quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterK13

I'm just wondering if this level of cruelty and sexism in this lifestyle is as common as it seems if so I dont know how I feel about pursuing this lifestyle any longer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterK13
I keep finding profiles of Doms and Dommes who seek a relationship with a sub/slave while at the same time appear to have no regard for the safety and mental health of there prospective partner and use the excuse of belonging to the oposite gender as justification. One instance is a profile where a dominate wanted to castrate the prospective sub the moment he first submitted and another dominate that wanted to make the prospective sub beg for everything even food I dont want to stir up any trouble I'm just wondering if this level of cruelty and sexism in this lifestyle is as common as it seems if so I dont know how I feel about pursuing this lifestyle any longer. I hope someone can shed some light on this for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

quote:

So, you're believing this just because somebody typed it up on the net?  Or, in some way, this is what you believe it has to be?  If that's the case, take LadyA's advice and change your screen name.  Obviously, you haven't mastered anything yet.  Not even your own common sense.

Go out and meet some real people.

We should better believe it! There are sociopaths! There are sociopathic doms and self-hating subs who REALLY want such things as castration and even something worse like cannibalism:

quote:

This is quote from Wikipedia:

Armin Meiwes (English pronunciation: /ˈɑːmiːn ˈmaɪvəs/ AH-meen-MYE-vəs, with a silent R; born December 1, 1961) is a German man who achieved international notoriety for killing and eating a voluntary victim whom he had found via the Internet. After Meiwes and the victim joined forces to eat the victim's severed penis, Meiwes killed his victim and proceeded to eat a large amount of his flesh while listening to "Against All Odds by Phil Collins.[3] Because of his deeds, Meiwes is also known as the Rotenburg Cannibal or Der Metzgermeister (The Master Butcher). Since entering prison, Meiwes has become a vegetarian[4] and has joined a prisoners' group favoring Green Party politics.[5][6]

quote:

Such things DO exist.
Even if most of people who claim such things on the Internet are fakers, you can never be sure, and even when someone is just faking and joking with some idea there is a grain of truth in his joke. Every joke is a half truth, it's an old saying.

Also,

I am very bothered by the general attitude on this forum that we should ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY  NOT care AT ALL what other people do!
Like, live your life, do what works for you, what the hell you have to worry what other people do!

quote:

I think this is extremely wrong attitude. If we didn't care what other people do, then there wouldn't be places like prisons, mental hospitals, safe houses, homeless shelters etc.

quote:

While I agree to be tolerant to other people's kinks, I also think that we must have a little stricter guidelines about what is and what isn't acceptable to ANYONE.

quote:

If we care for other people's well being we will sometimes give them advice even if this is against what they declare to be their wishes.

quote:

Where is the WISDOM? Is the only wisdom in BDSM that everyone choses his way and that the every way is right? Well, every way is NOT right, and in ancient times there were wise men and women who would try to deter people from wrong ways, and these wise men were held in very high regard in society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot
If we care for other people's well being we will sometimes give them advice even if this is against what they declare to be their wishes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: realcoolhand

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 i'm a little confused about why other people's behavior has any impact on You. 
It's a bit like saying "I'm wondering if the level of infidelity is as high as it seems in heterosexual relationships.  If so, I don't know how i feel about pursuing a heterosexual lifestyle."

That's a fair point, but not entirely accurate. Since sexual orientation isn't generally chosen (though persons of a particular orientation can certainly choose to engage in sexual acts inconsistent with that orientation), everyone in this "lifestyle" has chosen it, for a variety of personal reasons. The more analogous statement might be:

quote:

I disagree, I didn't choose to be submissive in my interpersonal relationship. I am hard wired to be submissive. If I had the choice I wouldn't have chosen this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

quote:

I disagree, I didn't choose to be submissive in my interpersonal relationship. I am hard wired to be submissive. If I had the choice I wouldn't have chosen this.

This is what is painful and what is the source of my usually futile hopes that it is possible to change people to be less submissive.
This is also reason why some things are still regarded as disorders and parafilias.
I think that probably very small percentage of people would CHOOSE to be gay, or submissive, if they had the choice.
Being gay or submissive, is unfortunately the thing people must come to terms with. Not very easy thing to do.
And there is also one postulate of existentialism that says "Existence comes before essence" which gives life to my false hopes that we can strive to achieve some ideals that are opposite to our nature.

I think this is still very debatable if people can chose or change their sexual or D/s orientation. Real life examples more or less show that this is impossible.
But still there are many people who think it is possible and strive to achieve this goal. For example there is Ex-Gay movement. However there is also Ex-Ex-Gay movement, to which belong those who become disillusioned about the possibility of changing themselves. But still, there are also those who still stick with Ex-Gay movement and do not intend to become Ex-Ex-Gays. Very confusing.

In the end I would like to ask you all do you agree with this existentialist postulate that "Existence precedes essence." (or in simple language - As long as one IS, one can chose what will he/she be.)?

quote:

The proposition that existence precedes essence (French: l'existence précède l'essence) is a central claim of existentialism, which reverses the traditional philosophical view that the essence or nature of a thing is more fundamental and immutable than its existence. To existentialists, the human being - through his consciousness - creates his own values and determines a meaning to his life, for in the beginning the human being does not possess any identity or value. By posing the acts that constitute him, he makes his existence more significant.[1][2]. The idea can be found in the works of Averroes in the 12th century,[3] Mulla Sadra in the 17th century,[4] Søren Kierkegaard in the 19th century,[5] and was later more explicitly formulated by French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre in the 20th century. His close confidant, Simone de Beauvoir also uses this concept in her feminist existentialism to develop the idea that "one is not born a woman, but becomes one". In Islamic philosophy, whereas previous methods of philosophical thought held that "essence precedes existence", a concept which dates back to at least Avicenna[6] and Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi[7] in the Islamic tradition. Mulla Sadra substituted a metaphysics of existence for the traditional metaphysics of essences, giving priority ab initio to existence over quiddity.[8] In western philosophy Sartre flips this around arguing that for humans, existence precedes essence. The three-word formula originates with Sartre in his 1945 lecture "Existentialism Is a Humanism"[9] (though antecedent notions can be found in Heidegger's Being and Time).[10] It should also be noted that a 20th century reexamination of Aquinas by existentialist Thomists revealed that Aquinas did in fact hold that existence precedes essence, as a principle. That is, while what something is is apprehended by the mind first and only then judged to exist, as observed by Avicenna, existence is in fact more of a prerequisite to a thing than its essence[11]. In this way, Aquinas differed with Avicenna, who relegated existence to an accidental property of a thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

.

quote:

The proposition that existence precedes essence (French: l'existence précède l'essence) is a central claim of existentialism, which reverses the traditional philosophical view that the essence or nature of a thing is more fundamental and immutable than its existence.

i would agree, existance is a hollow concept - who wants to just exist.  the essence of any one or any thing is far more valuable.  to turn this around to me. why would i want to change the essence of me when the essence of me is focused on the essence of others, not just of their existance.  to be honest, it has been this life that has opened me up to embrace so much more than mere existance.
 
 
To existentialists, the human being - through his consciousness - creates his own values and determines a meaning to his life, for in the beginning the human being does not possess any identity or value. By posing the acts that constitute him, he makes his existence more significant.[1][2]. The idea can be found in the works of Averroes in the 12th century,[3] Mulla Sadra in the 17th century,[4] Søren Kierkegaard in the 19th century,[5] and was later more explicitly formulated by French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre in the 20th century. His close confidant, Simone de Beauvoir also uses this concept in her feminist existentialism to develop the idea that "one is not born a woman, but becomes one".

indeed - the acts that constituted me to where i am now are what make me now.  i have no desire to take all that i am and all that i have become, the depth to which i feel, empathise and evolve purely to fit in with some idea that i shouldnt be who i am now.  im very happy being who i am and all that i have gone through, experienced and seen has made me who i am today and im very happy being me, thanks.
 

In Islamic philosophy, whereas previous methods of philosophical thought held that "essence precedes existence", a concept which dates back to at least Avicenna[6] and Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi[7] in the Islamic tradition. Mulla Sadra substituted a metaphysics of existence for the traditional metaphysics of essences, giving priority ab initio to existence over quiddity.[8] In western philosophy Sartre flips this around arguing that for humans, existence precedes essence. The three-word formula originates with Sartre in his 1945 lecture "Existentialism Is a Humanism"[9] (though antecedent notions can be found in Heidegger's Being and Time).[10] It should also be noted that a 20th century reexamination of Aquinas by existentialist Thomists revealed that Aquinas did in fact hold that existence precedes essence, as a principle. That is, while what something is is apprehended by the mind first and only then judged to exist, as observed by Avicenna, existence is in fact more of a prerequisite to a thing than its essence[11]. In this way, Aquinas differed with Avicenna, who relegated existence to an accidental property of a thing.

its alot of flipping flipping about isnt it - i exist, you exist but existance is devoid of anything without essence.  the essence of a being is who they are and the journey they take that brings them to the place they are comfortable residing in.  life is not existance without essence, you cannot be of an essence without existing in the world and taking part in it.  my essence has arrived here.
 
when DesFip said that she had no choice she meant that her essence was of a submissive nature.  the life she has existed in eventually brought her to the realisation that this is who she is and where she is happy.  but the path was hard and life might have been easier for her had she not the essence of submission deep within her (i think DesFip, actually im assuming that based on my experiences before finally finding happyness 'here'

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

It seems that you misunderstood the whole point of existentialism, lally2.

Existence precedes essence means:

that once you EXIST as a conscious human being YOU CHOOSE what your essence will be. You consciously determine what your essence will be. You are not given any essence when you are born. You are only given existence and consciousness. Once you EXIST and have consciousness YOU CONSCIOUSLY CHOOSE WHAT YOUR ESSENCE WILL BE.

This is the whole point of existentialism.

You are born without any essence whatsoever. You are the one who chose what your essence will be and the one who builds this essence.

You can disagree with this and I can also disagree with this, this is not my idea, I am just trying to tell you what is the whole point of existentialism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

.
I also may not agree with existentialism completely. But I am not going to dismiss existentialism as utter nonsense. In fact, exisistentialism was one of the most influential philosophies of the 20th century.

• Christopher Austin was an ex-gay counselor who was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2007 for sexually assaulting a male client. Austin was affiliated with and gave presentations at NARTH and Evergreen International, which describes him as "a therapist specializing in homosexual and sexual addiction recovery [and] the creator of RENEW, a multi-dimensional treatment approach for men struggling with homosexuality".[113][114]
• Colin Cook, founder of Homosexuals Anonymous, was in 1986 discovered to be engaging in sexual acts with his patients. He claimed that the nude massages of other men should desensitize them against homosexual desires. In 1987, he was expelled from Homosexuals Anonymous for sexual activity, and in 1995 a similar scandal happened with his newly founded group FaithQuest Colorado. Cook had engaged in phone sex, practiced long and grinding hugs, and asked patients to bring gay pornography to sessions so that he could help desensitize them against it.[115]
• Michael Johnston, an HIV-positive man who is featured in the film It's Not Gay, promoted by the American Family Association, had frequently been interviewed on U.S. television and radio regarding his claimed change in sexuality, and even featured in a national television advertising campaign in 1998 stating that Jesus Christ empowered him to leave his homosexual past. In 2002, he was exposed as having recently resumed having sex with men, and he admitted to having had unprotected sex with multiple male partners without disclosing his HIV-positive status, despite knowing he that he was HIV-positive, for over a period of two years.[116]
• Terrance Lewis was a minister and former counselor at Providence Bible College in Winnipeg, Canada who was found guilty in February 2008 for sexually assaulting a young man who sought counseling to make him heterosexual. The victim told court he started meeting Lewis for counseling sessions in early 2000 after his parents caught him viewing gay pornography on the family computer. The man said Lewis started a program of “touch therapy,” which included the two kissing and fondling each other and engaging in sexual roleplaying.[117][118]
• John Paulk, then leader of Focus on the Family's Love Won Out conference and chairman of the board for Exodus International North America, was spotted visiting a Washington, D.C gay bar in September 2000 . He was photographed outside of the bar from behind by Wayne Besen,[119] and later stepped down from the two organizations.[120]

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

OK, you are right. There are some innate tendencies in every human being. This is the part on which I do not agree with existentialism.

But in purely philosophical aspect existentialism can still be true if person are able to choose to act upon some tendencies or to try to modify these tendencies or not to act upon them even if they are present. Most of people would not choose to do so. But there is nothing in theory that prevents you from consciously choosing to try to modify your innate tendencies or personality or to try not to act upon some impulses. That's why we are people, not anilams. We have consciousness and free will and if we choose we can not only act in a way that is opposite to our nature. We can also try to deliberately modify our nature. Some people even succeed in doing so.

my next door neighbour is a cow.  id love to tell her so, but i choose not to - that is a choice i make to curb my impulse - it is a cognitive decision not to inflame an already annoying situation.  i am modifying my nature for the sake of peace.
a while ago i went out with a vanilla guy, nice enough, polite, rich, charming - i tried, i did but it was never going to work because he would never understand how i tick and how i tick is tied in with my sexuality as well as my personality.  modifying my nature to the extent of completely ignoring it is just stupid, why go there even.

I am not talking about any specific cases. If I were had homosexual tendencies I would most probably choose to embrace them. Also if I had submissive tendencies I would also embrace them. But this is still my free choice as a human being to embrace or reject my tendencies.

you can go into denial for sure - go ahead and see where it gets you, how long it will last and how happy it makes you in the end.  and ill bet money that at some point in the future, once you realise it doesnt matter what people think and this is youre damn life, youll wish youd grasped the nettle, stopped being a pussy about it and just answered that call and got youre bloody feet wet.

For example, naturally I am quite introverted. But I am trying to change this part of my nature and to be more open and talkative around people.  This is the moment when our consciousness comes into play and tries to influence our essence. Not only that I can become extroverted if I wish, I am also RESPONSIBLE for the fact that I am still introverted. If I tried harder or was more determined or chose different methods I would maybe already be an extroverted person. But I am not, and the only one who is responsible for that am I alone, not my parents, not the environment, not genetics, but myself.

that is a change you can make in youreself - like you can learn to like coffee without milk you can learn all sorts of things, you can push youreself out of youre comfort zone and find out how that feels.  you can make that cognative choice to be more outgoing.  that is vastly different to suggesting you can choose whether or not to be gay today.
 
.Edited to add:

I think that numerous examples of submissives and even slaves who turn into Doms over time proves that existence indeed precedes essence.

people changing from sub to Dom and vice versa isnt such a big leap for some people.  for others its beyond their ken in the same way that changing from gay to hetero is.  i dont think it does prove that existance preceedes essence at all but then i dont go along with this whole existance preceeds essence anyway.

Also as I mentioned, there are Ex-gays.
See this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay