RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse

RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (Full Version)

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

Message

VideoAdminChi -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/25/2012 6:02:01 PM)
quote: On one hand, they tell me that if I can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, but when I apply the heat, admin takes a fit. Not to mention that I had an admin speak to me this way too. Please address your complaints about individual admins with VideoAdminAlpha. Be sure to send her examples of "takes a fit." You might find these clarifications about personal attacks helpful: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4248463 Now for a long answer that maybe can shed some light. I am putting this in here to show PARTIALLY some of the items taken into consideration and examples. A link to the forum guidelines: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=72 A VERY SMALL SNIPPET BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF THIS POST While debate is fine, postings of the sort generally known as "flames" is not. Participants are not expected to coddle one another, but they are expected to keep things within the realm of maturity. The reasons you are calling POTUS a cunt does not constitute a personal attack or flame. It is reasonably assumed that if you are calling a COLLARME member a cunt, you are referring to them PERSONALLY. If you were not, you would be making a statement about something they said, which is allowable. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ATTACK THE POST, NOT THE POSTER Here is a good rule of thumb. Any statement that is made that is a “you” statement, that is derogatory in nature, is not going to be allowed. President Abraham Lincoln was the most stupid president that existed in history because he believed the sky was blue. I’m surprised that he was able to put his pants on correctly in the morning with out help…..ACCEPTABLE., To generic collarmemember member. You are the most stupid person I have ever known because you believe the sky is blue. I’m surprised that you are able to put your pants on correctly…. UNACCEPTABLE To generic collarme member: The idea that the sky is blue is laughable and ludicrous and stupid! Wow. I cant believe anyone believes that! ACCEPTABLE. To generic collarme member: The idea that the sky is blue is laughable and ludicrous and stupid! Wow. I cant believe you believe that! UNACCEPTABLE. I can only cover a little bit about the grey area that seems to confuse people, because it is on a case by case basis and is based in large part on INTENT, If you are talking about an idea, etc. no matter whether, right, left, middle, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Tea Party, and whatever all the other terms, it is acceptable. To say because YOU are any one of the above YOU are “derogatory comment” is not acceptable. It is really hard to make a personal attack without using the term you.It’s not the only way to do it, and possible other ways, but is almost certain if it is used, and is derogatory in any manner. If in doubt, honestly, you can email a Collarme Team moderator and ask them if a particular statement would be viewed as a personal attack, and get an answer. My advice would be to carefully analyze any statement you are preparing to make that has the term “you” in it before clicking send. If you don’t, please don’t be surprised if you get a post pulled, and a note from one of us.

nakedfreedom -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/25/2012 9:16:00 PM)
quote: Here is a good rule of thumb. Any statement that is made that is a “you” statement, that is derogatory in nature, is not going to be allowed. quote: Put on your big boy pants. LOL!!! Telling someone to put on his big boy pants is directed to the person and not the post. Notice the word, "your"? That's probably what set me off. You're right, the "you" statement puts someone in a defensive posture, while the "I" statement is a point of their opinion. And criticizing a post is criticizing the idea, not the person. I'm okay with it as long as I can tell tazzygirl to fuck off. If she's going to be that harsh and direct, it's only fair she gets it back. That's what I would do in person. Why do you interfere? Either keep my posts directed towards her or follow your own policy and remove her post. Simple solution here...

metamorfosis -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/25/2012 9:25:54 PM)
I am not in a dynamic with you. I have not consented to listen to your whining. Pam

nakedfreedom -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/25/2012 9:43:55 PM)
quote: IMHO, taking offense is always an active choice and not just an emotional state we find ourselves in. My reasoning behind this opinion is that the only person we have any control of is ourselves, unless of course we decide to cede control over to another person. I just wanted to flag this post because it's so dangerous. I've worked with people who were abused, and this particular position definitely leads to trouble. You're only human and you can get your feelings hurt. It's called pain and you can't just decide not to have it. If you feel angry, and start to beat yourself up for having that emotion, you will hurt yourself even more. You'll be setting yourself up with an unhealthy expectation of yourself. Even worse, the pent-up anger could even lead to some very real health problems. If the pain is too much, then let the person know. If they offend you even more, then appeal to an authourity if you can. If that doesn't work, avoid them as much as you can. If that doesn't work, then try to leave. In my case, I'm okay with just telling them to fuck off. I certainly wouldn't blame myself for getting offended if someone threw an insult my way. However, I agree that if a complete stranger's remark really hurt (especially online), then you might need to take a step back and get a perspective on the situation. By the way, it's that kind of advice that leads to a rather large violent outburst. The anger just festers more each day. We all get offended and if you beat yourself for "letting" them get you angry, then you won't talk to anyone about it and you won't challenge them to stop. You will be fighting a war on two fronts. It's called 'internalization'. You're internalizing the bad behaviour and somehow re-directing the blame to yourself because you feel so helpless to stop it. It's a bad approach to empowerment. Abuse victims do it all the time. Wow, that really sucks. I hope this individual can learn from my post.

littlewonder -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/25/2012 9:54:07 PM)
[8\|] [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]

mons -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/25/2012 10:43:36 PM)
It is sad and a shame but when someone is looking for a person to chat with and then you run into someone who enjoy giving verbal abuse it is a shock to some! At one time when I did not know about this site, and this was many years ago I went to the chat rooms and the woman were brutal, to the submissive men! It does not need to be that way! I hope the op stops going into video chat rooms, do not take that kind of abuse, your worth more then those words say! I hope this make sense to you! mons

tazzygirl -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/26/2012 12:09:27 AM)
Oh darlin, you havent even made a dent in my shirt, let alone gotten under my skin. TOS prevents me from posting my mail response to you... which I am very sure you are glad I can not. But, rest assured, I have been quite nice to you in response to the multiple mails in which you have been abusive. Just go grab that [sm=binky.gif] and take that nap like I suggested... and everything will be all better!

stef -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/26/2012 12:21:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nakedfreedom That's an e-mail I sent Tazzygirl. Nobody cares. Grow the fuck up already.

LadyPact -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/26/2012 1:07:22 AM)
I still think this thread is the equivalent of complaining to a cashier at Wal-Mart when you had an issue while shopping at Sears. Very similar to rants about how people on the other side send uncouth messages like "kneel slut"and other such crap. While I don't know the habits of everyone, most of the folks on the forums don't frequent chat. Jeff's experiment aside, and of course the OP which brought the subject up from video chat, I've only seen two people on the whole thread that have mentioned their participation in video chat. Unless I'm mistaken, there different Mods there, so again, not very productive. Before I go too much farther, OP, I want to make a slight side note. In this thread, there have been more direct comments to "fuck off" on this thread than I have used that expression toward other posters in almost six years. Part of the discussion is about holding everyone to the same standard. I look at it differently. In My opinion, it's not other people's standards, or lack of them, that should dictate My behavior. For Me, it's not "the other person acted like this so I did that". Each instance where I have acted badly, the responsibility lies with Me. Which leads Me back to the topic. Your question was should the ideal of consent be practiced online the same way it is off. Let's see if we can explore that. Instead of online, let's change the setting. If you went to a play party, and I started treating you in a way that you did not consent to, how would you handle that? Would you walk away from Me so that I couldn't continue? Would you take the issue to a DM if necessary? Even worse, if we played together, and I did things against your consent, would you keep coming back to play with Me month after month? Personal responsibility needs to come into play somewhere. Oh, I almost forgot. Unless I am mistaken, the video chat Mods are supposed to be able to access all cams to ensure that no illegal activities are being broadcast. That trumps your preference that Mods don't access yours.

metamorfosis -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/26/2012 1:26:50 AM)
quote: In the videochat, it's all fair game. You don't need anyone's consent to behave in a dominant way towards anyone. You don't need to ask for permission or consent from the submissive or slave. They'll verbally abuse you if your profile says that you're not a Dom/me. I've never been in videochat, and only just now (for a couple of minutes) in the classical chatrooms on collarme. I don't know what they're like. Things might go on there, probably do go on, that I would consider "verbal abuse". Like I said, I don't hang out in the chatrooms. If I ever had gone in, I wouldn't have been expecting rudeness either, and it would have come as quite a shock. Frankly, I probably would have been pissed, too. I've always thought collarme chatroom's TOS was the same as here, where personal attacks aren't tolerated. At least in theory, and when they are reported. quote: The same goes for submissives and slaves who message Dom/mes and act as if they are entitled to being dominated. Dom/mes usually get angry and send harsh messages in the public channel. But that's not much different from real life where a stranger walks up to you and says something rude, for no good reason, or someone crank calls you. Rude mail isn't BDSM. It's simply people being assholes. quote: One young woman took to verbally humiliating all men by called them 'sperms' upon entering the room. Again, I don't know much about the chatrooms. It sounds like the different rooms or topics (whatever they're called) have their own rules, and that in some rudeness or humiliation is allowed. One of the rooms I just went into was specifically for humiliation. There wasn't much going on at the time so I can't tell how bad it gets, but at least they do warn you that that's what goes on in that room. It's been mentioned that by entering into that space, you have implicitly given your consent to verbal humiliation. quote: And in videochat, the consent rule isn't practice. The Admins don't care or simply can't keep up with the rude behaviour from people who feel that collarme is the perfect place to tell people to fuck off, call them 'losers' or just denigrate men or women en masse. Dom/mes can talk down to anyone that is labeled a 'sub' or 'slave'. They don't need to ask for permission, engage in a conversation with anyone or even talk about preferences. In other words, they don't have to practice the consent rule. That's not true. They are abiding by the rule of consent, because by being there at all you have consented. Whether you like it or not, when you click into that room, you are consenting. It's also been mentioned that you can also report, block, or simply leave. quote: ...It's the only thing that differentiates BDSM from abuse. Yes, consent is what differentiates BDSM from abuse. The part you keep missing is that you have given consent to the BDSM you describe (as in the chatrooms), or that the rudeness you describe is not BDSM (as in your mail). Pam

metamorfosis -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/26/2012 1:43:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact If you went to a play party, and I started treating you in a way that you did not consent to, how would you handle that? Would you walk away from Me so that I couldn't continue? Would you take the issue to a DM if necessary? LadyPact, in all fairness, if I went to a play party and all the dominants in the room immediately felt entitled to humiliate me or be rude simply because I was there, I would be furious. I mean, I would be upset. But yes, I would walk away, and I would report it to the DM. And if they did nothing to stop it, I would be even more pissed. And if I finally get fed up with all the rudeness and started responding in kind, only to find that the DM cracked down on me but not on the other rude people... well that would leave me seething. I don't know if that's what happened here. I don't know if the OP is just whining, or perhaps has a valid complaint and is just expressing it poorly. But if the above scenario happened to me, and I went to the next munch and tried to complain about it, only to be told to grow up, put on my big girl panties, well... From a certain point of view, I can see the OP's point, although I still think he's missed certain keys points, himself. Pam

LadyPact -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/26/2012 2:18:11 AM)
In a sense, that is part of the point. Yes, you would walk away. That's what anybody should do if they find themselves in a situation that they do not want. If an environment doesn't live up to someone's liking, they find one that they do like. If I go into a rowdy bar and I think the people are treating Me badly, I get up and leave. I may have to take some time to find a different bar where the atmosphere is more to My liking. I may even have to put more effort into getting to a new place, rather than the one that I didn't like. It's still My responsibility not to allow strangers to treat Me in a way that I feel I don't deserve. Very much like shopping in one store rather than another because I like the service provided by the cashiers more by comparison. Abuse is a word that I associate to situations where people do not have a choice. I just can't lend that kind of gravity to a chat room.

MistressSyMoane -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/26/2012 2:19:12 AM)
I agree with you on most of what you are saying...simply being in a video chat room in NO WAY gives anyone a right to do as they wish with you. But, whenever I have ecountered this type of behavior from anyone here (and I did tonight), I block them.

metamorfosis -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/26/2012 3:08:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact In a sense, that is part of the point. Yes, you would walk away. That's what anybody should do if they find themselves in a situation that they do not want. If an environment doesn't live up to someone's liking, they find one that they do like. Not to be melodramatic, but that's kind of like telling Rosa Parks to just get off the bus if she doesn't like how she's treated. quote: If I go into a rowdy bar and I think the people are treating Me badly, I get up and leave. I may have to take some time to find a different bar where the atmosphere is more to My liking. I may even have to put more effort into getting to a new place, rather than the one that I didn't like. It's still My responsibility not to allow strangers to treat Me in a way that I feel I deserve. Very much like shopping in one store rather than another because I like the service provided by the cashiers more by comparison. I'd say that depends. If you you merely prefer a different kind of service or atmosphere, then yes, by all means just go somewhere else- particularly if there's a similar store or bar just around the corner. (In this case, I'm not sure there's that kind of abundance of BDSM sites to choose from.) But if the staff or customers were blatantly rude or unfair, then it warrants complaining about. Personally, if I were the store owner (or maybe even just another patron) and something like that were happening, I would want to know. I would want someone to complain, and most especially if I were losing customers because of it. Because there's no possibility of addressing the issue, let alone resolving it, if the issue is never even brought up; if the person who feels offended just leaves without a fight. That's what playing the victim is, it's being disgruntled and silent instead of voicing a valid complaint. You hear this argument a lot here: if you don't like the way people act here, just leave. As if there were no option between completely accepting the way things are and leaving. As if it's not just as valid to say "I don't like this _______. I would like to see it changed to be more like ______." Too often around here that's just labeled as "whining". Well, often it is, but sometimes it's not. Sometimes "whining" is simply an honest attempt to address a problem. One that may be more effective than simply walking off in a huff, to go sign up for some other site. The OP is saying he didn't consent to be treated rudely. I think that's a valid complaint. Is there any kind of disclaimer in the chatrooms that says "By entering here you are consenting to the way people speak. Enter at your own risk."? There should be a disclaimer. Because at least then a person is clearly informed that that's the choice that they're making. Then if they complain, you can condemn them for it. It's rather like the disclaimer that I would be required to sign if I was attending a play party. I've been to several, and my consent was never just assumed. I got to choose whether I consented, and I got to choose who I consented to. quote: Abuse is a word that I associate to situations where people do not have a choice. I just can't lend that kind of gravity to a chat room. I would be happy to use the word "rudeness" instead. Pam

LadyPact -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/26/2012 3:42:20 AM)
I would use that word as well. We most certainly can not dictate online behavior. That lends too much to the attitude that every woman must answer every email because men think it is "respectful". I believe it is situations like this that are the perfect example for use of the block button. Nobody here is in any circumstance where they must interact with people they don't know or don't wish to associate with. Far lower on the scale than issues of EO, such as public transportation. Unlike in certain situations in the real world, the OP had every power not to deal with anyone that wasn't wanted. It was as complicated as a click of the mouse. That block button in the online world is like crafting the exact environment that a person would like to have their participation. I'm betting Rosa Parks would have loved that opportunity to eliminate every racist with such little effort. Best holiday wishes, pam.

metamorfosis -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/26/2012 3:46:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Best holiday wishes, pam. And to you. Pam

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/26/2012 4:21:06 AM)
FR After a brief scan through, I have this to say: I have been in a large number of chat rooms due to my DJing over the years. An individual chatroom has an ambiance not unlike a local bar - where in one bar it's okay to turn the sports off and play the jukebox, in another you could never get away with that. in one bar no one dances, in another dancing happens all the time, in another most everyone there knows everyone else and 'strangers' are considered suspect. Chatrooms create there own unspoken rules, and BDSM chatrooms even more so, since the issue of protocol can rear its head. The rule for chatrooms is much like the rule for bars, that you have entered the room and remained means that you have CONSENTED to it's rules. After all, there is the little red "X" up in the right corner you can click off whenever you decide you no longer wish to consent. WOW. Who knew? Quite obviously video chat has some looser rules than the OP finds acceptable. That's why the venue has provided block and hide buttons. One thing I learned as a DJ is that these features work really well. (Most like the DJ, but in some rooms the DJ can be singled out for abuse.) I am used to being in a chatroom with little or no moderation, and was sometimes given limited moderation powers in the larger rooms myself. When you *have* to be there b/c you've been scheduled to be the DJ, you learn to cope with those who have nothing better to do than heckle the DJ. You make a joke, give it right back, or in some way attempt to turn the interaction toward a more positive vein. I've managed to do this many times and garnered some long term radio listeners via this method. But since the OP doesn't have to be in video chat, perhaps he is best served by the little red "X" up in the right corner.

crazyml -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/26/2012 4:54:04 AM)
FR... To the OP... I'm sure you're a perfectly intelligent, highly functional chap, so I'm sure you'll have no problem reading and considering the comments that follow, and that you won't have a churlish and infantile hissy fit. Could you do me a favor? Could you scoot over your posts on this thread, and perhaps reflect on your behaviour in the chat rooms? While you do this, ask yourself.. "Is there any way that someone could have got the mistaken impression that I'm a whining little asshat?" And "could someone have come into the misconception that I'm an aggressive little fuckwad?" Whenever I feel hard done by, I do a similar test, and I'll be honest and admit that there are times when the jackass is me. Could you do this for me, and tell me what conclusion you come to?

VideoAdminChi -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/26/2012 5:55:40 AM)
quote: LOL!!! Telling someone to put on his big boy pants is directed to the person and not the post. Notice the word, "your"? That's probably what set me off. You're right, the "you" statement puts someone in a defensive posture, while the "I" statement is a point of their opinion. And criticizing a post is criticizing the idea, not the person. "Put on your big boy pants" is snark and allowable compared to "whiny bitches like you" or "you are a whiny baby" which are not.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Why BDSM isn't Abuse (12/26/2012 6:07:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminChi quote: LOL!!! Telling someone to put on his big boy pants is directed to the person and not the post. Notice the word, "your"? That's probably what set me off. You're right, the "you" statement puts someone in a defensive posture, while the "I" statement is a point of their opinion. And criticizing a post is criticizing the idea, not the person. "Put on your big boy pants" is snark and allowable compared to "whiny bitches like you" or "you are a whiny baby" which are not. IMNSHO, and as someone who agrees with probably 90% of what Tazzy posts, I have to say this. To me, allowing a regular poster, who normally posts very good arguments for their point, to go a little bit farther using "snark" than say, a newbie who has just joined and has been a jackass from the word go, well, that makes perfect sense. To try to tell me that "put your big boy pants on" is not as insulting as "you are a whiny baby", well, I aint buyin that for one second. And I have a "put your big girl panties on and deal with it" magnet on my computer at work, so that I see it all the time when I am sitting at my desk.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625