|
SilverBoat -> RE: Extreme BDSM / Fetishes (12/20/2011 10:32:21 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Walking away from a discussion such as this is part of the problem with the medical community, in my opinion.
If someone comes to you and asks... Im pregnant, what do I do and what can I expect?.. do you walk away complaining that they are adding to the cost of insurance in this country? What are the symptoms of a heart attack? Do you ignore them or do you give them the signs, the causes, and the possible consequences?
As a medically trained person, in my opinion, that is my job. To teach... above all else, as a nurse, I am constantly teaching... how to take medications, how to give yourself a shot, how to change a dressing, how to handle an O2 tank...
I dont see this as any different. In the above cases, never would I admonish someone because their actions just caused an increase in the insurance rates in this country.
Flesh hooks can cause a lot of damage. Yet its accepted. Native Americans used them in ceremonies such as the Sun Dance. The potential for damage is well known. Yet it is accepted as a right of passage.
If someone wishes to be extreme, and they have assessed all the potential complications, and feel the desire to continue it anyways, minus permanent damage such as dismemberment, then I have done my job by warning them of all the potential complications.
Telling someone that they are stupid to want too and adding to the national debt or insurance costs in this country is a bit ridiculous. Are we telling teenagers who are having sex the same thing? Are we telling people who drink that too?
The monetary costs, I'd agree, aren't the sole basis for telling people that some necessary or indulgent thing they're planning or doing is too risky, too costly, etc. The point about money costs, though, is that they can often be totted up with more rigor than social effects whose existence, definitions, etc might remain endlessly disputed. So yeah, vanilla society put warnings and taxes on cigarette packs and liquor bottles, mandated vaccinations and seatbelts (and then airbags, because seatback standards were crap, but that's a whole 'nother topic), because the monetary and social costs were so evident that people voted-in pols who passed those laws. Smoking and drinking are pretty much elective activities, but driving less so, and without pregnancy, the human species would go kaput. The result, at least here in the US, is taxing the indulgences, regulating the hazardous activities, and subsidizing the necessities.
So, yeah, there's lots of more or less reasonable assessment of actions, risks, costs, etc in the overall vanilla society. Kinkster communities, from what I've seen, deal with group-head about what constitutes (from the group's point of view) the unreasonable risks of 'extreme' play by limiting or segregating the activity. For example, an intense cutting scene over a plastic dropcloth is one thing, spattering the walls with a blood-soaked flogger is something else entirely. In the latter case, I'd think it completely reasonable for the Host or DM to say "Not here." Maybe that flogger-wielder didn't bother with the complications, did and screwed up, or did and didn't care. However, the flogger and floggee are free to pursue what they want in private, or at some space that allows it. That's what I've seen, in general at play spaces, and why I'd say that risky 'extreme' play already gets some more or less 'reasoned' limits, etc, by many group(s).
Anyway, I see your point too, and thought I should clarify what I'd posted.
SB
|
|
|
|
