RE: The Fringe: permanent self harm vs the things that just squick us (Full Version)

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



Message

fucktoyprincess -> RE: The Fringe: permanent self harm vs the things that just squick us (5/2/2012 5:37:31 PM)

I know what my own personal boundaries are for both play and for D/s relationships. And I don't expect people to have the same boundaries at all.

For me a major foundation of BDSM is consent. But, of course, what do we mean by consent? If someone is not capable of consenting then there has been no consent. And this then raises the question of what constitutes capable. Obviously a minor cannot consent to BDSM. Someone who is considered mentally incapable of consent for legal purposes would also be another bright line. If you can't consent to a legally binding contract under law, I don't see how you can consent to BDSM.

Then the other issue I have is what the particular activity is. Some activities, while extreme, do not result in permanent physical alteration. Removing a major body part seems to me to fall under a different category entirely. Even in a jurisdiction where removal of a body part was allowed, I would think it would matter very much to everyone involved as to whether or not someone was capable of making that decision. Why? Because it is completely irreversible. Making a mistake there seems like a huge price for someone to pay.

So while I agree generally with live and let live, to me consent means nothing if someone is not capable of consenting. And I realize this puts us in somewhat of a grey area, but I'm not sure there is a bright line we can draw.

I also feel we do have responsibility to others. While I would likely not intervene with a complete stranger, if someone I was close to and knew well was making a decision (ANY decision about anything in their life) that I honestly felt was a mistake, I would speak up. I personally cannot take the attitude of "they can go screw up their body/life, not my problem". If I know them and am close to them, then I think I think I at least owe it to them to say something. They don't have to listen. But I couldn't live with myself if I didn't say something.



littlekitten1 -> RE: The Fringe: permanent self harm vs the things that just squick us (5/2/2012 10:54:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Then the other issue I have is what the particular activity is. Some activities, while extreme, do not result in permanent physical alteration. Removing a major body part seems to me to fall under a different category entirely. Even in a jurisdiction where removal of a body part was allowed, I would think it would matter very much to everyone involved as to whether or not someone was capable of making that decision. Why? Because it is completely irreversible. Making a mistake there seems like a huge price for someone to pay.


That what I would call risk-aware... Personally I wouldn't force such people to seek counseling or treatment. If it's just a fleeting though they have, then I seriously hope they reconsider and think with their brains before their 'bits'.
But if it's something they have really thought through for years.... And really looked into the consequences and procedures. Then I wouldn't butt in at all. They most likely know that what they are doing is really stupid. But just because something is that extreme doesn't mean they are incapable or insane. Perfectly sane people can do insane things.

Although I'd agree with an earlier statement that if its something that result in tapping into tax money then It shouldnt be allowed. Cos indirectly everyone is involved in such a case.



Aswad -> RE: The Fringe: permanent self harm vs the things that just squick us (5/3/2012 2:47:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Obviously a minor cannot consent to BDSM.


The age of consent in your jurisdiction is 4 years higher than in mine, as far as I know.

Which one of our jurisdictions chose to legislate wrong, seeing as this is obvious to you?

And, while I never had sex at, say, 15, I was demonstrably more mature, capable and reflected than a particular 25 year old I used to debate with at the time. No way would his ability to consent have been questioned, legally. Nor was mine, except legally, where there was no question, just an arbitrary assertion. Any comparative test would have shown me more qualified to decide for myself than him, but the law simply stuck two digits in there. Is that degree of arbitrarity obviously right to you?

To me, the important thing is not to act in a legal manner, but to act in a moral manner, what the universal declaration of human rights call "freedom of conscience", which cannot be legally constrained where I live (though the appeal would have to go to the human rights courts, so a pretty lengthy process). So far, this hasn't been an issue, but I still find it freaky how people can consign something so important as consent to something so arbitrary as law.

IWYW,
- Aswad.




Aswad -> RE: The Fringe: permanent self harm vs the things that just squick us (5/3/2012 2:53:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlekitten1

Although I'd agree with an earlier statement that if its something that result in tapping into tax money then It shouldnt be allowed. Cos indirectly everyone is involved in such a case.


Let me correct you: "indirectly everyone has consented in such a case."

Basically, so long as I don't force you to pay your tax money to me, it's your choice whether you offer it. You can't just throw money at me and say "look, I've given you money, now you owe me to behave as I like", unless I've actually agreed to trade. I haven't forced the expense on you. You've consented to give your money away.

IWYW,
- Aswad.



xssve -> RE: The Fringe: permanent self harm vs the things that just squick us (5/4/2012 11:15:10 AM)

It's nothing new.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoptsy



kalikshama -> RE: The Fringe: permanent self harm vs the things that just squick us (5/4/2012 1:49:18 PM)

Ah, that sect made an appearance in "The Stars My Destination."



fucktoyprincess -> RE: The Fringe: permanent self harm vs the things that just squick us (5/4/2012 2:03:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Obviously a minor cannot consent to BDSM.


The age of consent in your jurisdiction is 4 years higher than in mine, as far as I know.

Which one of our jurisdictions chose to legislate wrong, seeing as this is obvious to you?

And, while I never had sex at, say, 15, I was demonstrably more mature, capable and reflected than a particular 25 year old I used to debate with at the time. No way would his ability to consent have been questioned, legally. Nor was mine, except legally, where there was no question, just an arbitrary assertion. Any comparative test would have shown me more qualified to decide for myself than him, but the law simply stuck two digits in there. Is that degree of arbitrarity obviously right to you?

To me, the important thing is not to act in a legal manner, but to act in a moral manner, what the universal declaration of human rights call "freedom of conscience", which cannot be legally constrained where I live (though the appeal would have to go to the human rights courts, so a pretty lengthy process). So far, this hasn't been an issue, but I still find it freaky how people can consign something so important as consent to something so arbitrary as law.

IWYW,
- Aswad.




I realize age of consent is arbitrary, I see no other way for a civilized society to proceed without getting bogged down in an exploration of each individual case, and personally I have no desire to pay (as a taxpayer) for that kind of legal investigation on a case by case basis. I can't even begin to imagine the litigation that would clog our courts if there was no age of consent. Sometimes expediency is necessary regardless of philosophical approach.

It is not law that is arbitrary. It is life that is arbitrary. I've learned to live with the arbitrariness a very, very long time ago You are welcome to try to make complete sense of everything in the universe from your own moral perspective. IWYW with that, too. [:D]





Aswad -> RE: The Fringe: permanent self harm vs the things that just squick us (5/7/2012 8:59:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Sometimes expediency is necessary regardless of philosophical approach.


Of course. My difference of opinion is that I don't subscribe to curtailing individual liberty in the name of expediency.

If people want to restrict each other, it's either worth doing it right, or not worth doing it at all.

quote:

It is not law that is arbitrary. It is life that is arbitrary. I've learned to live with the arbitrariness a very, very long time ago You are welcome to try to make complete sense of everything in the universe from your own moral perspective. IWYW with that, too. [:D]


Life isn't arbitrary. It's just nuanced.

Law dispenses with the nuances to make a complex reality fit simple boxes by arbitrary criteria.

Incidentally, I've no problem making complete sense of everything in the universe from my own moral perspective. I sometimes have to ponder something or make a best guess at it, like anyone else. I don't set up hard and fast rules that I go generalizing beyond their original scope. And I make sure the criterion by which I decide on right and wrong aren't actually arbitrary, but rather fixed to observable quantities that are fairly well defined.

Values are, by nature, arbitrary. Their application need not be.

IWYW,
- Aswad.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125