RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (Full Version)

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



Message

JohnWarren -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 1:01:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ICGsteve

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren



I find this odd since, as someone who has been involved with BDSM for over 40 years, I've seen things improve enormously.  Back in the old days, we did things that should have been seen to be clearly dangerous both out of ignorance and from a lack of a community that could enunciate a kind of code of behavior.  For example, safe words are a fairly recent invention.  I never heard of such things until the 80's.

It's trendy to remember a "good old days," particularly among those who weren't there.


You need to remember your vantage point. As the community has expanded rapidly there has been a multiplication is the number of events, and they have become stratified in quality. The good organizations, organizers and contacts indeed put together better events than you would ever have found 30 years ago, but the majority of the people are not at those events. They are at poor quality events or at none at all doing this stuff on their own. This is not unlike the American medical system, where the best of the best is better than you will find anywhere else in the world and is much better than it was thirty years ago, but taken over-all the American medical system is  near collapse ( some lately are calling it in full collapse) and is one of the worst in the industrialized world. Yet we still get those who have access to the best, who have benefited from it trying to tell the rest of us how good the American system is. They are wrong, and just about everyone knows it but them.

OK now we have two things on which we disagree.  I've been treated by the British, German, Chinese, Thai and Spanish medical system.

Political diatribes are no substitute for factual illustrations. 

For one thing, the events you speak about are relatively recent, starting around the mid 95s.  They didn't exist in the "Good Old Days."  I don't know if you ever went on a "Run" back in the 80's but the practices then would curl most people's hair.

Finally, if people don't wish to learn or participate in events, that doesn't somehow make them bad.  It makes them just about how all of us were back in the 60's and 70's.  The difference is now the events and information is available.



ownedgirlie -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 1:10:24 PM)

Hmm, not to sidebar too far on this thread, but i know the Spanish medical system first hand and i'll take our American one hands down, any day.  Without question.  No hesitation. 

i could go on, but i won't.



meatcleaver -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 1:21:59 PM)

Hmm When patriotism raises its ugly head, good sense goes out of the window.

You've got to look at the whole picture. Everybody in western Europe has health cover, even if you are flat broke you will have equal access. I can't speak of every country but Germany, Holland and France all have first class health services.

And from independent records if I remember right, they are all cheaper and more efficient than US healthcare.



ICGsteve -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 1:38:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren



For one thing, the events you speak about are relatively recent, starting around the mid 95s.  They didn't exist in the "Good Old Days."  I don't know if you ever went on a "Run" back in the 80's but the practices then would curl most people's hair.

Finally, if people don't wish to learn or participate in events, that doesn't somehow make them bad.  It makes them just about how all of us were back in the 60's and 70's.  The difference is now the events and information is available.


You make three assumptions, none of which are valid from my vantage point. The first is that organizations do not discriminate, they take all comers. The second related one is that they cast a wide net, try to get to word out to as many people as possible without trying to get it only to the particular types of people that they really want. Third and related, none of these organizers or people throw people out who don't behave, thus earn a certain rep that keeps the bums away.

So you don't know groups that insist that new people show at a social event before they are allowed (maybe) to attend an event? You don't know organizers who keep the events smaller in size than the number of requests for entry, thus they pick and choose who is allowed in? You don't know events that are only promoted through word of mouth? You don't know events that are only open to those who have participated in certain other events or organizations?

Your assumptions violate normal behavior for every voluntarily social organization that I have ever heard of. It takes the claim of BDSM "specialness" to new extremes.



BitaTruble -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 1:58:05 PM)

quote:




You make three assumptions, none of which are valid from my vantage point. The first is that organizations do not discriminate, they take all comers. The second related one is that they cast a wide net, try to get to word out to as many people as possible without trying to get it only to the particular types of people that they really want. Third and related, none of these organizers or people throw people out who don't behave, thus earn a certain rep that keeps the bums away.


I didn't see any of those assumptions in Johns' post.

quote:

So you don't know groups that insist that new people show at a social event before they are allowed (maybe) to attend an event? You don't know organizers who keep the events smaller in size than the number of requests for entry, thus they pick and choose who is allowed in? You don't know events that are only promoted through word of mouth? You don't know events that are only open to those who have participated in certain other events or organizations?

Your assumptions violate normal behavior for every voluntarily social organization that I have ever heard of. It takes the claim of BDSM "specialness" to new extremes.


I think what you've failed to take into consideration is that the "Long Haired Players for the Advancement of Hair Braiding" groups can exist side by side with "Bald is Beautiful, shave your body" groups. There is something for everyone.. or, if not, there is the ability to start any subgroup which you could desire. You speak as if because a group has a specific goal that others groups don't have differing goals and that's just not true. 

Celeste



JohnWarren -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 2:22:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:




You make three assumptions, none of which are valid from my vantage point. The first is that organizations do not discriminate, they take all comers. The second related one is that they cast a wide net, try to get to word out to as many people as possible without trying to get it only to the particular types of people that they really want. Third and related, none of these organizers or people throw people out who don't behave, thus earn a certain rep that keeps the bums away.


I didn't see any of those assumptions in Johns' post.



I'm sadly shaking my head, because I don't make any such assumptions and I certainly didn't voice them in my reply.  I think I will simply decide that his "vantage point" and mine are on non-intersecting planes (or perhaps in different universes) rendering a dialogue impossible.

It seems he is very unhappy with the Scene as he has encountered it and somehow feels it is everyone else's fault.  It's been my experience when one encounters universal disappointment a mirror is the tool to employ.

I hardly think the Scene today is perfect, but with 20-20 hindsight I'm pretty sure it's a hell of a lot better than what we had before.



CrappyDom -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 2:43:36 PM)

Steve,

Believe it or not I share your frustration with the scene but you are railing against the wrong people.  You want to change things, then join a group and change it from within, that is the only way to do it.

I have formed groups and once bought a playspace to keep it from closing, you got to get out there and change things before you run out of energy.  I affected a lot of change and provoked a lot of thought when I was in the scene.  You are a firebrand, go get to it.

The problem with the "scene" is it self selects for people who like the scene and in particular whatever scene you have locally.  So the sort of people I am interested are usually ones who have spent time in the scene, found its limits and either left or play on the edges if they are lucky enough to have a large enough scene where that is possible. 

Bottom line is BDSM is run by humans and we don't have a better breed of humans than any other group and so some things are done better than others.  While I support what you are trying to say and want to see done, I don't see it as likely.

As long as there is a shortage of young women in the scene and an overabundance of fat old men like myself, the scene isn't going to suddenly embrace the level of nobility, integrity, and honor that you would like.



CrappyDom -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 2:44:54 PM)

John,

I love this line...
quote:

It's been my experience when one encounters universal disappointment a mirror is the tool to employ.



ICGsteve -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 3:05:45 PM)

" think what you've failed to take into consideration is that the "Long Haired Players for the Advancement of Hair Braiding" groups can exist side by side with "Bald is Beautiful, shave your body" groups. There is something for everyone.. or, if not, there is the ability to start any subgroup which you could desire. You speak as if because a group has a specific goal that others groups don't have differing goals and that's just not true. 

Celeste "

No, John is saying either that there is no seperation of people into groups, or that it is completely on some grounds other than the quality of the participants, I can't tell which . If people do seperate out by interests, which I know that they do, it says nothing about whether they do or do not seperate also on other subdivides. John only mentions information on the event getting to people as a variable in who is at a particuar event, he acts like there are no other variables. You just mentioned one other  one, interest, but are there more? Small groups do not seperate out much my quality of participants (or on other divides) because the are so few of them the group needs all of the people they can get in the door. This is never true for larger groups, of which the BDSM community is today. As a larger group the community can seperate out into classes of individuals, and I say that all groups that are known to exist  do when they get large enough,  BDSM it must be assumed does also.

As an example: Jay Wiseman is from what I can tell universally considered an authority on BDSM, he has sold lots of books. On page 285 of "SM101" he says speaking of S&M organizations " The groups tend to get a lot of inquiries, so they don't look favorably on those who don't follow instructions properly-and often refuse to have any further contact with them" So here we have a known expert flat out saying that some organizations (and ya, I am assuming he means good and/or popular ones) discriminate on the bases of the ability and/or willingness of the participants (or prospects) to follow instructions. He flat out says that groups seperate out by class of individual. So John here acts like I have two heads when I say that I believe that BDSM organizations seperate by class. What's up with that? Is John out of the loop, or is Jay (among others, I just don't care to do anymore documentaion at the moment?

This has been diverted. The original idea was that BDSM is overall not as good as it once was because it is too big (or more to the point-too many people who should not be around are around), John said that it was great because all the stuff he goes to is better than the old days. To which I said ya, but that is because you go only to top ot the line events, BDSM is now a community seperated by class and he does not know this.My problem is not with the class system or how the community is organized, my problem is that it is too big.



JohnWarren -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 3:28:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ICGsteve

No, John is saying either that there is no seperation of people into groups, or that it is completely on some grounds other than the quality of the participants,


This just confirms that either you can't read or don't wish to.  People are quite capable of scrolling back and seeing what I wrote.  I'll leave it to them to decide if my words match your recitations.

[momentarily suspended plonk]

I will say that "right of association" is like "right of speech."  In one you are free to talk, but you have no concomitant to have anyone hang around to listen.  In the other, you have a right to try to associate with people, but it is matched by their right to run rapidly in the other direction... in some cases throwing rocks back down their trail.

Until you learn that no one has a duty to love, like or even tolerate your presence, you are likely to be very very unhappy, in the Scene or out of it.

[plonk]



CrappyDom -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 3:43:56 PM)

Steve,

I know Jay (and so does just about everyone else in the bay so it AINT a big deal) if you think he would agree with you why not ask him.  His email is <deleted>. okay, his website is here and he welcomes inquiries.

And before anyone jumps on me, he has that listed publicly.

Oh, and I have to add, what I THINK the sort of rules Jay is refering to isn't language, it is action.  Don't stick your finger into other peoples holes without asking sort of stuff, not whichever labels fit cause if  you want a mind bender of a labeling job, try making one up for Jay, someone who's fetishes may very well include scene negotiation and safety.

[Mod note:  email address removed.  It doesn't matter if someone chooses to make their email address public knowledge, they're still not allowed here.  People can go to his website and get his email address from there if they are so inclined.]



ICGsteve -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 4:10:49 PM)

I don't know if Jay would agree or not with my over all point and I don't care either way. If he tried to tell me that he does not think that the community is divided by class I would ask him to explain his words that he used and that I quoted however. 

Likewise John. Free association and people can make up their own minds.  



CrappyDom -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 4:16:28 PM)

Steve,

You are making our argument, not yours.  Welcome to the club!



BitaTruble -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 4:19:27 PM)

quote:

This is Johns' first post to this thread. I see nothing here on which you can base your premise.
"To me, this is the salient fact.  It's not that BDSM people don't reflect the normal curve of the general population's intelligence; it's that the lower "tail" has been truncated by a general lack of awareness and so doesn't show up among those who are able to discriminate between consensual and nonconsensual."


quote:

This is Johns' second post. He asked you to provide the citation relevant to a statement of fact which you claimed. That citation has yet to be provided. It has gone ignored despite four attempts by four separate people to ask you to provide it. You told us to do our own research and even when a few of us came back and explained we could find ZERO in the way of research, you still failed to back up your 'fact.'  Again, this has no relevance to your premise.

"Citation please.  I have a strong professional interest in how the universe "BDSM person" was defined to distinguish it from the general universe."



quote:

The next post John made and yet again, no relevance to your premise.

"Actually they also show a strong correlation with success in conventional education... for whatever that's worth. 

Just had to take on the "no more and no less."


quote:

This was the last post John made before you offered your perception of his assumptions. This is the only post that could feasibly been used for you to draw the conclusions which you did. So, I ask, from this post, where do you draw the conclusions? Which words used here led you to believe that John made any assumptions relevant to your premise?

" I find this odd since, as someone who has been involved with BDSM for over 40 years, I've seen things improve enormously.  Back in the old days, we did things that should have been seen to be clearly dangerous both out of ignorance and from a lack of a community that could enunciate a kind of code of behavior.  For example, safe words are a fairly recent invention.  I never heard of such things until the 80's.

It's trendy to remember a "good old days," particularly among those who weren't there. "



quote:

No, John is saying either that there is no seperation of people into groups, or that it is completely on some grounds other than the quality of the participants, I can't tell which .


This is where you lose me, because I don't see where John ever says any such thing. I don't even see where an inference could be made by any stretch of the imagination that such is a fundamental truth of John's opinion on the subject. John certainly doesn't need me to speak for him and I seriously doubt he would even want me to do so, but Steve, I'm just not getting you here. I don't understand from where your logic stems nor how you arrive at your conclusions. Perhaps you could point out the relevant passages if you truly desire others to understand your viewpoint. If you are going to tell me to do my own research on it.. um.. I just did.

quote:

As an example: Jay Wiseman is from what I can tell universally considered an authority on BDSM, he has sold lots of books.


Just an FYI here. So has John.

quote:

 On page 285 of "SM101" he says speaking of S&M organizations " The groups tend to get a lot of inquiries, so they don't look favorably on those who don't follow instructions properly-and often refuse to have any further contact with them"


You've taken a quote completely out of context. Any discussion of such on my part regarding it would be specious. What groups? What instructions? What people?  What is meant by 'properly?' Refuse contact with who? Quoting without context is taking a pail which is perforated with holes and filling it with water. By the time you get it back to your house, the pail is empty.

quote:

So here we have a known expert flat out saying that some organizations (and ya, I am assuming he means good and/or popular ones) discriminate on the bases of the ability and/or willingness of the participants (or prospects) to follow instructions. He flat out says that groups seperate out by class of individual.


Even out of context, the statement you quote does not say any such thing.

quote:

So John here acts like I have two heads when I that I believe that BDSM organizations seperate by class.


Your belief is not in question. You are certainly entitled to your belief whether others agree with you or not. What you are not entitled to do used flawed premises and misdirection to shore up your beliefs at the expense of another person.

quote:

What's up with that? Is John out of the loop, or is Jay (among others, I just don't care to do anymore documentaion at the moment?


You are asking for an either/or without considering there are other options. I don't believe John OR Jay is out of the loop because I don't have enough information to make any such assumption. And, frankly, neither do you.

Celeste



ICGsteve -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 4:57:32 PM)

Just the first one, this is taking too much time:

Steve said:
"No, John is saying either that there is no seperation of people into groups, or that it is completely on some grounds other than the quality of the participants, I can't tell which ."

Bita said;
This is where you lose me, because I don't see where John ever says any such thing. I don't even see where an inference could be made by any stretch of the imagination"

Steves words based upon the following words from John: #81
"Finally, if people don't wish to learn or participate in events, that doesn't somehow make them bad.  It makes them just about how all of us were back in the 60's and 70's.  The difference is now the events and information is available. "

I said that now the community is set at least in part by class, John said that no, THE DIFFERENCE, the one and only or primary difference between now and then is people can easily get into events and the information on events and/or  information in general  are available. If there was a class system, then it would be true that not all individuals can get into all of the events that they would like to attend. It is not totally up to the individual, the group decides to some degree if the individual is worthy of the group. John  does not talk about the group refusing the individual, from which we can make the assumption that he thinks it not reality  or not important. After  saying that the difference is all or mostly  based upon the individual's actions and upon information he is can no longer go the opposite way and say that the group  refusing the individual is a major difference in the charactor of the community today from what it was. He is committed to the opinion  that class structure does not exist or it does not matter. He is no longer free to say that he believes that class is a major actor, because he is already committed in the other  direction.  I say that I can not tell if he rules out seperation totally because he was not that forthcoming.

FYI the words seperation by "quality of the participants" means the same thing seperation by class.  




CrappyDom -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 5:30:20 PM)

Steve,

As a bit of friendly advice, don't contact Jay or ANYONE in San Francisco and mention "class" If that is what you are arguing with, then I recomend you put it someplace that doesn't get solar radiation.  It was bad enough that idiot DM Association the rule fetishists created, I can just see the little badges with what class you are.  If I wanted to join the boy scouts, I would have.

You think Salmon Rushdie had it bad?  



ScooterTrash -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 5:38:07 PM)

It appears this thread had taken a strange twist, but since it has..oh well. I'm still trying to decide what the controversy is, or is not.
 
As to BDSM "events", key word being "events", being divided by class? I have not ever seen any evidence of this, despite what anyone read, or wrote. As for larger "Events", they are probably the most liberal compared to smaller events put on by smaller organizations, due to the size. With attendance in the hundreds, large event staff simply cannot do the in depth checks that would be required to screen attendees. Basically, if someone sends you the information, gives you the link, whatever, about an event, that is about all the credibility you need, well that and a credit card you are likely going to be able to attend. Exception might be if you are a known troublemaker and even at that, chances are that unless someone recalls your name, you may still slide by. In other words, any Joe Blow with a credit card that knows about the event will most likely be allowed to attend. Unless there are specific cases where someone was refused admittance, I don't see where there is any pick and choose to it, certainly no distinction by any form of class and even if there is an isolated incident or two, the majority of the time this doesn't happen.
 
JOINING an organization however is another story, but I don't believe that criteria has changed substantially over time. There may very well be criteria to meet as there should be. All organizations or groups usually have some sort of guidelines you have to meet, to join.



BitaTruble -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/20/2006 7:12:15 PM)

Ah, OK. I see where you got screwed up. John made a quantitative comparison based on 'then' as in how things were in the 60's and 70's where BDSM groups and/or information were not readily available to people and 'now' where such information is more readily available to a greater majority. Comparative dialogue based on a single premise that there are 'more' people and there is 'more' information available to those people. That's not the same thing as speaking to the quality or class of those people or any groups they may or may not join. You are comparing John's quantitative dialogue and superimposing a qualitative dialogue in it's place. That was your bad, not his.

Celeste



ExistentialSteel -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/21/2006 2:43:10 PM)

Bita has more patience that I do.



Kedikat -> RE: Intelligence levels in S/M & BDSM (4/22/2006 1:50:30 AM)

I defnantly tink wer smarter dan de abrage bare.



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

Valid CSS!




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