RE: Sadism vs. Violence

RE: Sadism vs. Violence (Full Version)

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

Message

Aswad -> RE: Sadism vs. Violence (8/30/2010 1:49:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Lol, I see "my" provocation as merely maintaining the tempo of his original post. Two points: 1) There are shades of provocation, and I only said picking a lighter shade would aid communication. 2) Sometimes, one has a choice between ending something and propagating something. There is a cost in either case, but the cost of ending poor communication is borne by the one who chooses to do so, while the cost of propagating it is borne by everyone who is party to the communication. Seeing as this is a public board, that offers you an opportunity to make a tiny sacrifice for the community, and indulging at the expense of the community. If you want to honor what the army does, why not take one for the team? quote: Ok, he's entitled to his views but they were presented as just too pure and moralistic to believe they come from someone living amongst real people. I said I hear and understand you. I maintain that is the case. As such, I see your objection. What I fail to see, is how you are either (a) obtaining information, or (b) chainging minds, or (c) aiding the debate. Your tone is not obtaining any information from him. It cannot change his mind (you raise his affective threshold, fail to determine why or how he maintains his views, and fail to address whether or not there are errors in his reasoning). And, since none of these purposes are served, and little entertainment is provided by either of you in the course of this verbal sparring, you fail to aid the debate. quote: And to paint all those who serve in the military with the same brush as Nazi stormtroopers was beyond the pale of provocative immaturity and naiveity. Let me turn this around for you. That you are painting the servicemen of the Deutsches Reich with a broad, tarry brush is provocative and naïve, but not unexpected, nor less mature than what can be expected by just about anyone. Many of those servicemen were highly decorated and honorable servicemen. No small number gave their lives in the service of their country, or laid down their lives for their fellow servicemen. A country which had legally transitioned to national socialism via the National-Socialist German Labor Party. Despite any personal reservations they may or may not have had about the choices made by their elected government, *they upheld their service oath. Your thoughts on the choices of the NSDAP and its leader probably resemble mine. But before you complain about anyone's views on servicemen, you should offer the "Nazi stormtroopers" the same respect that you would accord the Australian Defense Force, or any other military forces that are currently engaged in combat operations on foreign soil. It is the role of servicemen to carry out the orders of their lawfully appointed superiors in accordance with whatever oaths and laws their service is subject to. Not to set policy, but to enforce it. This is as with the police, who are charged with upholding unjust laws and just laws equally, and leave the making of law and arbitration of justice to the other branches of the judicial system. In this regard, the German servicemen under WW2 for the most part performed exceptionally and admirably. I reiterate, why not try a finer brush with the OP? quote:* Life is tough for the average 'Joe' - physically defending yourself against a violent assault is technically still an act of violence but the OP has some nerve sneering at the "violent" victim for doing what he felt he needed to do to survive. You've got some nerve yourself, as I pointed out above. Or maybe you were both just a little bit hasty with your wording? quote: So the glass encased ivory tower it is - who could resist testing such a puritanical beacon's resilience with a well-aimed rock or two...? I don't mind testing the substance of a differing point of view than my own. But I would claim you neither aimed well, nor tested what you purport to have been out to test. Health, al-Aswad.

Focus50 -> RE: Sadism vs. Violence (8/30/2010 3:29:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Lol, I see "my" provocation as merely maintaining the tempo of his original post. Two points: 1) There are shades of provocation, and I only said picking a lighter shade would aid communication. 2) Sometimes, one has a choice between ending something and propagating something. There is a cost in either case, but the cost of ending poor communication is borne by the one who chooses to do so, while the cost of propagating it is borne by everyone who is party to the communication. Seeing as this is a public board, that offers you an opportunity to make a tiny sacrifice for the community, and indulging at the expense of the community. If you want to honor what the army does, why not take one for the team? In my world, I see it that he provoked first; he gets to back down first. I don't see any honour in "turning the other cheek", privately and esp not publically - I'm just not that "good" a person; that's for the likes of you. What you're calling honour in this instance can easliy be construed as weakness to the masses and you pay in other ways when you open that door. quote: quote: Ok, he's entitled to his views but they were presented as just too pure and moralistic to believe they come from someone living amongst real people. What I fail to see, is how you are either (a) obtaining information, or (b) chainging minds, or (c) aiding the debate. Option (d), expressing my opinion on a public discussion board. Aren't you? Or are you speaking in the capacity of official spokesman for all the CM community? quote: Your tone is not obtaining any information from him. It cannot change his mind (you raise his affective threshold, fail to determine why or how he maintains his views, and fail to address whether or not there are errors in his reasoning). And, since none of these purposes are served, and little entertainment is provided by either of you in the course of this verbal sparring, you fail to aid the debate. Whoa, aren't you just a little bit full of yourself...! I'm entertained - moreso, now. quote: quote: And to paint all those who serve in the military with the same brush as Nazi stormtroopers was beyond the pale of provocative immaturity and naiveity. Let me turn this around for you. That you are painting the servicemen of the Deutsches Reich with a broad, tarry brush is provocative and naïve, but not unexpected, nor less mature than what can be expected by just about anyone. Many of those servicemen were highly decorated and honorable servicemen. No small number gave their lives in the service of their country, or laid down their lives for their fellow servicemen. A country which had legally transitioned to national socialism via the National-Socialist German Labor Party. Despite any personal reservations they may or may not have had about the choices made by their elected government, *they upheld their service oath. Your thoughts on the choices of the NSDAP and its leader probably resemble mine. But before you complain about anyone's views on servicemen, you should offer the "Nazi stormtroopers" the same respect that you would accord the Australian Defense Force, or any other military forces that are currently engaged in combat operations on foreign soil. It is the role of servicemen to carry out the orders of their lawfully appointed superiors in accordance with whatever oaths and laws their service is subject to. Not to set policy, but to enforce it. This is as with the police, who are charged with upholding unjust laws and just laws equally, and leave the making of law and arbitration of justice to the other branches of the judicial system. In this regard, the German servicemen under WW2 for the most part performed exceptionally and admirably. I reiterate, why not try a finer brush with the OP? Nazi's were Germans but any fool knows not all Germans were Nazi's - yeah, including me. Which makes it relevant that I said "nazi* stormtrooper". You don't have to delve too deeply into history to realise the worst of the worst of WWII German military were the SS and Gestapo. And yeah, I'm well aware the Gestapo was technically state police - don't bother.... And you'll just have to take my word that I'm also aware that the average grunt in the regular German armed forces was as decent and honourable as any other nations's servicemen. The Japanese regulars of the same era being a notable exception.... quote: quote: Life is tough for the average 'Joe' - physically defending yourself against a violent assault is technically still an act of violence but the OP has some nerve sneering at the "violent" victim for doing what he felt he needed to do to survive. You've got some nerve yourself, as I pointed out above. Or maybe you were both just a little bit hasty with your wording? Option 3), that you're not nearly as clever, original or insightful as you think. quote: quote: So the glass encased ivory tower it is - who could resist testing such a puritanical beacon's resilience with a well-aimed rock or two...? I don't mind testing the substance of a differing point of view than my own. But I would claim you neither aimed well, nor tested what you purport to have been out to test. When I strip away the pomp, arrogance, condescending tone and general feeling of all-knowing superiority, it comes down to the fact that it's you who "would claim".... I'm good with that. Focus.

AnimusRex -> RE: Sadism vs. Violence (8/30/2010 9:47:53 PM)
A couple thoughts- To the OP, I don't see why your original post needs to be so complicated- you enjoy consensual sadistic play, but morally disapprove of war. No conflict there- consensual sadistic play is just that, a form of play that both people enjoy. No more of a contradiction than people who love rugby but hate war. Don't invent paradoxes where none occur. But a thought for the rest of the crowd here, re: war, sadism, and violence; Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that BDSM tends to only be popular in developed industrialized societies? In other words, how come people in Rwanda and Congo aren't forming clubs of women who get orgasms from gang rape? You know, the gang rape that is practiced regularly as a form of warfare? How come people living under butchers in 3rd World countries don't have huge conventions of people who get aroused at being tortured with blowtorches and electric drills? Or come to think of it- why is it that all the hordes of wicked, sadistic mean cruel dark Lords of the dungeon somehow never seem to find their way to the dark dangerous places of the world where real war and killing and slaughter is actually happening? I mean, if inflicting nonconsensual suffering on innocent people gets you a boner, why not join a mercenary army and venture into Somalia, or Myanmar, or someplace like that? Why do all these bloodthirsty Warriors always seem to have flat feet or asthma or weak spines or something that prevents their entry into combat? Yes, notice the snark in my tone, but I think its a bit glib and easy to have these high-toned philosophical discussions about nonconsensual sadism, being "more sadistic than thou", pushing past the point of consent blah blah blah, while not a fucking person in here has ever suffered anyting resembling true torture the likes of which too many people around the world endure. Look- I mean no criticism of the practitioners of BDSM, D/s, Gor, or any other expression of power relationships. But lets get real- the BDSM of the type WITWD is a form of kinky play, sometimes wrapped within a lifestyle, sometimes part of a deep and meaningful expression of being, but c'mon- comparing a goddamn spanking on your bottom- even one that brings blood- to the real suffering others endure is like a bunch of 12 year old boys playing army men. Oh, and a second point- parsing the English language is pointless- the language was never developed to cope with, or express anything dealing with WIITWD- Daniel Webster never sat around trying to craft a Greco-Latin root for "Painslut"- so looking in dictionaries to define this stuff will result in madness or gross contrivances. We in this life have developed our own definitions for things, that don't appear anywhere else. Hey, but other than all that- I agree with all the other posters.

Nineveh -> RE: Sadism vs. Violence (8/31/2010 1:05:17 AM)
There are women in Rwanda and the Congo that enjoy being dominated. I've talked to one Nigerian woman who is into some very dark kinky stuff (one as in I have talked to plenty of scammers, one real person that I have no doubts was being honest because she never asked me for anything) I think the reason we don't see it is that they don't generally have the internet there and also they speak a different language than we do so when they do have the internet they don't use it to speak to us.

Wheldrake -> RE: Sadism vs. Violence (8/31/2010 1:13:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex A couple thoughts- To the OP, I don't see why your original post needs to be so complicated- you enjoy consensual sadistic play, but morally disapprove of war. No conflict there- consensual sadistic play is just that, a form of play that both people enjoy. No more of a contradiction than people who love rugby but hate war. I basically agree with this, but I think the OP did bring up a genuine issue of communication. If you say you're a pacifist, and that you're also a sadist, is that likely to confuse people? And if so, is there a better and clearer way to explain yourself? quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex But a thought for the rest of the crowd here, re: war, sadism, and violence; Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that BDSM tends to only be popular in developed industrialized societies? Nineveh has a good point - it's possible that BDSM is popular in non-industralised societies, but that we just don't hear much about it. Also, it may be easier for those impulses to develop in people who have ample leisure time and easy access to books, movies and websites. quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex Or come to think of it- why is it that all the hordes of wicked, sadistic mean cruel dark Lords of the dungeon somehow never seem to find their way to the dark dangerous places of the world where real war and killing and slaughter is actually happening? I mean, if inflicting nonconsensual suffering on innocent people gets you a boner, why not join a mercenary army and venture into Somalia, or Myanmar, or someplace like that? Why do all these bloodthirsty Warriors always seem to have flat feet or asthma or weak spines or something that prevents their entry into combat? If I were a sadistic Lord of the Dungeon, I'd probably say that (a) I wouldn't consider everything that might give me a boner to be morally justifiable, and (b) I'd rather torture people who are unlikely to fight back. quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex Look- I mean no criticism of the practitioners of BDSM, D/s, Gor, or any other expression of power relationships. But lets get real- the BDSM of the type WITWD is a form of kinky play, sometimes wrapped within a lifestyle, sometimes part of a deep and meaningful expression of being, but c'mon- comparing a goddamn spanking on your bottom- even one that brings blood- to the real suffering others endure is like a bunch of 12 year old boys playing army men. I strongly agree with this, but that doesn't mean it's unreasonable to talk about whether words like "violence" and "suffering" can stretch to include both kinds of experience. I think they probably can, even though the level of violence and the amount of suffering are obviously very different in the two cases. And speaking of semantics... quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex Oh, and a second point- parsing the English language is pointless- the language was never developed to cope with, or express anything dealing with WIITWD- Daniel Webster never sat around trying to craft a Greco-Latin root for "Painslut"- so looking in dictionaries to define this stuff will result in madness or gross contrivances. We in this life have developed our own definitions for things, that don't appear anywhere else. Except that the words we've been discussing, namely violence and sadism and pacifism, are all perfectly respectable and in widespread use. I don't like to argue endlessly over definitions myself, but sometimes it's worth comparing notes with other interested parties. Ultimately, we can only communicate with each other to the extent that we agree on the meanings of words (or are at least aware of any alternative meanings). And people who are into BDSM are actually probably quite well qualified to give the rest of society an opinion on whether it's logical to regard all sadism as violent, for example.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Sadism vs. Violence (8/31/2010 2:37:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EastbourneCouple Who exactly am I judging? I have made no comment about anyone who has fought in a war or been in the armed forces. I just feel that parading up and down, proudly showing off weapons designed to kill other people is glorification of something the human race should be ashamed of, not proud. Personally, I have no problems with you making a judgment, whether you care to do so broadly...by making the whole human race responsible...or in a smaller fashion...in your statements about those who resort to violence when threatened with the same. As one of those guys who marched up and down a parade field with various weapons at differing times in my hands...sometimes an M16, sometimes an M60, sometimes a 45 on my hip...and who also crawled through a jungle with those same weapons, let me say that I didn't find it particularly glorious. It WAS a job that needed to be done and a way to pay back to those who came before me for their defense and preservation of the country I live in. It was something I did for my fellow citizens so they could go on enjoying the type of life fought and died for by others. That WAS something to be proud of along with my own personal achievements while in that service. Did I learn types of offensive as well as defensive violence there? Sure did...and a whole lot of them didn't involve a weapon in my hand, such as to be found in the hands of a sadist in the form of a whip, let's say or a paddle or a belt. Violence exists. It exists in warfare, it exists in armed robbery, it exists in rape, it exists in rough lovemaking between vanillas, it exists on the schoolyard, it exists in BDSM play. Any time you inflict pain...be it mental or physical or emotional AND consensual or not...you are resorting to violence. You can pretty it up all you want and twist it to fit your own moral definition of yourself...a loving pacifist...but that does not stop it from being what it is. A sadist is just another variant of a violent personality. The violence engaged in during BDSM play is (usually, though it can be pretty free-wheeling) much more controlled, much more "allowed" between the consenting parties and for a much different purpose than the violence engaged in during a schoolyard fight (for example), but it IS violence.

ThundersCry -> RE: Sadism vs. Violence (9/1/2010 3:50:56 AM)
When its intimatly violent...its ALL about me...tsk tsk I have no need to discuss...war/s

crazyml -> RE: Sadism vs. Violence (9/1/2010 5:23:55 AM)
To the OP... I can relate completely with you on this. While I'm not a pacifist, I do deplore needless violence. Early on in my kink journey I really struggled with causing pain... but over time, seeing the pleasure it gives some playmates I've come to really enjoy it. That said - (and I think I've told this story before), I still abhor accidental or needless violence - Once, after giving a sub playmate a really vigorous caning, my fingers slipped as I was removing a nipple clamp, it snapped back into place - causing a huge squeal of pain from my playmate. I was extremely remorseful.. and we both had to laugh since minutes before I'd been enjoying caning her enormously. I'm not sure our definitions of "sadism" are quite the same though - I wouldn't describe myself as a sadist (or as simply a "service top" which some may choose to apply), I view a sadist as someone who would enjoy causing pain to someone who doesn't enjoy it. Personally, pain is something I enjoy giving, in some circumstances, to some subs. That's all really. As others have said - it's the consent/enjoyment of your sub that matters. And, as others have also said - it doesn't matter a crap what I think, or whether I think you're a sadist or not - what matters is how you and your partner feel about all this stuff.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125