BDSM Gone Wrong....Way Wrong

[RJMasters]

I was posting and then saw BB and Sin's posts....

So I will just add this statement in here.

I disagree respectfully with both of your positions that BDSM is smiply the act with or with out consent in the practice of the below.

Bondage, Discipline, Dominance, Submission, Sadism, and Masochism.

For me it is "the state of mind" when any of the above are practiced. For me BDSM is more of a concept or philosphy; a state of mind.

Basically BDSM for me is not BDSM unless intent is involved.

Giving my kid a few wacks with the belt for punishment to remind them there are consequences in life for fucking up, is not BDSM. To tell me because leather was used, this might be construed as a BDSM act, I am sorry not buying it.

For me acts must have motive and intent to give them meaning. I am pretty sure that "motive" is pretty critical when prosecuting a crime.

I can understand the idea you put forth, but I'm gonna respectfully disagree, or at least say that's not how I see it.

 

[bridgeburner]

Sinn,

... not the strongest example in making your point. BDSM is still BDSM even without the act of fucking.

Yes, I realized after I wrote it that it would have been more accurate to have said "unless they're doing it for a sexual charge". Handcuffing someone to prevent a crime is not the same as handcuffing someone to make your blood rush to the sweaty parts.

Your comment brings up an interesting question for me. Do people subscribe to an idea of BDSM that has nothing to do with sex? I mean, if someone is a butler and he takes great pride and satisfaction in his service but not sexual satisfaction, that isn't BDSM to my mind. Without sex it's just pride in a job well done and comfort with one's position in life. A really good and satisfied butler might be a top in the bedroom and his service oriented vocation has nothing to do with his libido.


-B

 

[bridgeburner]

Basically BDSM for me is not BDSM unless intent is involved.

Giving my kid a few wacks with the belt for punishment to remind them there are consequences in life for fucking up, is not BDSM. To tell me because leather was used, this might be construed as a BDSM act, I am sorry not buying it.

For me acts must have motive and intent to give them meaning. I am pretty sure that "motive" is pretty critical when prosecuting a crime.

Spanking your kids doesn't give you a chubby.

That's where motive and intent come in. Spanking your kids is not about sex or sexual roles, it's about parental discipline and guidance.

It's the sexual intent that makes a spanking BDSM as opposed to something else.


-B

 

[La Kajira]

Equating what that couple did to that girl with BDSM is like equating rape with making love.

*loud raucous buzzer noise AAAAAAACK!* Wrong answer.

I'm sorry, but there IS a line in the sand between BDSM and abuse, just as there is a line in the sand between having sex and rape. Just as there is a difference between murder and self-defense. That couple crossed that line. Way, way, WAY over the line. There are things that are right, and things that are wrong and if that couple did what they are accused of, they are absolutely, clearly, and utterly wrong.

Is that judgemental? Probably. But I'll stand by it. What is done with consent, within the context of an _adult_ relationship is one thing. Doing those same things to a _child_, who cannot give consent, is something else entirely.

You took the words right out of my mouth, EG... and much more eloquently also.

 

[serijules]

"It isn't BDSM when the cops handcuff you --- unless they're also planning to fuck you, but it's certainly BDSM when your lover plays Highway Patrol Officer and subjects you to a strip search."

Really? Sounds like a really boring vanilla roleplay to me *shrugs* I wouldn't consider that BDSM any more than I consider this original situation BDSM.

What about the original situation was BDSM? The cage? The thrill they likely got from selling her for sex?

Most kidnappers restrain their victims in some form. A cage seems rather logical to me.

The sexual solitation issue sounded more like "we can make a lot of money off this chick" than anything.

I just don't think BDSM is that simplistic. But that's just my opinion, and when it comes down to it, BDSM is basically defined by "to each their own".

 

[h_i_s]

Sinn,




Yes, I realized after I wrote it that it would have been more accurate to have said "unless they're doing it for a sexual charge". Handcuffing someone to prevent a crime is not the same as handcuffing someone to make your blood rush to the sweaty parts.

Your comment brings up an interesting question for me. Do people subscribe to an idea of BDSM that has nothing to do with sex? I mean, if someone is a butler and he takes great pride and satisfaction in his service but not sexual satisfaction, that isn't BDSM to my mind. Without sex it's just pride in a job well done and comfort with one's position in life. A really good and satisfied butler might be a top in the bedroom and his service oriented vocation has nothing to do with his libido.


-B

Yes, there are some who subscribe to the idea that *their* BDSM does not include sex, & those who get their pleasure from the 'service' portion of the BDSM pie and leave the 'fuck' portion alone, and/or the 'masochism' portion alone.
It wouldn't describe me though, so i wouldn't be the best at explaining much more than that ... about that.
i can understand it though. There are many ways in which i serve my Master and receive much pleasure in doing so ... many of those ways are non-sexual.

 

[bridgeburner]

Serijules,

"It isn't BDSM when the cops handcuff you --- unless they're also planning to fuck you, but it's certainly BDSM when your lover plays Highway Patrol Officer and subjects you to a strip search."

Really? Sounds like a really boring vanilla roleplay to me *shrugs* I wouldn't consider that BDSM any more than I consider this original situation BDSM.

Certainly that's not nearly hard-core enough for a really seriously real BDSMer like yourself, but surely you agree that there's a spectrum of BDSM practice.

What about the original situation was BDSM? The cage? The thrill they likely got from selling her for sex?

Most kidnappers restrain their victims in some form. A cage seems rather logical to me.

A closet seems pretty logical to me. Unless you just happen to have an empty dog kennel laying around large enough to put a 15 yo in. Maybe they didn't have a suitable closet.

The sexual solitation issue sounded more like "we can make a lot of money off this chick" than anything.

Maybe it was, but maybe it wasn't. You can't tell from reading the article.

I just don't think BDSM is that simplistic. But that's just my opinion, and when it comes down to it, BDSM is basically defined by "to each their own".

Except that you're arguing that it's much narrower than I've been arguing and then you turn around and say that each person defines it as they wish. That's completely contradictory not to mention inaccurate.

BDSM isn't just anything you want it to be. There are real definitions. There's amazing variety available within those definitions but it's not a free for all. What keeps getting brought up is that it isn't "real" BDSM if mainstream BDSMers don't approve of it. That's not unlike hearing wacko Xtians saying it's not really love or really a family unless it falls within their definitions of love and family. I know it's tough, but that's just not how it works. For folks who like to play with the dark side of sexuality there's an awful lot of tut-tutting and rigidity about what kind of ideas can be entertained.

-B

 

[bridgeburner]

Yes, there are some who subscribe to the idea that *their* BDSM does not include sex, & those who get their pleasure from the 'service' portion of the BDSM pie and leave the 'fuck' portion alone, and/or the 'masochism' portion alone.
It wouldn't describe me though, so i wouldn't be the best at explaining much more than that ... about that.
i can understand it though. There are many ways in which i serve my Master and receive much pleasure in doing so ... many of those ways are non-sexual.

I can fully see the BDSM potential in non-sexual service, but is there no difference between such and the really devoted butler? Why isn't Jeeves part of the BDSM community? Does he serve? Yes. Is he committed to it body and soul? Yes. Does it fullfill him? Yes. Would he be lost without this identity? Yes. Is there some master/employer who relies upon his service? Yes.

but Jeeves and Lord Mucketymuck would likely be highly offended were it suggested that they have a BDSM relationship. Why isn't it one?


-B

 

[serijules]

Certainly that's not nearly hard-core enough for a really seriously real BDSMer like yourself, but surely you agree that there's a spectrum of BDSM practice.

Actually no, not really. What's BDSM about it? Vanilla's are capable of having roleplay fantasies too, it isn't BDSM in my book. It's roleplay. I know many vanilla's that roleplay at Master/slave and have zero interest in BDSM and probably don't even know what it IS, it's just a fairly mainstream sexual fantasy. It's an entertaining way to spice up their sex. I relate as a slave, live a BDSM lifestyle, and it's certainly not a roleplay game for me.

I guess it depends on the people involved and their intent, to me.

A closet seems pretty logical to me. Unless you just happen to have an empty dog kennel laying around large enough to put a 15 yo in. Maybe they didn't have a suitable closet.

That's just it, being we know nothing about their intent or why they did it, why assume it has anything to do with BDSM rather than everything to do with convienience? I have NO closets that lock (or have any ROOM in them, packrat that I am). I have about 25 dog kennels that do. Never mind the fact that I own a boarding facility LOL. But my point is, a cage seems a hell of a lot more logical of a place to keep someone you don't want to escape than a closet does, and is very simple to explain away if need be. Closets have walls you can bang on and make a hella lot of noise, especially in apartments and condos, and most closets I see don't lock. So when I read something like that, mention of a cage doesn't make me think twice.

Maybe it was, but maybe it wasn't. You can't tell from reading the article.

Exactly, which is why I'm just curious what about the article screamed BDSM. I didn't see it. It has nothing to do with being unwilling to see BDSM put in a bad light, I just didn't see any BDSM at all....simple as that. If the article had been about someone that had a fully equipped dungeon in their basement and was kidnapping girls off the internet and keeping them in cages, selling them for sex and whipping them to keep them behaving, hell yes I would be outraged at such a disgusting display of BDSM. I think most of us would be. This case is just not detailed enough to justify that kind of reaction in my not so humble opinion.

Except that you're arguing that it's much narrower than I've been arguing and then you turn around and say that each person defines it as they wish. That's completely contradictory not to mention inaccurate.

Not really...a cage being related to BDSM is overly simplistic to me. In order for it to be BDSM, I need a much more detailed scenario than that, which is what I was trying to say, sorry if it didn't come across that well.

BDSM isn't just anything you want it to be. There are real definitions. There's amazing variety available within those definitions but it's not a free for all.

You are right, it is not anything I want it to be, but your opinion on this situation is no more valid in defining what is and what is not BDSM than mine is or anyone else's. They are all simply opinions. So these kind of arguments do little to actually define anything and I usually find them interesting to read, but pointless as far as actually getting anywhere. My "real definition" of BDSM doesn't include putting 15 year olds in cages and selling them for sex. There may BE BDSM in that situation, but with the details we have, it doesn't fall withen my definition. For me, that falls under the category of criminal first and foremost. If there was any BDSM involved, I'd need to see a lot more instance of it than anything said in that article.

 

[h_i_s]

I can fully see the BDSM potential in non-sexual service, but is there no difference between such and the really devoted butler? Why isn't Jeeves part of the BDSM community? Does he serve? Yes. Is he committed to it body and soul? Yes. Does it fullfill him? Yes. Would he be lost without this identity? Yes. Is there some master/employer who relies upon his service? Yes.

but Jeeves and Lord Mucketymuck would likely be highly offended were it suggested that they have a BDSM relationship. Why isn't it one?


-B

i won't try to answer any of those questions. i don't know how any butler feels, how dedicated or fullfilled they may be, or how they identify in serving. i'm not nor have i ever been a butler. If there is a butler present perhaps they can answer, although they can't answer for all butlers.

i don't know what Jeeves or Lord Mucketymuck do and/or do not do in *their PYL-relationship* & i'm certain there are many who would find themselves offended with being told their relationship is anything other than what it is.

There has been at least one person pass through this forum (not able to remember his ID at the moment) who would be better suited to answer your questions.

P.S. edited to add: timberwolf was the person i was thinking of ... he explains on one thread that he is celebate and enjoys 'service' only type submission. He may be able to answer your questions, bridgeburner. i don't know that he is a butler, though.

 

[Marquis]

I know many vanilla's that roleplay at Master/slave and have zero interest in BDSM

Are they being paid or something?

 

[graceanne]

I can fully see the BDSM potential in non-sexual service, but is there no difference between such and the really devoted butler? Why isn't Jeeves part of the BDSM community? Does he serve? Yes. Is he committed to it body and soul? Yes. Does it fullfill him? Yes. Would he be lost without this identity? Yes. Is there some master/employer who relies upon his service? Yes.

but Jeeves and Lord Mucketymuck would likely be highly offended were it suggested that they have a BDSM relationship. Why isn't it one?


-B

Ok, before I answer this, I wanna say i agree with everyone about this. I can see the bdsm, and I know that it's not how it should be, but nonetheless their are bdsm aspects in what he did.

In answer to your question - money. If lord mucketymuck wasn't paying jeeves, jeeves woudl quit and find someone else to work for. I'm not getting paid to sub for K. I do it cause I like to, and I want to.

 

[Marquis]

but Jeeves and Lord Mucketymuck would likely be highly offended were it suggested that they have a BDSM relationship. Why isn't it one?

Excellent question, and this brings up a fundamental conundrum to the entire argument. I'm not likely to call that sort of relationship BDSM any more than I would the strict teacher and the teacher's pet. But I have to admit that I think our side loses some ground here.

Must the circumstances be sexual or romantic in nature for them to be considered BDSM?

This is not expressly included in the acronym, so I suppose it opens up the floor for arguments that SSC or some other similar standard is an implied condition as well.

I'm not sure what to make of this, but it has inspired me for a great idea for a thread.

 

[serijules]

Are they being paid or something?

Master and slave is an extremely common sexual fantasy, you don't have to look very far or very hard to find people that are playing at some form of this that have no understanding of BDSM. Heck, my mother dressed up as a Domme for halloween last year, and I KNOW she isn't relating to it the same way we would here, nor did most people that she works with.

Cripes guys, do you think vanilla's are really that boring and unimaginative? lol

 

[Quint]

I think the element of control in the case bb linked to has the most potential to be read as BDSM out of all of that. We aren't our toyboxes, we're our minds and our desires. The desire for control--losing or, in this case, taking--is what ultimately makes me think powerplay. (See? I said "powerplay." Not nearly as inflammatory as BDSM, but in my mind it comes down to the same thing: lust for control.) The cage doesn't mean so much to me...even the forced gangrape(s?) doesn't scream BDSM. Not as much as the simple fact of abduction and restraint against the victim's will. That's what makes me think they were getting off on it, and I DO agree with you on the definition of BDSM, bb. I've tried to say it innumerable times in different threads, and I think you put it far more beautifully than I've managed. But really, let's back off of the props and look at the minds involved. What did they want from this arrangement? Control. How did they get it? By force. Yep, seems like dominance and sadism to me.

Doesn't make me feel any more estranged from the "community" because of a few bad eggs. I don't like a lot of women but I still feel affection for the general species (sic) because of the ones I DO have a strong connection with. Don't cut off your nose, blah blah, etc.

 

[Marquis]

Cripes guys, do you think vanilla's are really that boring and unimaginative? lol

No I just think BDSM encompasses a wider group of people than those who consider it a lifestyle.

 

[Xelebes]

Maybe that's true, but we're still allowed to be offended at automatically being steriotyped with all aspects of BDSM, including the illegal side.

Correct because we are of a small subset which follow the rules of SSC or RACK. Like nations of a species.

 

[Xelebes]

beep beep boop

 

[LadyAria]

No I just think BDSM encompasses a wider group of people than those who consider it a lifestyle.

Bingo...

Just because one doesn't approve doesn't mean it isn't related.

 

[RJMasters]

Bingo...

Just because one doesn't approve doesn't mean it isn't related.

Just because one does doesn't mean it is either

 

[LadyAria]

Just because one does doesn't mean it is either

I don't agree with they did. See original post. I said it was WRONG. The idea of hurting a child is horrific to me!

But, still doesn't mean it isn't BDSM.

I understand what most of the lifestylers are saying on here. No, this isn't what people who practice want to be tied to in the media. No, every couple who practices isn't a threat to the neighborhood children. Yes, most BDSM relationships are based on truth and consent.

However, their fetishes are the same.

Different type of bird as one person said, but still a bird.

 

[Netzach]

Okay, what they did to that little girl is WRONG!

However, everyone saying it has to be consensual to be BDSM is wrong too. I don't like or approve of the sexual sadist predators, but they do subscribe to some of the same fetishes. They just take it to a whole different level, then most practioners.

Marquis de Sade was not consensual or safe and he is definitely the father of sadism.

I do believe in SCC. It is a part of the general western lifestyle. However, some of the BDSM in the world is not SCC and it is still BDSM.

It's debatable whether M DeSade did 1/10th of what he THOUGHT about doing or WROTE about doing. He's more the godfather of recorded sadosexual thought, in my mind, than he is the originator of organized sadomasochism.

 

[Netzach]

When I think of BDSM and I've said it before and I'll say it again, I do think of the organized, community, general approach that hinges on consent, the stuff I do.

When I think of clinical sadomasochism, sadomasochism that does not hinge on consent, I think of this kinda stuff. It doesn't normally get me off, it is not the stuff of my usual fantasy life, personally. That's just my wiring. Rarely, once in an eon I might find something erotic that's way outside the scope of human rights sanity or justice, and I file it comfortably into the "fantasy" box and move on.

On a superficial level, yes, the red circle that represents what I do and the yellow circle that represents what they do has a little teeny cage shaped overlapping orange area. I would not say "it's BDSM" though as a descriptor. When I hear "BDSM" I have a very specific subcultural idea about what that is. When I hear "clinically defined sadism" I don't necessarily see that fitting in.

 

[graceanne]

Question: If you found a story about a person who kindapped a girl, kept her in a cage, and forced her into prostitution in the bdsm section of lit, would you still be having this fuss? No, you wouldn't. No one would be surprised - they might not like the story, but their wouldn't be a two page discussion on whether it's bdsm or not.

 

[Netzach]

Question: If you found a story about a person who kindapped a girl, kept her in a cage, and forced her into prostitution in the bdsm section of lit, would you still be having this fuss? No, you wouldn't. No one would be surprised - they might not like the story, but their wouldn't be a two page discussion on whether it's bdsm or not.

I'd stick it in the non-con section, personally. But you're right, it would not freak me out. However, a story about blackmail would produce the same reaction, whereas actually blackmailing someone, is that BDSM?