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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

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

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,

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 .

quote:

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

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"

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.

quote:

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

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?