime I will report them, if they interfere and cause another harm by interfering with their rights (obv. in a non consensual situation) I will call them on it.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 8:11:45 PM)
quote: I think it depends on how impaired you are by them. See, I agree with this, but I don't differentiate about what -kind- of drugs we're talking about. Prescription, street, alcohol, caffeine... and it doesn't matter about what the activity is, and whether it's socially sanctioned or socially uncomfortable. What matters is that I decide, for myself, whether I'm willing/able to interact with someone in a given situation... and while I won't decide -for- them, I -will- decide, for me, whether I'm comfortable participating in a given activity with a certain person under certain circumstances. I expect that they'll do the same with me, and I'm open about saying "I have this illness and take these medications, and sometimes, they may make it unreasonable for me to do certain things." I think what was bothering me about the other discussions, aside from the issue of taking away personal sovereignty, was the idea that we can judge whether a person is impaired by the legality or social acceptability of what that person is doing. I think that some socially uncomfortable preferences or choices make people so uncomfortable that they try to force a correlation that reinforces the societal mores, whether or not the correlation applies. Dame Calla

variation30 -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 9:07:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits . I have no interest because the OP told me how he came to the same conclusion several days ago and abandoned this thread. I had to go and give it a try myself. I berated him for getting frustrated. I told him that if he made such good points without tripping off defenses, he might be heard. He said that I could lay out a proof like Euclid and that someone like variation30 would argue that there was no such thing as a triangle. He said that I could say it sweetly and you folks would change my words to take offense - like assuming I hated surrogate mothers. He said I could say it stridently and still have no effect, but at least vent some frustration. I'm now going to have to go tell him that he was right. Wow. I'm going to have to make a mental note never to share anything with you in an e-mail that I don't want to see posted on the boards the next day! Did he say anything else? did she really compare the original post with having logic as sound as euclidian geometry? granted, the only experience I have with logic is the first two thirds of w. v. quine's methods of logic...but I think that the arguments made both by this young woman and the original poster fall short of being patently valid. I wish she wouldn't think we are taking her words out of context for the sole purpose of being offended. what we are doing is taking her argument to its logical conclusions and pointing out the injuries to individual liberty, let alone happiness, that such beliefs could lead to.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875