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

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



Message

NihilusZero -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 9:44:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

I am tired of making an obvious statement, like, you know this stuff can get out of hand and, the first thought of many is not that yes indeed it can get out of hand, but rather, "wait a minute, someone might judge me or say I can't do something."

It isn't about being PC.

Let's break this down:

  • You do not condone harm being done to anyone and demand that everyone must act to prevent it.
  • Insulting, berating and demanding the restriction of the consensual actions of other people is harm.
How exactly do you (and anyone else who thinks forcing good samaritan feelings down other peoples' throats) reconcile this contradiction?

And quit bringing about the strawman examples. We're not talking about any act involving two or more people where anything less than all parties are adults and consenting.

So, your bat example (which involves one consenting party and one nonconsenting party) doesn't count.
Rape (which involves one consenting party and one nonconsenting party) doesn't count.

Again (just to make it perfectly clear): We're not talking about any act involving two or more people where anything less than all parties are adults and consenting.



QuixoticErrant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/24/2009 11:41:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

I am tired of making an obvious statement, like, you know this stuff can get out of hand and, the first thought of many is not that yes indeed it can get out of hand, but rather, "wait a minute, someone might judge me or say I can't do something."

It isn't about being PC.

Let's break this down:

  • You do not condone harm being done to anyone and demand that everyone must act to prevent it.
  • Insulting, berating and demanding the restriction of the consensual actions of other people is harm.
How exactly do you (and anyone else who thinks forcing good samaritan feelings down other peoples' throats) reconcile this contradiction?

And quit bringing about the strawman examples. We're not talking about any act involving two or more people where anything less than all parties are adults and consenting.

So, your bat example (which involves one consenting party and one nonconsenting party) doesn't count.
Rape (which involves one consenting party and one nonconsenting party) doesn't count.

Again (just to make it perfectly clear): We're not talking about any act involving two or more people where anything less than all parties are adults and consenting.



Actually, you are simply redefining things now that you have moved on from your more broad statements about there not being limitations on freedoms.


To be specific, re: BDSM,

As I pointed out earlier, consent doesn't mean everything you would like it to.

If you have ever had a submissive in deep subspace, then you know full well that, at that moment, she may well agree to anything. Don't tell me that she is in a head space at that point to consent in a meaningful way. If that is the case, then your consent argument disappears. It vanishes utterly because she can not give meaningful consent at that point.

As to cogent consent, well the junkie certainly consents to the needle. That also does not mean that they are making a sound decision, or that in their illness, they are capable of rational consent.

Consider the hideous example brought by another poster.

He brought up chopping a digit off (to show devotion) as an example of things which people have a right to consent to with the implication that we should tolerate such things.

The problem here of course is:

1. In 50 years, she will still be missing the finger.

2. He will likely be long gone.

3. Anyone who honestly wanted to chop off a finger as a sign of devotion would quickly be deemed incapable of informed consent, by reason of insanity, by a court of law. Their "consent" at the time is not valid. Also, abusing those who are impaired is an aggravating circumstance under the law.

Now, before you get on to the whole "well who are you to call something crazy..." I would certainly suggest using permanent, disabling damage as a possible criteria.

I will again use the pornography argument. I have no idea where the fine line between sane and insane is. Clearly, there is a lot of room for debate. Courts debate these things all the time. However, such a line must exist even if I can not pin it down. More importantly, some things are so clearly over the line that there is no longer room for sensible people to debate. As an example of the principle, perhaps some people consider such paragons of cinema like "desperate crack whores #22" to be art, however, those people are all attorneys paid to have that opinion by their clients. Everyone and their uncle knows that such things are clearly porn.

The same goes for insane. Yes, there can be a case where the majority somehow got it wrong, but, the person who honestly believes that Elvis speaks to him from Mars through the alien implant in his teeth, and Elvis tells him that the men in black are looking for him... That person is clearly not sane, and not of sufficiently sound mind to consent to much of anything.

Yes, there are actually those in the D/s world who are spiraling out of control. There are degrees to all things, but consent is a very overused excuse for not caring about possible harm. I find that to be abhorrent.

So you are wrong, and dangerously wrong, on a number of matters.

I think the bulk of what bugs you is that I dare to judge your attitudes and your arguments as bad things. If you don't wish to have me comment on why your remarks are shameful, then don't make them to me. You were the one who needed to argue that there is no social responsibility. Let me be clear, I find smug and pompous rejection of duty to be offensive, immoral and repellant. So do the courts.

If you pick a fight, don't whine when you get one.








DemonKia -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 12:04:01 AM)

Ummmmmm, transgendered folk get something a lot more significant than a pinky legally, surgically removed on a regular basis (female-to-male TG typically have their breasts removed, in addition to the obvious removals involved in male-to-female transsexuals) . . . . . & in my not-so-humble, they had to overcome a lot of equally muddled 'logical attempts to care for them' to gain that right . .. . . . .

So. OP, you used the drama contained in a profile as an example to start this thread, & then you consistently chose to selectively excerpt others' postings to 'prove a point' that was never as obvious to me as it appears to be to you . . .. . A point that rather fluidly moved around depending on which poster you're taking issue with . . . .

& over the course of the thread you've displayed a remarkably high level of contempt for this community, twisting other posters' replies to conform to your view of BDSM as inherently dangerous, abusive, & problematic, tho' that was not revealed at first, it emerged over the course of the thread . . . . . . All while also shaping your concerns as some superior form of 'pure altruism' & greater knowing than anyone else here . . . . . .

My troll alert is now going 'whoop, whoop, whoop' & I'm outta here . .... Not entirely sure why you're hanging out here other than apparently seeing yourself as an 'avenging angel' protecting us from ourselves, & covertly letting us know how & why we're such 'potentially dangerous deviants' . . . . .

Personally, I mostly stick to participating in threads where the OP is sincerely attempting to engage in dialogue, I try not to feed trolls, & I try to abide by my own rules about being 'positively productive' in most everything . . . . In my judgment, continuing to interact with you & this thread no longer meets those guidelines . ... . .

Best of luck, OP.



QuixoticErrant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 12:18:43 AM)

See the next comment, I hit quote instead of edit, and I am removing the original.



QuixoticErrant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 12:32:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DemonKia

Ummmmmm, transgendered folk get something a lot more significant than a pinky legally, surgically removed on a regular basis (female-to-male TG typically have their breasts removed, in addition to the obvious removals involved in male-to-female transsexuals) . . . . . & in my not-so-humble, they had to overcome a lot of equally muddled 'logical attempts to care for them' to gain that right . .. . . . .

Actually, most states require a psychiatric screening (over some time) before they can have the procedure performed.

So. OP, you used the drama contained in a profile as an example to start this thread, & then you consistently chose to selectively excerpt others' postings to 'prove a point' that was never as obvious to me as it appears to be to you . . .. . A point that rather fluidly moved around depending on which poster you're taking issue with . . . .

Well, no, the point was always that things can get out of hand and that D/s can become something self destructive, much like an addiction can become self destructive. If this was not clear to you, then I am not certain how it could be made more clear, since it was stated clearly multiple times, and a lot of other people got it too. The fluid discussion moved to explaining to some people that social responsibility really does exist. The people who argued that there is no personal social responsibility (and clothed it in the high language of personal freedom) clearly saw that point because they did not like the implication that perhaps things could get out of control, and that further, they might have to temper their activities if that was the case. That is why they argued what they did.

& over the course of the thread you've displayed a remarkably high level of contempt for this community, twisting other posters' replies to conform to your view of BDSM as inherently dangerous, abusive, & problematic, tho' that was not revealed at first, it emerged over the course of the thread . . . . . . All while also shaping your concerns as some superior form of 'pure altruism' & greater knowing than anyone else here . . . . . .

I certainly do not consider BDSM to be twisted or dangerous - any more than I consider a car to be twisted or dangerous. I consider the ways that certain irresponsible people handle it to be twisted, immature and dangerous - much like I would suggest that someone who feels that they can drive a car while drunk or without regard to pedestrians to be twisted and dangerous. Are you going to argue that all is always rosy in BDSM? As to contempt, I have no contempt for the community. Most people I know in it are decent folks. I do have the most sincere contempt for people who feel that they have no duty to behave responsibly.

My troll alert is now going 'whoop, whoop, whoop' & I'm outta here . .... Not entirely sure why you're hanging out here other than apparently seeing yourself as an 'avenging angel' protecting us from ourselves, & covertly letting us know how & why we're such 'potentially dangerous deviants' . . . . .

I don't think I ever used the phrase "potentially dangerous deviant." Do you think I see you as a potentially dangerous deviant? Really, I have not seen you post anything that says you do not need to care for other people. If though, you feel that there is no such thing as social responsibility, then yes, I would consider that dangerous. So would a court. I stick around because - this may shock you - there are a lot more kinksters out there who feel like me than you might think. We are tired of all of the self serving notions that everything and anything is always ok. We have seen friends get hurt. We have seen people go down very bad paths and we hear endless rants on these boards that no one should say anything. Sorry, but reality must creep in.

Personally, I mostly stick to participating in threads where the OP is sincerely attempting to engage in dialogue, I try not to feed trolls, & I try to abide by my own rules about being 'positively productive' in most everything . . . . In my judgment, continuing to interact with you & this thread no longer meets those guidelines . ... . .

I am sorry that you feel that way.

Best of luck, OP.




NihilusZero -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 12:36:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

If you have ever had a submissive in deep subspace, then you know full well that, at that moment, she may well agree to anything. Don't tell me that she is in a head space at that point to consent in a meaningful way. If that is the case, then your consent argument disappears. It vanishes utterly because she can not give meaningful consent at that point.

You aren't just projecting irrationally emotive points due to a massing guilt of having been accused of raping your most recent significant other, are you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

As to cogent consent, well the junkie certainly consents to the needle. That also does not mean that they are making a sound decision, or that in their illness, they are capable of rational consent.

You're the type of person that grabs cigarettes out of people's mouths just to make yourself feel better about your crusade, aren't you?

You have no noticeably competent understanding of human psychology to be able to use the term "illness" without understanding what constitutes a psychosis or a disorder. It is a malleable and morphing thing that changes with geocultural mores. People with your mentality are the types that would forbid homosexuals from being able to peacefully have their own relationships decades ago because you found their preferences listed in the DSM II..

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

3. Anyone who honestly wanted to chop off a finger as a sign of devotion would quickly be deemed incapable of informed consent, by reason of insanity, by a court of law. Their "consent" at the time is not valid. Also, abusing those who are impaired is an aggravating circumstance under the law.

So...is it the desire to chop off the finger that's bad...or just the reason?

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

Now, before you get on to the whole "well who are you to call something crazy..." I would certainly suggest using permanent, disabling damage as a possible criteria.

I find this incredibly telling from someone who's been in a relationship with a transgendered individual.

Did you tell them this often? To their face?



QuixoticErrant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 12:57:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

If you have ever had a submissive in deep subspace, then you know full well that, at that moment, she may well agree to anything. Don't tell me that she is in a head space at that point to consent in a meaningful way. If that is the case, then your consent argument disappears. It vanishes utterly because she can not give meaningful consent at that point.

You aren't just projecting irrationally emotive points due to a massing guilt of having been accused of raping your most recent significant other, are you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

As to cogent consent, well the junkie certainly consents to the needle. That also does not mean that they are making a sound decision, or that in their illness, they are capable of rational consent.

You're the type of person that grabs cigarettes out of people's mouths just to make yourself feel better about your crusade, aren't you?

You have no noticeably competent understanding of human psychology to be able to use the term "illness" without understanding what constitutes a psychosis or a disorder. It is a malleable and morphing thing that changes with geocultural mores. People with your mentality are the types that would forbid homosexuals from being able to peacefully have their own relationships decades ago because you found their preferences listed in the DSM II..

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

3. Anyone who honestly wanted to chop off a finger as a sign of devotion would quickly be deemed incapable of informed consent, by reason of insanity, by a court of law. Their "consent" at the time is not valid. Also, abusing those who are impaired is an aggravating circumstance under the law.

So...is it the desire to chop off the finger that's bad...or just the reason?

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

Now, before you get on to the whole "well who are you to call something crazy..." I would certainly suggest using permanent, disabling damage as a possible criteria.

I find this incredibly telling from someone who's been in a relationship with a transgendered individual.

Did you tell them this often? To their face?


Wasn't that a well of maturity from a fellow who was just whining about me berating people... the term "projection" springs to mind. I don't think I have ever seen a "dom" melt down so terribly before. Do you wish to insult my mother while you are at it? Do you always melt down like this when you loose a discussion or when your flaws are pointed out? Accusing someone of rape (as if that is somehow appropriate) is a curious way to make a point no? It also shows how clearly little you think of the pain that actual rape victims must feel if you are going to throw the word around so easily. That is contemptible.

Actually, I smoke. I should quit. It is clearly a self destructive addiction. However, I don't yank other's cigarettes.

Do you think that being gay is a self destructive thing... self destructive was certainly always a criteria. Given the context, do you not like gay people? Is there a reason to say something so horrible?

If I had ever had a relationship with a transgendered person, would that be a bad thing? Clearly you think it is an insult... Curious... Do you think that they have suffered disabling damage?

The fact is that your arguments are bankrupt. I was not impressed by your "brilliance," and now you are melting down. Please have a tantrum on someone else's time.


For the record, I am laughing at your last post, and I will likely ignore any other nonsense that you write. Responding to such foolishness beyond this is kind of degrading.





RCdc -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 1:46:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

You are not the first, nor will you be the last, to say that I argue in a very strong - and potentially off putting - manner when I feel issues of morality and duty are at stake.

Whether or not it damages my credibility is in the eye of the beholder. I have gotten a lot of very positive response from people who are equally fed up with the smugness, selfishness and the nihilism that permeates these boards.

For instance, this submissive thinks that I have kept my temper quite well,

"Dear xxxx, I've noticed that the fuse on your temper is a bit longer than mine. I've improved quite a bit (guess it comes with old age), but I do reach a point where I can't stop myself from telling someone they are not only wrong, but out of their minds and dangerous to the general population around them.In any case, on this thread, rest assured that you have at least one person who will have your back the whole way through. xxx"

Honestly, I would write what I wrote whether or not there were those who liked my style. I am angry.

I am honestly and legitimately angry at the way that I see again and again here a whole "she signed up for it, let her suffer" routine come from Dom after Dom. It strikes me as nothing less than a rationalization for abuse.

I am tired of the "whatever master wants..." response after response from submissive after submissive. It is nothing less than a rationalization to be abused.

I am tired of making an obvious statement, like, you know this stuff can get out of hand and, the first thought of many is not that yes indeed it can get out of hand, but rather, "wait a minute, someone might judge me or say I can't do something."

If you want to know why kinksters get a bad rap as being unbalanced, it stems from espousing views like these.

Someone should stand up and say enough of this.


I want to be absolutely straight with you QE.  I have not said you argue in a strong way.  I have said that I find your behaviour here-  irratic, destructive, dangerous and potentially abusive.  Again I will reiterate - I do not defend that which does not need nor want defending - pointless IMO.  As pointless as writing or claiming that you have received emails or comments from nameless faces to justify why your behaviour is 'ok'.  You didn't have to put that in your response to me - you 'needed' to.
 
But the issue is QE is that in any group or collective - that you will get people who think you are being moral and keeping your temper and you will get people - like me - who see you falling apart.
That is what this whole thread is about after all isn't it?  That you see addiction in certain needs and that you think it's right to stop people - or at the very least - warn them?  That it's your duty as a human being?
Then surely - I have every duty to point out your abusive and destructive behaviour.  Am I not only doing that which you promote?
 
But someone who doesn't want to heal, leave abuse or alter their situation - telling them until they are blue in the face doesn't help them.  It merely helps satisfy ones own ego.  If you warned them - if they died or injured - then you 'did your best' - and absolves you from feeling any sense of responsibility.
 
But then you get into the whole 'who choses' thang.  Is it right that you infringe on the free will of another?  I am all for reminding people that cutting has issues - just as much as I am all for any other issue - but to step in and attempt to stop someones choice, just because you see the ability for abuse is not allowing people to learn and it doesn't allow people to grow.  It's stiffling and abusive in itself.
 
You cannot treat one form of abuse with another form of abuse and expect a constructive result.
Morality cannot justify abuse even if it tries.
 
Earlier, you said that <snip>Do unto others as you would have done unto you. - The difference between people who believe this statement and hypocrites who just say it, is precisely in whether or not they take actions. </snip>
What concerns me the most about people like yourself who advocate 'morality' is the picking and choosing of what you feel is worthy of saving or warning over - that I find hypocritical.  Me?  I would rather let people know the risks of everything - not restricted by some set of morals - but free because of love,care and empathy.
 
Your statement that I am tired of the "whatever master wants..." response after response from submissive after submissive. It is nothing less than a rationalization to be abused.
- then be tired.  I am one of those people... if not 'a submissive' - I certainly defer to Master in all matters.  Does that mean he doesn't want me to have brain or make suggestions?  I wouldn't be here if he thought that.  But would I be here if he didn't want me to be?  Maybe I am here because of him - sharing my thoughts - able to find my voice.  Have you never thought about it like that?  You are being so general with your comments and assumptions that you negate the postivity that such a thought can birth.

quote:

I am honestly and legitimately angry at the way that I see again and again here a whole "she signed up for it, let her suffer" routine come from Dom after Dom.


You will get over it - if you want to.  I learnt a long time ago that you cannot save everyone nor should you.  What you 'need' to do is learn to control your anger - otherwise guess what?  You are addicted!  You cannot help anyone with any kind of abuse or addiction, if you cannnot show how to be in control.

quote:

If you want to know why kinksters get a bad rap as being unbalanced, it stems from espousing views like these.


Maybe this is part of the issue.  I don't seperate - I don't pick and choose like you - I don't want to save BDSM or kink from 'those people who give me a bad wrap' because I am what I make myself.   You don't think that I haven't come up against negativity of authority relationships before?  So what to do... what to do?  Show by example?  Master does this all the time and is a wonderful example of dominance... that is what drew me to his side.  Instead of being like you are and being exactly what people assume or second guess dominants to be - controlling, angry, selfish and blinkered into their one single way.
 
I know you probably do not see things the same way as me.  You probably do not see the way you are behaving or that you are being exactly that which you are doing your hating over, but someone else, reading this may see the difference between Master and I and yourself - and make their own decision to exactly whom is rationalising abuse - and avoid it in their future.
 
the.dark.
 



Aileen1968 -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 1:54:00 AM)

Oh dear Lord. Another knight in shining armor. I don't want that or need that.



NihilusZero -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 2:03:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

For the record, I am laughing at your last post, and I will likely ignore any other nonsense that you write. Responding to such foolishness beyond this is kind of degrading.

It appears the points I have made or would make to follow this up will be pointless. My last post was built on making relevant connections that are not applicable. The reason they were/are not applicable is because I mistook you for another site member whose name is similar without taking the time to adequately ascertain the compatibility of authorship between your comments and those of another.

So, I will apologize for making comments that were spawned from error.

And considering that I suspect the mistake will only further serve to taint the sensibility of what I write here from here on out, I'll just secede from the conversation.



Firebirdseeking -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 5:17:46 AM)

General response:  Lets see, who has more points on his or her score card?  Who is more "Lifestyle"?  who is more moral?  whose position is more PC?  whose position is the higher ground?

Is anyone willing to acknowledge that your position MIGHT just not be 100% right?  Can you learn anything if you have to be right all the time about everything?
Maybe I am reading this wrong....

I thought the boards were places to learn, to assist others and to exchange ideas - not a pissing contest.

The level of disrespect in this long post really bothers me. 



sublace -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 5:59:16 AM)

I think somebody is polishing up a doctoral thesis. If this isn't already intended for presentation maybe a morally ambigious procrastinator can snag this topic and debate? [;)] Just a thought.



QuixoticErrant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 9:31:18 AM)

I want to be absolutely straight with you QE.  I have not said you argue in a strong way.  I have said that I find your behaviour here-  irratic, destructive, dangerous and potentially abusive.  Again I will reiterate - I do not defend that which does not need nor want defending - pointless IMO.  As pointless as writing or claiming that you have received emails or comments from nameless faces to justify why your behaviour is 'ok'.  You didn't have to put that in your response to me - you 'needed' to.

I see... How precisely is stating that people have a duty to behave in a safe and sane manner abusive, erratic or destructive? Really Dark, how is that abusive? If someone were to strongly argue that there is no duty to behave in a safe and sane way, how is it abusive to say "yes there is, and it is wrong, actually morally wrong, to say you have no such responsibility." There are many examples where restricting the freedoms of another, and "preventing them from learning" is exactly the right thing to do. If someone has had too much to drink, do you let them drive home themselves, even if they are whining up a storm? Is it abusive then to prevent them from risking their own and other people's lives and well being? Is it abusive at that point, to "restrain their freedoms?" Yes, you are right, I have denied an innocent on the road, the right to learn from the experience of getting killed or maimed by an irresponsible drunk - but that is a good thing. As to the point of that in BDSM, of course, much like driving, it is a great thing that I am all for in general. Just do it safely and sanely in a way that is not a danger to yourself or others.

As to putting up what someone else wrote, and she is not the only one to have written me with compliments, I did not need to do that in the way you are saying. No, the point is that those who feel that they rule some roost and speak for the community do not do so nearly as much as you might think. As a community, one of the great things about BDSM, is that MOST of us actually are responsible.

 
But the issue is QE is that in any group or collective - that you will get people who think you are being moral and keeping your temper and you will get people - like me - who see you falling apart.
That is what this whole thread is about after all isn't it?  That you see addiction in certain needs and that you think it's right to stop people - or at the very least - warn them?  That it's your duty as a human being?
Then surely - I have every duty to point out your abusive and destructive behaviour.  Am I not only doing that which you promote?

No you are not doing what I promote at all, because what you are saying is silly and a false parallel. It is not abuse to tell someone that they need to respect the rights of others. It is not abuse to tell someone that they have a duty to behave in a socially responsible manner. Perhaps you think that exercising judgement is abuse. That is a foolish and not properly thought out view. Telling a drunk that they can not drive, even to the point of physically preventing them from getting in their car is not abuse - it is a social duty. Telling people that they have no right to drive drunk is not abuse. On the other hand, arguing that people have some right to drive drunk anyway (and coming up with dozens of silly rationalizations, based on fear of confrontation, for why they can) is socially irresponsible and morally repugnant.


 
But someone who doesn't want to heal, leave abuse or alter their situation - telling them until they are blue in the face doesn't help them.  It merely helps satisfy ones own ego.  If you warned them - if they died or injured - then you 'did your best' - and absolves you from feeling any sense of responsibility.

So you are saying that there is no point in saying anything, and therefore you are absolved from even trying. Very good! I am deeply impressed with the ways that people rationalize their own cowardice.


But then you get into the whole 'who choses' thang.  Is it right that you infringe on the free will of another?  I am all for reminding people that cutting has issues - just as much as I am all for any other issue - but to step in and attempt to stop someones choice, just because you see the ability for abuse is not allowing people to learn and it doesn't allow people to grow.  It's stiffling and abusive in itself.

Excuse me, what exactly have I stepped in to stop? I suppose that the hypothetical finger cutting would be an example of something I would try to prevent. See the drunk driving analogy. I am not, in the least, sorry if a monster's feelings get hurt when they are told that they do not have the freedom to be as much of a monster as they want to be.

Your statement that I am tired of the "whatever master wants..." response after response from submissive after submissive. It is nothing less than a rationalization to be abused.
- then be tired.  I am one of those people... if not 'a submissive' - I certainly defer to Master in all matters.  Does that mean he doesn't want me to have brain or make suggestions?  I wouldn't be here if he thought that.  But would I be here if he didn't want me to be?  Maybe I am here because of him - sharing my thoughts - able to find my voice.  Have you never thought about it like that?  You are being so general with your comments and assumptions that you negate the postivity that such a thought can birth.

Of course I am not. One role of a good dominant is to help people grow. You are taking this in a completely different way than intended. As someone who has been in the lifestyle for so long, are you honestly telling me that you have never seen something get out of hand? Are you honestly telling me, that in the hands of a bad Dominant, the attitude of "whatever master wants" has never been abused? I am all for using this lifestyle in a constructive manner. Of course that is possible. But if you honestly wish to engage this discussion and defend the indefensible (you are doing that, you really are) then you will have to prove to me that things never get out of hand and that there are no dangerous paths that people go down for very stupid reasons.




RCdc -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 10:20:17 AM)


quote:

I see... How precisely is stating that people have a duty to behave in a safe and sane manner abusive, erratic or destructive?

Please Re-read what I said.  I did not speak of what you stated but of your behaviour.
The way you are doing it is.  Your behaviour is.  What is say is lost in your anger.
quote:

 
Really Dark, how is that abusive?

 
The way you are doing it is.  Your behaviour is.  What you say is lost in your anger.
 
quote:

If someone were to strongly argue that there is no duty to behave in a safe and sane way, how is it abusive to say "yes there is, and it is wrong, actually morally wrong, to say you have no such responsibility." There are many examples where restricting the freedoms of another, and preventing them from learning is exactly the right thing to do. If someone has had too much to drink, do you let them drive home themselves, even if they are whining up a storm? Is it abusive then to prevent them from risk their and other people's lives and well being? Is it abusive at that point, to "restrain their freedoms?" Yes, you are right, I have denied an innocent on the road, the right to learn from the experience of getting killed or maimed by an irresponsible drunk - but that is a good thing. As to the point of that in BDSM, of course, much like driving, it is a great thing that I am all for in general. Just do it safely and sanely in a way that is not a danger to yourself or others.
 
For the sake of this discussion I am not going to walk your path of ridiculous scenarios that have nothing to do with BDSM.  So drinking, drink driving, muggings etc are not about BDSM.  Lets stick to BDSM - in a BDSM forum.  If you want to discuss societal issues, take it to another forum part of the board - on here.  So if you want a response, qualify your question with a BDSM or Ds related activity.
 
You cannot compare the two.

quote:

As to putting up what someone else wrote, and she is not the only one to have written me with compliments, I did not need to do that in the way you are saying. No, the point is that those who feel that they rule some roost and speak for the community do not do so nearly as much as you might think.


I see no one who has an opposite standpoint, claiming they speak for any community.  I certainly only speak for myself.  You are the only person I have seen making any statements about moral societies and communities and the duty one has being part of such.  So are you saying you have little to speak for the community you seem to insist you belong to?


quote:

But the issue is QE is that in any group or collective - that you will get people who think you are being moral and keeping your temper and you will get people - like me - who see you falling apart.
That is what this whole thread is about after all isn't it?  That you see addiction in certain needs and that you think it's right to stop people - or at the very least - warn them?  That it's your duty as a human being?
Then surely - I have every duty to point out your abusive and destructive behaviour.  Am I not only doing that which you promote?

No you are not doing what I promote at all, because what you are saying is silly and a false parallel. It is not abuse to tell someone that they need to respect the rights of others. It is not abuse to tell someone that they have a duty to behave in a socially responsible manner. Perhaps you think that exercising judgement is abuse. That is a foolish view.
 
And there you have it.  You do not see your issues and problem.  It's not what you are saying it is HOW you are saying it and the compliance you expect afterwards.  You do not see your hate.  You are on a mission and nothing anyone can say will alter your perspective.  You are blinded by your anger.  It is abusive to attempt to thrust ones own moral, duties and expectations on another.  You are not only stating what is 'right' in your eyes - you expect it to occur.  Those that do not obey, you ridicule and name call.
Its that same question again and again.  Who gets to choose what is abusive or addictive?

quote:

So you are saying that there is no point in saying anything, and therefore you are absolved from even trying. Very good! I am deeply impressed with the ways that people rationalize their own cowardice.


No that is not what I said at all and deep down, you know that - twisting words will not alter what I actually said.  And again, your nastiness and need to postulate, overwhelmes the meaning behind your words.  But thats all cool.  When you respond with sarcasm, lies and anger, it only damages you.  Until you realise that, all I can do is still be there - as a caring human being.
Can you not see the difference between what you claim I said and what I actually said (even more clearly in this paragraph)?

quote:

Excuse me, what exactly have I stepped in to stop? I suppose that the hypothetical finger cutting would be an example of something I would try to prevent. See the drunk driving analogy. I am not, in the least, sorry if a monster's feelings get hurt when they are told that they do not have the freedom to be as much of a monster as they want to be.


Again, please stick to BDSM or Ds related topics and I will respond.  You cannot compare them.

quote:

Of course I am not. One role of a good dominant is to help people grow. You are taking this in a completely different way than intended. As someone who has been in the lifestyle for so long, are you honestly telling me that you have never seen something get out of hand?

Physically?  Mentally?  Not particularly.  I see what other people might call 'mistakes' made but people are amazing and awe inspiring and have a great capacity to learn and for growth.  But then, I don't see mistakes - I see lessons.
 
quote:

 Are you honestly telling me, that in the hands of a bad Dominant, the attitude of "whatever master wants" has never been abused? I am all for using this lifestyle in a constructive manner. Of course that is possible.

 
That isn't what you said.  You were generalistic in the beginning.  I pointed out to you that you were and that your generalistic attitude was incorrect - that there is both constructive and destructive elements.  Either read what is written or present it correctly without turning words around - that is my only request.
 
quote:

But if you honestly wish to engage this discussion and defend the indefensible (you are doing that, you really are) then you will have to prove to me that things never get out of hand and that there are no dangerous paths that people go down for very stupid reasons.
 
And now your posting is moving into the realm of second guessing.  It is not a healthy nor helpful to conversation nor relationships in general.  So you are going to have to explain to me what you assume I am defending so I can clear up with you whether your second guessing me is correct or not.  Without clarification, any further discussions would be fruitless.
 
the.dark.



QuixoticErrant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 11:29:41 AM)

My first thought was that you have got to be kidding me...

But you really are serious.

It seems that the core of what is bothering you is the notion of "should" and more to the point, the notion that people actually can be reproved for not doing what they should do.

Ok, Dark, the real world is a big bad scary place. I am sorry that this is reality. One of the things that makes it less awful is when people do what they should do. I am not imposing *my* morality on others, I am trying to argue with some here that morality, ethics and codes of responsible behavior even exist. Some here are stuck on the notion that there even is morality in the first place, and they are cranky that it applies even to them.

The drunk driving analogy was really quite apt I thought. I mean, if someone is going to posit that they have no responsibility to act, or to restrict the freedoms of another, preventing drunk driving is a strong counterpoint. Since you have chosen to simply ignore a point which was utterly obvious - the point that there really are circumstances where stepping in is the right thing to do - we'll go straight to BDSM.

Have you, yes or no, ever seen someone spiral out of control in this lifestyle? Do you think that is possible?

Have you ever seen or heard of someone get terribly hurt in this lifestyle?

Have you ever seen or heard of a dangerous person who, as a dom would do really awful things?

Have you ever seen or heard of a completely self destructive submissive?

Have you ever seen a chorus of people on these boards start arguing all over the place, when something honestly awful happened or was proposed, that this person consented and "too bad?"

Have you ever seen a chorus of people go off on these boards about the supposed "rights" of the person who did or wants to do something honestly awful?

Have you ever seen these boards then devolve into a discussion that was about anything to do with the event *except actual responsibility* and an acknowledgement that it was wrong?

Is there an attitude by many on these boards that they are "the cool crowd" who honestly are the ones who truly get it - even as they deny the other previous true statements when it is convenient to them?

The answer to all of these things is obviously, YES of course these things happen. This is just the plain, easily verified, truth.

I expect people to acknowledge the truth. I know it is not a BDSM example directly, but I expect these truths to be acknowledged exactly like I expect someone to acknowledge that the Earth orbits the Sun. If they do not, there is something wrong.

Now, given that these are obvious, undeniable truths, what is the proper response to those who deny them? There is a difference though between how you respond to someone who will argue that the Sun orbits the Earth and someone who denies these facts about the lifestyle.

The difference is, that the person who thinks the sun orbits the Earth is just ignorant and possibly stupid, while those who argue that no one has any duty to anyone else, are not only ignorant, but utterly self absorbed, shallow and potentially dangerous to themselves and others. So yes, I really do require that they acknowledge basic truths in the hopes of preventing danger to others. I understand that the notion of actually requiring a basic touch with reality, and then not allowing people to get away with refusing to have one, is something you do not like. You are quite right. I will not let them deny the facts or the responsibilities that follow from them.

I know that you are going to couch it in some argument about my tone or my anger. But, I have not lost my temper once. I have not called anyone any names at all. What you are really upset about seems to be that anyone could even judge in the first place.

One of the things that you do not see, are those (more than one) who have written me to thank me for giving them words to stand up to terrible situations. I won't post them, because you will misconstrue my motives - or question the reality of the mails. However, there are many people who find that the first step to changing something awful is to be able to clearly say it is awful. Seeing someone clearly say that somethings and some attitudes are awful and who is willing to go against the herd mentality on these boards, that accepts everything, except questioning and the notion of restraint and moral responsibility, gave some who wrote me the extra courage of the realization that no, it is not all like that all of the time, nor does it have to be in this lifestyle.

Honestly, in light of that, I really don't see your arguments about "my tone" as prevailing.





RCdc -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 11:52:09 AM)

You honestly want my answer to all those questions?  Because it isn't 'yes'.
What is the answer is - no more in BDSM than in life.
 
Now, it is noted that you have not responded to my questions - which is all cool.  But it is noted.
Doesn't stop me asking more though.

quote:

Is there an attitude by many on these boards that they are "the cool crowd" who honestly are the ones who truly get it - even as they deny the other previous true statements when it is convenient to them?


Cool crowd aside - I would ask you - are you one who believes you truely get it?  Your posts indicates you do.

quote:

I have not called anyone any names at all.


I would disagree from what I have read of your postings.
 
quote:

One of the things that you do not see, are those (more than one) who have written me to thank me for giving them words to stand up to terrible situations. I won't post them them, because you will misconstrue my motives - or question the reality of the mails.


Irrelevant.  I could say the same thing - if I wanted to.  Who knows the truth?  All this is - is posturing.  You may be telling the truth - you may be lying.  People who desire real and firm tangible evidence look only at what is written that they can see and touch for themselves.  So your alleged support is irrelevant.
What is even more strange is for me - who has no need to defend my words with 'proof' because they simply are - you are trying to defend your own position by proffering an invisable proof.  You have no need to defend yourself or your behaviour to me - I need no 'proof' - in reality, I am faceless but I would care about you, regardless.
 
quote:

I know the notion of requiring a basic touch with reality, and then not allowing people to get away with refusing to, is something you do not like.


You are being ironic with me with this, surely?[:D]
 
the.dark.





QuixoticErrant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 12:27:13 PM)

Dark,

You really have a tremendous knack for only reading what you want to read and seeing what you want to see. If you are going to debate with me, then do at least see the points I am making to at least rebut. However, saying for two posts that something which is actually quite obviously germane, like the drunk driving example, or the fact that not everyone thinks there is no responsibility, is not something you will look at is not helpful. Why not look at it?

If someone has been drinking at your house, is obviously smashed, and wants to drive themselves home, do you let them? Yes, or no? If your best friend is consenting to get in the car with them, do you let them? Yes, or no? The analogy to BDSM should be obvious. The analogy to people who claim that "she consented" should be obvious. The analogy to people who talk about restricting freedoms should be obvious. If this isn't obvious to you, then you are being willfully blind. You are far too intelligent a person to fail to see this.

If perhaps you have honestly, not seen or heard of any of the things I mentioned on that list, then I can only assume that you were collared very early and have since lived a very sheltered life during which you have spoken to very few other people in the lifestyle. This does not seem to be the case...You talk about tangible proof and about arguments that you make requiring no outside support, while discounting statements which are as obviously true as stating that the sky is blue. You, for reasons I do not fathom, are again being willfully blind.

The sky really is blue.

I know that you claim that your main objection is with my tone... OK, I believe I have been using a very moderate tone with you. We can agree to disagree about how my tone may or may not be seen by others, or whether or not it is a problem.

As to the question about me being one who truly gets it... This is not the most clever sophistry on your part. I hardly claim to know everything. I never have claimed such. I do however claim to know what I know and I do claim to be able to see realities which are right in front of me.

1. Even though many do handle this well and have very happy lives doing it, it is a reality that not everyone handles BDSM in a safe or sane manner. There is no claiming of one true way to point out the potholes on certain ways.

2. It is reality that many on these boards, for a variety of reasons find it very convenient to deny the reality of point 1.

3. It is reality that refusing to acknowledge dangers is dangerous in of itself.

4. It is reality that people do have social responsibilities whether they like it or not.

As to mentioning others who have drawn support from my words, you miss the point entirely. I am not trying to prop myself up at all. I am trying to point out that you are failing to see the possible benefits of confronting the awful views that circulate here. It is a direct counterpoint to your assertion that something about my style of argument must be wrong.





RCdc -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 1:07:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuixoticErrant

Dark,

You really have a tremendous knack for only reading what you want to read and seeing what you want to see. If you are going to debate with me, then do at least see the points I am making to at least rebut. However, saying for two posts that something which is actually quite obviously germane, like the drunk driving example, or the fact that not everyone thinks there is no responsibility, is not something you will look at is not helpful. Why not look at it?

If someone has been drinking at your house, is obviously smashed, and wants to drive themselves home, do you let them? Yes, or no? If your best friend is consenting to get in the car with them, do you let them? Yes, or no? The analogy to BDSM should be obvious. The analogy to people who claim that "she consented" should be obvious. The analogy to people who talk about restricting freedoms should be obvious. If this isn't obvious to you, then you are being willfully blind. You are far too intelligent a person to fail to see this.


Again - and I can only assume this is the case - you don't seem to understand that this is a BDSM forum.  Your initial OP was concerning dominants and s-types.  I am NOT (and this is my final statement on the matter) discussing drunk drivers, smoking or any other non kink related analogy - obvious comparrison or NOT.  You want to do that, go to off topic and I'll dig it and join you.  Again, enough of the insults.  It is not necessary.

quote:

If perhaps you have honestly, not seen or heard of any of the things I mentioned on that list, then I can only assume that you were collared very early and have since lived a very sheltered life during which you have spoken to very few other people in the lifestyle. This does not seem to be the case...You talk about tangible proof and about arguments that you make requiring no outside support, while discounting statements which are as obviously true as stating that the sky is blue. You, for reasons I do not fathom, are again being willfully blind.


Please show where I stated that I have not heard of any of the things you mentioned on your list?  Thank you in advance.

The sky is not blue.

quote:

The sky really is blue.


No.  The sky really isn't blue.  [;)]

quote:

I know that you claim that your main objection is with my tone... OK, I believe I have been using a very moderate tone with you. We can agree to disagree about how my tone may or may not be seen by others, or whether or not it is a problem.


Oh I agree - your tone has been moderate with me.  However your behaviour with other people, was irratic and IMO destructive and abusive.  It is MY sense of worth and regard for all people to call you on it - just as you might want to call the vampire chic for her addiction.  Because this is what you have been promoting.  Ethical, moral reminders.

quote:

As to the question about me being one who truly gets it... This is not the most clever sophistry on your part. I hardly claim to know everything. I never have claimed such. I do however claim to know what I know and I do claim to be able to see realities which are right in front of me.


You don't have to claim it to believe it in another.  What you have repeatedly failed to see is that your subjectivity is also the way another views you. And again with the second guessing.  It is surprising you have such little faith in people and such a dark view of the entire world, when the sky to you, is blue.

quote:

1. Even though many do handle this well and have very happy lives doing it, it is a reality that not everyone handles BDSM in a safe or sane manner. There is no claiming of one true way to point out the potholes on certain ways. 

2. It is reality that many on these boards, for a variety of reasons find it very convenient to deny the reality of point 1.

3. It is reality that refusing to acknowledge dangers is dangerous in of itself.

4. It is reality that people do have social responsibilities whether they like it or not.

I have never disagreed with any of that.

quote:

As to mentioning others who have drawn support from my words, you miss the point entirely. I am not trying to prop myself up at all. I am trying to point out that you are failing to see the possible benefits of confronting the awful views that circulate here. It is a direct counterpoint to your assertion that something about my style of argument must be wrong.


What have you seriously not understood during our entire discussion  The whole point was to point out that there are subjective, opposing views.  That is what I have been exampling to you all along.[8|]

the.dark.



CreativeDominant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 1:43:53 PM)

God...another white knight and one who has it bad.

Speaking as a "recovering white knight", let me speak to you of what I've learned.

People want and need things in different measures.  If you look at a human being as a functioning machine, then yes...there are relatively few needs to be met that keep the biological machine running:  water, air, shelter, a certain temperature (at least if there is no protective clothing provided).  That's from a biological standpoint.  From an intellectual standpoint, most...though possibly not all...human beings have to have a certain amount of mental stimulation in order to keep their brain at a minimal functioning level.  Take that stimulation away and many...though again, not all...minds will begin to shut down.  But...is that a need or a preference built into us as we grow.  Emotionally?  Well, people vary on the pragmatism scale.  There are those who need little emotional interaction with those they interact with.  Much prefer little to none, actually.  Is that a need or a preference?  Then there are those who crave attention so badly that the term used to describe them is "needy".  Is that a need or a preference?

Addiction...from the disease standpoint...works much the same way.  There are scientific studies that show the genetic changes that take place within humans upon introduction of the chemicals from drugs or alcohol or tobacco.  But those studies show the biggest effect to occur at the beginning, long before a physical and/or mental need has developed.  But what about emotional need?  If you have had a rough day and you know that a drink will relax you, then you might well NEED that drink.  Being able to stop before that one drink turns into 10 or 100 is where the potential for legitimate need to become unhealthy, illegitimate need.  Perhaps for me, it comes down again to making choices.  Addictive personality?  Perhaps.  Learn that and then make the choices necessary to deal with it.  But calling it a disease doesn't stop the fact that at the start and each time they picked up a glass, a pill, a needle, they were making a choice.

Studies show that most motorcyclists that die of head injuries weren't wearing a helmet.  Guess what?  Most motorcyclists who wind up paralyzed because of a broken neck do so because they were wearing a helmet.  I choose to wear one because I know the risks and would rather face life paralyzed than not face it at all.  But...it is MY choice and I don't need government telling me that I need to wear one to keep health care costs down.  That's B.S. just as them telling you that "Seat Belts Save Lives" so they enact a law to force you to wear one.  Do they save lives?  You betcha...but since the enactment of forced seatbelt laws, we now deal with the increased costs of treating increased soft tissue injuries.  Who drove the health care costs up there?  The motorists doing what the law told them to or the nannyists trying to "save" us?

I used to be one of those who could see the sense in enacting all kinds of laws and the "godliness" of helping others.  But along the way I got dumped when I tried to take her to see a therapist more qualified than me.  I got dumped for not being ever-more-responsive to her ever-more-increasing needs.  These submissives who say "because Master/Mistress says so" are usually doing so in light of something that they should obey.  Yes, you have those who say it at a time that makes you sit back, scratch your head and go "huh????".  But sometimes...though I will concede, not always...those same submissives understand the person beneath the command and know that while that person might have the power to order them to jump off a bridge, he never would.  And while there are those dominants who just might...hopefully the submissive would know at that time that it is now the right time to take away his right to use his power. 
But...if not?  Then, that is their dynamic.  I feel sad for the needless loss of life, I get angry over the idea of paying for someone else's play (see dominant sticking loaded gun in submissive's mouth and oooooops...bang)...but then, I feel sad for those who die on the streets and I get angry about those who engage in ever-more extreme sports until they run into the inevitable and get hurt.  I can't save them all and I won't even try.  I will stand by my submissive if she is hurting or needs help but I am no submissive's therapist...though I am a damn good sounding-board.  But at some point, when I disagree with someone's way of doing things and they don't want to listen to what I think makes perfect sense, then I walk away and accept the inevitability that somehow, someway, MY tax dollars may pay for their mistakes one day.



QuixoticErrant -> RE: On addiction and D/s (6/25/2009 2:26:45 PM)

We agree on almost everything you have said.

The only thing that I would add, is that there is still merit in the notion of action and responsibility. There is always merit in speaking the truth.

I mean, when you say that you would hope that the submissive would have the sense to not do whatever... I agree. The problem is that there are those who might not. We both see it. I hear you.

I also hear, I really do hear your point about the limitations of what an individual can accomplish.

However, Suppose, just suppose that the one who was about to do something really dangerous came to these boards and found an atmosphere that didn't say, oh well, not my problem - or she consented, too bad.

Just suppose instead that there was actual support for her, and a notion of giving a damn.

What about the newbie submissive who has met a set of abusive cranks and thinks this is it, she just has to lump it if she wants to have the lifestyle? Seeing openly that not all kinksters could care less, and that not all of us are abusive would be beneficial for her.

Suppose you have a newbie Dom that imagines he can do anything, carefully saying that no you can't just do anything, might well cause him to think twice or look for advice on how to do something safely.

However, all of the open, declarations of who am I to say anything, only encourages ignorance and harm for such people.

So while I hear you, I really do honestly, and I would much prefer that this thread had been about how D/s can get addictive for some people, it got turned into a much more basic discussion of if morality even exists in principle.

For all of the newbies out there, I would like to suggest, that kinksters can be moral upstanding good folk too, rather than a bunch of people who could not give a damn for the suffering of others.

Consider your example of "gun play." If someone had brought that up on these boards, and someone called that crazy, irresponsible, reckless and wrong - people would flip out. There is no one true way! She consented to having a gun in her mouth! Too bad if it went bang, everything has risks! and so on and so on... There would be a high end discussion on personal freedom as to why it could not be suggested that loaded guns and BDSM do not mix or that someone should try to prevent others from playing that way.

That's disgusting.

Just perhaps if it were called what it is, as in completely out of your mind insane, and that "dom" had seen message after message saying how crazy he was, or perhaps his poor sub had seen it, one of them might have gotten a clue on.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625