Being significantly smarter than average but otherwise normal is also a form of deviant behavior. It tends to get savagely punished by people who resent (or covet?) it. When the people who resent it happen to be in position of authority (teachers, bosses, supervisors) it gets even worse.
I think what me and my family went through must have been mild compared to what Chiu and Denelian described, but it is still there, and it hurts.
One of the things I like about ornery is that I don't feel smarter than average around here. Doesn't mean I don't get punished anyway, but at least it isn't for being too smart
It depends on what kind of "deviation" is being practiced. There are some kinds of deviation that are, after all, just social taboos with little serious impact (except, naturally, the impact that comes from violating a social taboo). There are others that have genuine physical and emotional consequences, and have become taboo for that reason.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
Heinlein said something that stays with me to this day (and may explain why i am so blase about everything) "Genius makes its own rules"
now, i am on the FRINGE of the BDSM sect, and i will state authoritively that, as a whole, those who "play" are no smarter than anyone else (and often less so, because of self delusion) but those who are serious and RESPONSIBLE seem to be of higher intelligence (if again sadly self-deluded)
i know that GAMERS (as in Dungeons and Dragons type games) are more intelligent as a whole...
but those who are serious about ANY pursuit (even something as silly as gaming or BDSM) are smarter and more creative... and drift into the deviant life style because of "normal" rejection and something that challenges.
i have nothing to say about those who do drugs or drink on a normal basis - or maybe i do (my sister knows all this) i feel that it is WRONG WRONG WRONG - but i am unique in my culture/age group, being that i have had legal access to narcotics since i was 9, nd they hold no allure for me. but i also feel it should all be legal, the TAXED TO HELL. there goes the deficit
Not exactly what I was getting at but okay. Sorry it has taken me so long to reply.
I guess what I meant was, take gaming for instance... In the 70s and 80s and even into the early 90s it was given a bad rap. Religious groups were claiming it was the work of Satan, parents were claiming that their kids were trying to slay trains thinking that they were dragons... Kids were going out and biting each other thinking that they were real vampires, etc. People were beating each other up over stupid little cards and others were spending their life savings on them. What happened that suddenly made this acceptable to the general population or removed it from the lime light?
Why is it that things like homosexuality are still hot on everybody's no no lists but other things that once were aren't anymore for really no visible reason? Really what is the difference?
People generally fear things they don't understand. Mainstream adults and parents of the '70's and '80's certainly had a limited understanding of role-playing games, and for the most part, I think most non-participating adults have a very limited understanding of "deviant" sexual practices as well.
The odd incidences of crazed behaviour relating to gaming, in my opinion, stems from a fad-obsession. When the newness wears off, so does much of the unballanced obsession in some individuals. Thus, fewer news items about little Johnny biting his sister's neck. Fewer stories of kids being beat up for the latest Nike shoe, etc. The more mainstream, the fewer scare stories, the more widely known and understood, the less objectified as a "bad" thing by the more conservative elements of society.
Queen Victoria outlawed homosexuality, but made no mention of lesbian activity because she did not understand how it could be possible, and none of her councillors had the knowledge and courage to explain it to her in detail. An odd exception; ignorance protected a "deviant" group.
Where I live, in Toronto, homosexuallity is generally and widely a non-issue for most people: an alternate sexual orientation is considered not only OK, but not really anyone else's business. The same goes for fetish practice, whether S&M, bondage, leather, etc. as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult and no-one gets killed. So, in my community, things you speak of as being no-no's or taboo, are regarded that way by only a small and mostly silent minority.
As exposure to anything increases, more knowledge and familliarity with the subject is more widely assimillated, and understood, as non-threatening. Eventually, it becomes mainstream: D&D and Magic Cards are sold at 7-Elevens now. Police in Toronto used to dislike and marginally attempt to harrass the annual Gay Pride Parade: now they set up a recruiting booth along the route.
Personally, I draw the line at the point where one individual signifigantly harms another individual, without that individual's permission. Anything else is perfectly fine.
quote:What happened that suddenly made this acceptable to the general population or removed it from the lime light?
Time . . .
Seriously, that's all. Over time truly 'deviant' behaviors will become perceived as such and ones that aren't won't. What it takes is personal contact with people who engage in such behaviors.
For example, during my raging homophobic phase, it just so happened that two of my best friends 'came out of the closet.' Two people who I KNEW were good people suddenly droping that bombshell sort of forced me to adjust.
It's a very similar thing with gaming. (though I never really bought into the "D&D is of SATAN" BS.) I'm still not an avid gamer . . . I have other things I'd rather do with my time . . . but for a while, I was pretty tight with some people who were REALLY avid gamers. They were good people and this supposedly 'deviant' behavior had no discernable negative impact on them.
I think it's the same with everybody else. When you know somebody you have come to accept and they engage in 'deviant' behaviors, you have to adjust. Some adjust by rejecting those people, some adjust their mentalities.
Now . . . take skateboarding for example. There's a reason why skateboarding took so long to become accepted . . . because it was a symbol of rebellion. So, it attracted the rebellious, agressive teenagers who had the 'in your face' mentality. The whole POINT of this group was to alienate themselve from many of the people they knew. As such, the community associated 'undesirables' with 'skateboarding'. And until recently there's been little reason for ANYBODY to change that perception. But the fact is, it had nothing to do with the behavior.
I think that a lot of the supposedly deviant behaviors in our society are merely negative perceptions of the people engaging in them. Granted, there are some behaviors that are truly damaging and truly deviant. But when people who engage in the 'innocent' ones are typically non-conformist anyway, acceptance of such behaviors is going to take longer than normal.
Hmm, interesting. That's kind of what I expected to hear and then maybe not. I halfway expected for some of the more conservative bunch to jump in here and start telling me that all deviant behavior is wrong and going on about how it isn't supposed to be that way. I notice that noone seemed to post that was objectionable to any of this. Again, interesting.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps this is what you expected to hear: I have a religious code which clearly defines what is acceptable behaivior, and what is deviant, or unacceptable. Within my religious community, the lines are pretty clear, and it is felt that they are drawn by God.
But even within this religious community, there is some leeway, and some outright rebellion. Fundamentalist groups claim that my church has made unauthorized (again, by God) changes, and schisms have developed. And among all the groups, there is a wide range of actions against unacceptable behaivior, from ex-communication to tolerance.
The thing is, the religious community is only one subset of the culture I live in. And that culture allows things behaivior that I would consider deviant. So while I may not agree with teenage sex (for instance), the culture I live in accepts it as normal, even encouraged, behaivior.
So where do I draw the line? Mostly in my home. My children have a set of rules that they are expected to follow while they are still my responsibilty. Deviant behaivior, i.e. behaivior that is not acceptable in my home, has consequences. But when my children are grown and living on their own, I may disagree with their actions, but I will have no authority to punish them for it. The culture that they live in, however, might.
Luny: "Why is it that things like homosexuality are still hot on everybody's no no lists but other things that once were aren't anymore for really no visible reason?" Most people accept, to one degree or another, the idea that if behavior hurts nobody, then there shouldn't be laws against it. (If not arguing over laws, than a lot emotion gets drained away.)
Usually it should be socially acceptable, as well. Often if it only hurts/ risks the active, deciding adult (like rock climbing, or other very dangerous sports).
Topics will remain hot, like homosexuality, and abortion, when there are big questions about "harming others". (NOT to go into THOSE arguments here...)
Saying Christian prayers in gov't schools has become a deviant behavior, gov't schools have become fairly "Christian faith insensitive". (I don't like this). (A backlash has already started.)
Similary, expressing rasist or sexist jokes has become more deviant and less acceptable (I like this); but even to the point of inhibiting real academic research (on average IQs of various groups, for instance -- which is too far).
Punk rock, streaking (remember naked runners?), wild colored hair, wild clothes -- in many ways its becoming harder to be deviant. Also harder to know what "normal" is.
Left handed folk were certainly discriminated against more in the past, and you hardly hear about any differences now so far as social problems, just pratical.
Hopefully most of society is focusing more on more important differences, though I'm not sure of this.
Deviant....it is an interesting word, that brings with it a connotation of anything that is outside of societal norms.
Which begs the point. If more and more people are being open about homosexuality, then perhaps even this taboo subject has made its way into societal norms.
I agree with Social Distortion.....used to be that if you walked down the street with blue hair you were going to get in a fight with angry construction workers or the police or some backhills redkneck. You couldn't go to the mall and get tatoos or body piercings.
But now.....yeah you can do that, and no one even thinks twice.
However I like others draw the line when it starts harming others. Deviancy in itself is one thing ie it's one thing to be different than everyone else, it's quite another to harm other people. Do whatever you want to yourself....it's your body, and your life, but the momement when you start making other people live by your choices is when deviancy has crossed the line into menace.
Seriously, if two people want to degrade themselves by whipping each other in their suburban basement, what difference does that make. Right, wrong or indifferent I think it matters little that they do this(albiet deplorable and revolting), so long as they don't....say....bring my daughter downstairs to watch at a slumber party she's at or something equally horrifying.
There are those that are capable of restraint and privacy....and those that are not. It's the ones that have no restraint we hear about all the time.
I think we all carry around our own little code of ethics, and most of us agree that whipping your wife in a leather mask isn't a true description of love. It's actually more than likely harmful to the relationship in addition to being harmful to their spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend/whatever. I certainly don't condone it.
I guess more than anything I've just shown myself my own prejudice because I have a problem with the whole bondage SM line of crap. Homosexuality doesn't bother me too much. Yeah, it kind of gives me a wierded out feeling when they flirt with each other....but then it wierds me out when I see really disgusting people make out on Jerry Springer. So I can live with and appreciate their point of view even though I don't share it.
But physically harming someone else just to get off on it....come on. That's not deviant. That's horrible, degrading, and disgusting.....revolting in every sense of the word.
Like I say, I'll not deny anyone the right to destroy themselves like that....just don't bring me and mine into it with you.
I feel that a quote from Napolean sums this up wonderfully...
quote:Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent. -- Napolean
I think most are correct in that over time certain things become more accepted while others become more and more rejected. Each of us are taught certain things growing up that become our "core values" and guide us through our lives. When something happens that is against one or more of those values, we tend to reject the person(s) out of hand. As time passes and something becomes more commonplace, we adapt. There are certain hot button topics for me that I do not agree with, one of which in homosexuality. To me, I find the topic disgusting and avoid it whenever possible. My step-daughter "came out" about her orientation and her mother and I stressed to her that while we find it to be morally offensive, that we still love her and accept her. We also made it clear that the love was unconditional, and that while we would much prefer that she did not make the choice that she made, that while we do not like the choice, she is of age, and can do as she pleases.
One thing that comes to mind, is that some folks make certain choices in regards to their behavior as a means of making others notice them. As a society, here in the U.S., there is and has been for many years the push of competitiveness to "one up" each other trying to climb as far to the top as possible. And I believe that some of the behaviors we witness flows from that one upmanship to go further and to push back the boundaries of "normal" behavior. Just a thought...
You do know that BDSM is consenting on both sides right? I mean usually the people being inflicted with pain are allowing it because they want pain. You mean to tell me you've never gotten even the least bit excited by giving your (wife) a swat on the rear? Its the same thing, just not to the same extent.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Well, sexual deviancy that is consensual shouldn't be outlawed.
Nor should there be laws stopping property owners from being able to choose who NOT to rent to, including sexual deviants; although this gets more completed with absentee slumlords.
But Luny's post about getting excited is certainly one to encourage others to accept that behavior, and to try it.
It seems to me there is already too much emphasis on sexual experimentation and not enough on stable, comfortable, predictably exciting repetitions (did Leslie Nielson say this?) with the infinite variety of life's experiences and thoughts to share.
The being different experiments with identity seem a bit different than the consumer sex approach to sexual experimentation to see what one likes.
[This message has been edited by Tigger (edited September 25, 2002).]
"It seems to me there is already too much emphasis on sexual experimentation and not enough on stable, comfortable, predictably exciting repetitions...."
There are times, I admit, when I have sex to feel "comfortable" and "loved" and "predictable" and even "safe." There are other times when I want to bring the house down. I don't see why a couple should limit themselves to a single screwdriver when they have access to a whole toolbox.
I think this is kind of lame reply, but I'll give it creedance anyway. No I do not think they would find me irresistable. Nor do I think that this is essential to my argument that, and I'll reiterate here, a)do what you will but don't bring me or mine into it b)I think BDSM is destructive and wrong.
As an aside, there is nothing destructive mentally or physically about being a homosexual. One could be a homosexual and not be promiscous and even practice "safe" sex. For BDSM, pain and harm to both parties is intrinsic to the definition.
I don't agree. Swatting my wife on the butt is not done with the intent to either get her off or cause her pain. Getting a little wild in the bedroom is one thing, and I can see your swatting on the butt analogy fitting in a situation like this rather harmlessly (but wait a minute,I've already said I think doing whatever you want to do behind closed doors is your own business....so what's your argument again?), setting out to hurt each other to cause pain is like saying you want to turn the lights off so you can read your book. Just because pain is similar in intesity to pleasure does NOT make it the same thing. But we both know that swatting your wife on the ass during sex is not what is meant by BDSM. Really, I know better and so do you.
But the thing that makes me laugh about your reply is that you use the word usually. Usually it is between consenting adults. This exemplifies my point. It is bad enough that people do this to each other....and you know, you just enjoy beating yourselves to death....but the ones who step over the line of private to public are the ones that bother me.
It is not the same thing. At all. Again, I attest that you know this already.....
I agree totally, and have somehow been unable to say the same thing without controversy.
Like I said, do what you will. I care not. I even agree with you sometimes you feel like a nut other times you don't. But I'll tell you this, I never feel like whipping my wife like some kind of maniac to inflict pain and cause bodily harm to her. Yeah, wild I do that. But asphixiation, or tieing her up to the cieling fan, or putting electric shock on sensitive parts, or any other idiocy with the sole intent of causing pain to the exclusion or rather confusion with pleasure, sorry you've got the wrong maniac.
Sick, hurtful, and oh so very wrong.
One last thing.......a toolbox huh? One uses a screwdriver to screw things in or out, they don't use a hammer, or a saw, or a socket wrench.
If you do, it says a little something about your training and experience level doesn't it?
i have to say this in defense of BDSM - the "top" generally gets almost no pleasure from "inflicting pain" - the pleasure the top recieves (or at least should) is the pleasure derived vicereally(sp?) from the bottom's enjoyment.
and there have always been masochists in the world, who ENJOY pain.
"Really, I know better and so do you." Actually, I do know better. And while you may not want to admit it, that IS an element of BDSM, it just isn't a very extreme element. So is hair pulling, calling your partner names such as bitch or even asking "who's your daddy?" etc. All of these constitute as BDSM, though in mild form. The lower intensity of a person's play doesn't make it invalid.
Yes I do use the word usually. I admit that in every group or situation there are those who are the exception. For the great majority of BDSM culture, you don't do anything that your partner hasn't already stated that they want to do. In fact "scenes" are carefully negotiated so that participants get what they want out of them and noone is damaged. If you don't like pain, which you seem to be focusing on and involves sadism and masochism most specifically, then you don't get pain. If you do then you do. Pain is NOT the only aspect of BDSM... There are even precautions put into place to make sure that things don't go too far such as safe words (which means an immediate end or reevalutaion of the scene) and dungeon monitors who are kinda like scene bouncers. Whay exactly was YOUR point again Preatorian?
By the way, just for everyone's information, electricity doesn't cause pain. If it does, you've got it turned up too high. It's actually a lot of fun.
What’s wrong with agreeable pleasure? Are there any pleasures that should not be tasted?
I used to think there’s nothing wrong with pleasure experimentation – sex & drugs especially (and certainly all forms of rock ‘n roll!) I didn’t try heroin or LSD, but thought I might, and thought I might like it. Also have enjoyed fantasies of some Bondage & Discipline; and Sado-masochism.
But now I don’t think it’s good to experiment so much; and therefore not so good to think about. And therefore I’m not happy with such fantasies, even my own.
Perhaps you’ve seen this quote, Wolves in the Heart: A First Nations grandfather was talking to his grandson about how he felt. He said, “I feel as if I have two wolves fighting in my heart. One wolf is the vengeful, angry, violent one. The other wolf is the loving, compassionate one.” The grandson asked him in a worried way, “Which wolf will win the fight in your heart?” The grandfather answered, “The one I feed.” http://nonprofits.accesscomm.ca/wpuc/trumpeter/2002_jan_supp.html
It’s apropos to any conflict of tensions: a “restless, unsatisfied, hungry for new experience” wolf; and a “reasonably fed, satisfied, settled” wolf.
We are the wolves we choose to feed. I don’t think feeding the BDSM wolf is a good idea.
I've been staying out of most of this, especially as it has so little bearing on my life personally, but I thought I'd throw some support behind that last post.
There are very few actions I believe are inherently evil. I don't condemn people who make different lifestyle choices, because some of the choices I make, even the traditionally 'right' ones could be condemned with equal validity.
And while I've enjoyed watching Tigger's discussions, there have been few posts I felt I could really agree with.
Just thought I'd throw my support behind this last one. And the wolf analogy, though it seems a bit preachy, is really quite a good one.
Yes, it's make-believe, consentual, etc. And as long as nobody involved has any problems with it, you won't find me stopping you. However, I have a hard time believing indulging those actions . . . even in a controlled fantasy with consenting individuals . . . doesn't encourage such actions elsewhere.
<irony>Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go finish my game of Grand Theft Auto.</irony>
(Actually, that's doubly ironic. An employee of the State Police playing GTA3. okay, so call me a hypocrite.)
Well, GAT3 looks great (from PC Games). But I don't even have enough time to play Titan (ACTS on-line), or chess, or Age of Empires...
Too much talk/ notes. Also I thank Praetorian for support:"I agree totally, and have somehow been unable to say the same thing without controversy." ... but I wouldn't exactly say my comments here have been without controversy.
Of course, I expected it-- and wrote more because of it. Mostly for myself, to see what I think I think and decide if I really do. And I do.
Den, I agree with a post of yours a while ago (on another, similar thread) about rape being a crime of violence. And power.
BUT, the sympathy for the milder rapists comes from the pornographic fantasy of many men that they can force a woman to have sex, and force her to like it -- and if she does like it then it was OK, not really rape. I think you said it well: "the pleasure the top recieves ... is the pleasure derived vicereally(sp?) from the bottom's enjoyment". I guess I add to this the pleasure in "making" the bottom (woman) enjoy it; the good feeling of having the power to give pleasure.
I think rape is a terrible crime, and certainly after 3, maybe 2, maybe the first conviction (with agravating circumstances), there is a case for physical castration or other "more than prison" punishment. [But "date rape", which surely exists and is far too common, is also subject to the occassional false accusation.] Yet there is continuum of the total rape through date rape, through ignoring the "Don't do that", "Stop it"; "Don't", "Stop" >>> "Don't stop...". This last has already moved into the successful seduction realm, since the message has changed from no, to yes.
I guess that in writing a reply about this question you have asked, I've shown my own bias in this subject. I'm revolted by what you have identified as extreme BDSM, and yet not by mild forms of BDSM. I venture that this is probably not uncommon. For instance I like to drink. But I abhor alcoholics who cannot control their urges.
My point is this. I was trying to answer your question as to where the line was drawn. And to keep things simple instead of running off on a rant like I usually do I think the line is drawn when the intent is to harm yourself or someone else.
You can claim that both parties are in consent. I would say that it would be extremely difficult to prove that. Yeah sure, the watch words and moderators and what have you are in place in some cases, but are they always. Is it always a safe environment?
Is anything always safe? No.
Hence my point that the line is crossed from recreation (whatever you define as such) to harmful when you cannot determine if something is safe or without intent to hurt or damage a person's self-esteem. My own personal abhorence to the subject notwithstanding.
So where did you lose the point? Was it because I went so far as to clearly identify what I was talking about that caused you to not even look at what I was saying and interject your own thoughts about what I was saying?
Q: What do you think about other forms of sexual deviancy?
A: Answer a) I personally think anything that has the SOLE intent of causing harm wether is wrong b)I would never deny you the right to destroy yourself however you want. Just so that you don't bring me and mine into it.
And as to your last statement I think you missed the point. No one goes into a relationship intending to hurt themselves or someone else.
And yet, this is part of the point for a BDSM fan. What are you missin?
Sex - Homosexuality - Aids - Danger Alcohol - Drunk driving - Danger
I may have started this, but none here have attempted to claim that drunk drivers are safe or should not be punished. Even though most drunk drivers, most of the time, hurt nobody.
When I was young in the 60s, there was a drunk driving culture that fairly accepted drinking and driving, unless there was an accident. As "too many" accidents occurred -- too many others got hurt -- laws against drunk driving got stiffer and more enforced.
In fact, you could say that drinking and driving has become a socially & legally "unacceptable" form of deviant behavior.
[This message has been edited by Tigger (edited October 06, 2002).]
Apologies accepted, I've done the same myslef from time to time.
But eddie, it is intrinsic to the definition of BDSM to cause harm. When is pain not harmful? When it is used as a warning to not do something because it causes harm to the body.
And as I've argued before, the minor or light forms of BDSM I don't really consider to be a part of BDSM. I know this isn't a popular belief and will probably be viewed with derision by some of you. I think of BDSM in the connotative sense, ie electric shock, dungeon role playing, whipping, asphyxiation, etc. Getting a little wild in the sack is one thing. But this intent to hurt the other person can't but be hurtful.
I've made the argument before and I'll say it again. Just because pain is as intense as pleasure, this does not mean they are the same thing.
Tigger - while your point is taken - unlike rape NO ONE ever has to enter a BDSM scene. like ANY activity where you give others power over you (working, driving, getting food at a resteraunt, having sex, getting married) yes there is an element of risk - but i hazard my belief that a controled BDSM scene is actually safer than alot of normal sex - because EVERYTHING is discussed all the time.
and i would like to make this statement - NOT ALL OF BDSM IS ABOUT PAIN. bondage isn't, and alot of the S&M really isn't. alot of it is about the RISK of pain, and alot of it is just kinda nice feeling (i light people on fire. alot of them - INCLUDING MYSLEF - get pain relief/relaxation/go to sleep)
but i do understand some of the fears that have been mentioned, having sorta lived it. i had this boyfriend who was a masochist - i knew it, but didn't think that it applied to me. so one day he hands be a knife and asked me to cut him. i kicked him out of my house, out of my life. but i was freaked. thats why a couple years later i looked at the BDSM scene - so i could try to understand what happened. it helped, and i have come to somewhat understand. S&M isn't really about pain, its about sensation, about sex, and about release. our society doesn't give many releases from everyday life (unless you count "Friends", which is just sugar-coated life)
"And yet, this is part of the point for a BDSM fan. What are you missin?" So you're saying that you disapprove of harming others as in injuring them in some way or causing them pain? You do know that there is more or less to BDSM than just giving or receiving pain, right? Bondage & Discipline, Domination & Submission, Sadism & Masochism... Not everyone does all of the above and even when they do its because the recipient has verbally asked them to do it. If everyone involved is cool with it, how can it be wrong? (I know this isn't really what I asked in the beginning, but I'm still confused. Forgive me.)FYI, BDSM doesn't have to include sex either.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
This is a strange idea. For some reason sex and BDSM seemed to go hand in hand, I wasn't aware that they were mutually exclusive....ie I thought that BDSM was one of the vehicles of sex.
This is in mind. Bondage. Tieing someone up presumably(?) to invoke some kind of sensation that the recipient enjoys. I'm seeing in my head how tieins someone up can go very wrong to say the least about it being harmful to themselves. Do I think this is wrong....yes I do. Do I care if you want to do it.....no, but that wasn't the original question, the original question was what do I feel about it.
Discipline. A word that implies a need for correction from an outside person. Implying that the person to whom it is being administered to does not/or is not capable of helping themselves. It's a word that is supposed to have 'positive' effects because it is inherently a word that describes a person who is looking out for your best interest and wants to help you change your life/attitude/whatever. Do I think this is wrong....yes if the intent is to get some kind of pleasure from it(I didn't say sex did I?) Again....no I do not deny you the right to do this to yourself, but that wasn't the question.
Sadomasochism. This word is defined as-from websters-the derivation of pleasure from the infliction of physical or mental pain on either oneself or others. Doesn't get any clearer than that. You get pleasure from pain. Full stop. Explain to me how this is inherently good. Do I think this is right.....no I do not. It is a neurosis in my mind. Do I deny you the right to this....the cynical part of me says go right ahead, kill yourself if you wish. The compassionate part says that I think people who do this should get help. Pain is a warning signal sent by your brain to get you to stop doing something harmful to you body. It shouldn't be confused with pleasure of any kind.
Every time your defense is some mild form as an example and trying to pass it off as harmless.
So you've been with some freaky girls. Fine. I'm no puritan, and I'm not even trying to be high and mighty moral with you guys, but I'm not talking about these minor things. I'm talking about the extreme cases I hear about. When you start talking about moderators-come on(!) someone watching you to make sure everyone plays by the rules, if that isn't the most bizarre thing I've ever heard, I don't want an audience- and dungeons and role playing, and electric shock, you're way past the realm of wild.
It's like I said. I like beer, but it doesn't make me an alcoholic.
And yet, when your focus switches from being a little 'rough' to intentionally forcing your will by either mental or physical abuse then you've crossed a line from benign to worrisome....and yes even inherently wrong.
And I don't care if you put yourself in this position of your own free will. That's the part that bothers me the most. They need help.
Praetorian, Dungeons, and whips, and black leather and all of that are really, really exciting to some people. Being dominated and hurt by someone else is really, really exciting to some people. Really, it's between consenting adults. Lots of those consenting adults are holding down full time jobs and functioning as productive members of society. Who are you to judge? You said "This is in mind. Bondage. Tieing someone up presumably(?) to invoke some kind of sensation that the recipient enjoys. I'm seeing in my head how tieins someone up can go very wrong to say the least about it being harmful to themselves. Do I think this is wrong....yes I do." Why do you think that it's wrong? So this person likes being tied up, and they get someone to tie them up. What's the problem? You seem to be saying that it's bad because it's dangerous, but you can't really think that's going to hold up, can you?
--Added in Edit-- I just re-read the thread and realized that I'm arguing against a position that you didn't really take, and beating a dead horse to boot. Sorry. Here's what I should have said. I think everyone here would agree with this statement: "And yet, when your focus switches from being a little 'rough' to intentionally forcing your will by either mental or physical abuse then you've crossed a line from benign to worrisome....and yes even inherently wrong." But I think that it's possible to be _really_ rough without crossing that line. It's the forcing your will part that's the kicker. People on both ends BSDM encounters genuinely enjoy them. Really.
[This message has been edited by GaryKraut (edited October 07, 2002).]
i think that there is something missing that maybe wasn't brought up.
in a BDSM scene, the one is charge is the BOTTOM. the BOTTOM sets all the rules (unless the bottom will go farther than the top) and the BOTTOM can stop it whenevers/he wants. the top just does the work. the only pleasure the top gets is doing his/her job right. to use a bad analogy - you don't smoke the pot, but you sit in the room and get a buzz (i don't - i throw up. but you know what i mean.)
tying up - i like being tied up when i am being selfish - i get all the pleasure and none of the work <EG>
as for the pain pleasure difference... the best definition i have ever read for pleasure is "Release from pain". so either there is pain and then it feels GREAT that it is gone, or the pain kicks over into pleasure.
In all fairness, speaking as someone who's been involved in BDSM myself -- and who knows several people still in the "scene" -- Denelian's depiction is as idealized as Praetorian's is demonized. The reality falls somewhere in the middle, as it does with most things. Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |