Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: angelikaJ
Occasionally we get men claim they want their balls to be literally crushed by a Domme.
Sometimes men write about how to find someone who will castrate them.
In my experience, most of these are not making an informed choice. If they do know what they are doing, and appear reasonably sane (i.e. coherent, lucid, able to understand the implications and aware of the limits of their own comprehension), I don't see a problem with it.
quote:
I have read more than one woman who has wanted her clitoris removed so as not to be distracted by sexual desires when serving her Master.
Funny, I've seen very few of them. Only two in my area, for instance. And you may want to bear in mind that what most want, isn't to remove the clitoral organ, but to amputate the part of it which is visible and indeed sometimes sufficiently sensitive as to be a distraction. If properly done, while there is a risk, most women should still be able to have a full and satisfying orgasm provided the remainder of the organ is stimulated.
It takes a lot longer to stimulate the body of the clitoris than to stimulate the head, although from experience I would say the result is also better. It more or less straddles the vaginal area, with the two cruri descending like 'legs' and a 'head' sticking out under the hood. Massaging its legs and body will require more force, due to the tissue surrounding them, but is absolutely doable (and something any man should treat his woman to, if she's not a horribly impatient type). Without the head, penetration is unlikely to stimulate the body and legs enough to let her come. And in some cases, that may be precisely the point of "decapitating" it, as some are so sensitive that you essentially get a female equivalent of premature orgasm, which can be distracting to the activity. Furthermore, in some cases, it may be that the parties prefer she only be coming when such is intentional.
I am open to being shown wrong, but I have never seen a woman seriously considering removal of the entire clitoral organ.
That is a surgical procedure that should not be attempted outside the setting of a hospital surgical ward, at the hands of a qualified gyno surgeon, ideally one that has prior experience with it (it's done for some cancers, for instance). Decapitating the organ is, by contrast, a relatively simple procedure. Not something for the amateur to attempt, certainly, but it is within the realm of viability for the body mod crowd to learn how to do it properly. While I haven't checked, I would also think it can be done in the same manner as crush castration, using a clamping tool to crush the vascular supply at the base of the 'neck' of the clit and thus causing it to be gradually reabsorbed into the body. I'm assuming nobody that read that description will be stupid enough to attempt it without actually talking to a qualified gyno surgeon. I certainly wouldn't.
As usual, it is easy to let the instinctive "ouch" or "eww" get in the way of understanding.
quote:
These are the things that make us wince and cringe and quickly suggest professional help.
The only professional help I would suggest if someone reflected a reasonable understanding of the risk and consequences, in both the quoted examples, would be that of a professional surgeon to instruct, or a capable modification artist with prior experience (if memory serves, Bertrand is out again, for instance). My suggestion otherwise, is simply to read about the subject. In the medical literature, first and foremost. And then to get out there to talk to people that have gone through with whatever one is considering, to get an impression of the consequences, as well as any unexpected snags one might run into.
Then again, I think it's fine if people decide to try to get to the North Pole, or climb Himalaya, or visit the Challenger Deep, or even decide to move to the ass end of nowhere to start a farm in the jungle. I'm not too fond of the idea of paying for it when it goes wrong, but I'm not going to make a big fuss about it, either. I feel it's worth supporting people that try to take a bold leap outside the beaten path.
quote:
For Edge Players though, nailing their slave's breasts to a board is just another night of a good time had by all and serious hook suspension has a devoted following.
Obviously. And what passes for fun for a lot of people here would have the average joe up in arms.
quote:
Somewhere there are these lines between horrible harm and abuse (even when activities are consentual) and consentual BDSM activities and relationships. [...] The difference between unacceptable and YKINMK, I know where the line is for me (I think)... where is it for you?
I can't say as I have a clear cut line, except I would say consent is the twilight that seperates day (fully informed and explicit consent between completely rational adults with a healthy identity and so forth) from night (kidnapping a random stranger off the street to drown them in a septic tank somewhere).
For instance, I abhor animal abuse, but I'm fine with people enticing one to do its thing in line with its instincts. I won't tolerate child abuse, but I'm not going to cry foul over a pubescent getting laid, or someone having a preference for them. The main point in both cases being that if an activity is on your own terms and under your own control, then there is for practical purposes a level of consent that is adequate for the activities you initiate. A dog has no concept of being beaten for your entertainment, and so that is consistently out the window. It does, however, have a concept of mounting you, and so I couldn't care less if that's your thing.
Permanent disability is where it starts to get fuzzy, in that it's difficult to judge comprehension and rationality in a manner that does not risk a later incident with the courts wherein the original assessment is contested and difficult to reproduce. One may say that it also has a price we all pay, in health, courts and welfare, but I think that comes down to us making choices for ourselves under an expectation that others will feel obligated to limit themselves to the assumptions we made. These choices interact with those made by others in ways that cannot realistically be predicted, and I'm inclined to write it off as "shrug... shit happens" overall. If we don't want to risk paying for a gelding nut (pun intended) deciding it was a bad idea, we introduce an option to say "my problem" when they do it. If we don't provide that option, that's our choice, and what costs us is our own choice, not the choice of said nutter. In short, the issue for me is to make sure we avoid rendering unjust verdicts in courts later, whether that is letting someone go when they shouldn't go, or nailing someone when they should walk. (Bad breakup plus gelding on video is a pretty solid recipe for the top going to jail in a case of "vengeance by police".)
It might be worthwhile to introduce solidary responsibility for the parties to voluntary induction of disability, so that a couple that gets it into their head that quad amping is hot will see the still non-disabled party required to provide some modicum of care and financial support if there is a breakup, for instance, but so long as they've got a firm grasp of what they're doing and are acting in a rational manner in their own frame of reference (and that frame of reference isn't delusional on points that relate to what they do), there's no good reason (IMO) to refuse consenting adults to do crazy shit. We can refuse to pay, of course, but we don't, which should be an entirely seperate issue from whether we hold the act itself to be criminal (i.e. it isn't, to my mind, legitimate to deny someone the right to do something just because we are unwilling to detach ourselves from being responsible for them; then again, in my mind, it's illegitimate to be responsible for others without their consent, my main gripe with e.g. socialism).
When you cross over into people dying, it starts to get real complicated, in part because there's no option to have a partial life or a life with reduced quality if one has made a mistake. Permanent disability isn't reversible, or doesn't carry an expectation of such (though medical science can of course advance sufficiently to change that), but it does carry a reasonable expectation of having a limited quality of life to fall back on. A life that many people have to live with for entirely different reasons than consent, which I'm going to assume will make a substantial difference in how hard it will be to live with it, and what the outcome expectancy will be. Death, however, isn't just irreversible, but lacks the expectation of continuing in a diminished capacity.
Yet it isn't something that nobody wants. Nor is it something that's an unacceptable outcome to everyone. And popular opinion holds that it eventually happens to people anyway. As such, I'm going to go the route of my ancestors in asserting that it is better to die for a reason than to do so by chance or by succumbing to infirmity and old age. Which gives an excellent example of how some of this lands in the gray for me...
What do you do when you have a terminal cancer patient that wants to experience a fatal fantasy, or wants to indulge one for their partner or someone else? What if they're past the level where medical care becomes palliative in the normal case, but not beyond a marginal chance? What if they've a poor prognosis, but aren't palliative? What if the alternative is degenerating (e.g. many brain cancers leave you diminished, even if you survive)? What about a disease that is progressively going to take away who they are and everything meaningful until they're walking dead and a disgrace to their own memory (Alzheimers, Huntingtons, etc.)?
"It's every man's right to choose when to sheathe his sword." says a line from a book I'm fond of. The term refers to a suicidal move in a swordfight, and by extension the maxim refers to your right to sacrifice yourself to accomplish your goal. What goal could we as a society possibly provide for an individual that is loftier than that of the well being and happiness of their own loved ones or that of their fellow (wo)men?
If we deny it out of hand, rather than set standards for it, then what are we but cogs, obligated to serve the machine god?
And if we accept it, and the inherent grey of it, how do we draw the other lines?
Me, I'm simple, so I prefer to make it simple: I do not want societies to interfere in what parties do with each other under adequate prior or current consent, nor hold such actions to be inherently criminal, but to impose the requirement that it be possible for courts to disambiguate an unusual action from a crime to this standard. In short, no, you can't fuck the girl in The Exorcist, no matter how many times she tells you to, cuz possessed girls can't consent, but if you and your spouse have decided the wood chipper is the thing for you, that's not my problem, so long as you make sure the rest of us can figure out that you didn't just throw your spouse in there after a hefty argument or take something muttered in deep sleep as consent.
Whether I would stand around while it happened, is another matter.
IWYW,
- Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: The Fringe: permanent self harm vs the things that ... - 
Profile
I say "ditto" to all her observations on this. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread