BDSM Gone Wrong....Way Wrong

[Joe Schmoe]

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.

Fact and fiction are two different worlds.

 

[bridgeburner]

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

To my way of thinking, yes. If there's no sex involved --- I don't mean penetration, I mean sexual arousal or mental fixation --- then it isn't BDSM.

What's bondage without sexual undertones? It's just tying someone up. Nobody goes through the elaborate rituals of shibari just to keep a body down.

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.

Except that it is implicitly understood. The only reason there IS an acronym is because people have made these things a part of their sexuality. Bondage refers to sexually charged restraint. It's not just tying up. Dominance/Discipline likewise. If this wasn't specifically about sex then there'd be no acronym at all.


-B

 

[bridgeburner]

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. ... 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. ... What did they want from this arrangement? Control. How did they get it? By force. Yep, seems like dominance and sadism to me.

Thanks, Quint, I think you've got the right of it. I didn't even stop to think about the fact that this initially jumped out at me because they abducted and enslaved this girl. The tools they used are incidental in the end regardless of whether or not they were using the cage in a more traditionally accepted BDSM manner.


-B

 

[babiesmiles]

I read all the thread with attention and must say some of the statements I read there made me rise an eyebrow in wonder ..

However is not in my style to polemize and even if I disagree I respect different opinions cause I always give them the benefit of good faith .

I can just express my personal opinion, debatable as you ( impersonal you ) want but still the fruit of some years of experience in legal matters.

From my point of view and from the few I could read on the linked article ( I didn't do a deeper search on the matter ) it was not at all any kind of BDSM

It was just and only a criminal act made of abuse , subjugation in slavery , exploitation of prostitution ( they sold her ) , torture , rape and solicitation at rape (they invited others to rape her ) with the application multiple aggravating circumstances judicially relevant e.g. criminal conspiracy ( they were more than a person, two in fact ) continuation ( legally it means the crime protracted during the time ) the association aimed to rape (the so called gang rapes) , besides the abduction of an unwilling underage girl. All circumstances which in the legal system I practice lead to a pretty high increase of punishment.

Not for sure a play gone bad I see .

In an ideal world they should put them in jail and throw away the key.
But I guess if they have a good legal defence they could have most of crimes and aggravating circumstances reduced the charge  … and that makes me happy I’m not a criminal lawyer



I am not the most skilled person to talk about BDSM theory in all its facets ( either good or bad ) but I will go further with a little consideration that I don't consider off topic.

In my opinion, even in a play scene among adult and consentient people (that was not the aforementioned case ) when the chain of consent ( which must be present from the very beginning to the complete end ) breaks off , e.g. after the call of a safeword , and the player in charge should willingly ignore it , not stop at once , keep the other player tied up ( abduction ) continue acting, for example just to say the first I recall, whipping , blood playing , waxing , using electrical devices et cetera ( torture and personal injuries ) or even have a sexual intercourse (rape ) there would sufficient grounds for an action and a criminal prosecution.

Sorry if I was not more accurate in naming English legal terms (Marquis forgive me the big amount of inaccuracies about English legal terminology ).
I don’t have my English Law dictionary close to me just now to check them out and I just tried to imagine how such a case would have be handled under the law here.

Just my personal analysis though b.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

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


False*

Originally Posted by Evil_Geoff
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.



False**

.....

* "Making love" implies bilateral affection, something rape usually lacks.

** Rape is sex. Not everyone who has sex is a rapist, but every rapist has sex.

So what you are saying here is that rape DOES equate with making love?

You mean to tell me that there is no difference between BDSM and abuse? That having sex and rape are the same thing? I don't think so.

Rape is NOT sex and it's not about sex. Rape is a sexual act of violence. Rape is not about someone getting their rocks off, it's about their overpowering and terrorizing the victim. For the rapist it is about wielding non-consentual power or vengence or some psychotic or sociopathic urge. And for the victim, while a sexual act may have been done to them, the rape was anything but about sex. It was about the non-consentual loss of control, their power being stripped from them. Rape may totally ruin the victim's ability to ever enjoy healthy, loving sex (or any other relationship) ever again.

To equate rape with sex is, to my way of thinking, unfathomable. Don't get me wrong, I have rape fantasies. And the turn on is NOT the sex, it's stripping away every bit of power and control the victim has and making them completely, utterly MINE. The sex is just a sideline to the real rape. The rape of the heart and soul and mind of the victim.

Having a soul and conscience of my own, that is why my _fantasies_ will always remain just that. Fantasies. Until I find a little fucktoy who wants me to do exactly that to her and agrees to play that way. In which case it's _not_ rape, but submission and surrender. Which is damn near as good. *grin*

 

[Xelebes]

Geoff:

What is your opinion on the idea of "bad BDSM" and "good BDSM", such that "bad BDSM" is differentiated from abuse? Is there only "good BDSM" and the rest is just abuse?

 

[Jay Davis]

From what I can tell, the crimes described in the article don't qualify as BDSM because there's no indication of BDSM intent on the part of the participants. Kidnapping isn't inherently BDSM, nor is forced prostitution, nor is involuntary confinement. There's no indication that the perpetrators were motivated by any sort of Dominant/submissive power exchange--they just kidnapped a minor, threatened her life and the lives of her family, and sold her body against her will to strangers. There's nothing in the story to suggest that they were motivated by the desire to "top" a submissive in anything like the sense that we mean it when we say it here.

If it WERE a BDSM scene turned bad, I'd have expected the story to include a lot of lurid details about BDSM paraphenalia, like floggers and nipple clamps and leather harnesses. The vanilla press loves that kind of thing, because it sells papers. If there's been a row of single-tails hanging on the wall in the room with the dog kennel, I promise you, the story would have mentioned it. Unless the police were holding back a LOT of information--and again, even the cops love to talk about busting up "S&M rings"--this looks like a pretty vanilla crime of abuse and coercion.

Just because a story includes some details that some of us might fetishize doesn't mean that the story is BDSM. After all, just because some people use a zucchini as a dildo doesn't make every salad bar an adult toy store.

Now, just because I don't think there was any BDSM intent on the part of the participants doesn't mean I don't realize that the scenario described is going to push the buttons of a lot of people who read these forums. Does that make them kidnappers-and-rapists in waiting? Of course not, because there's a million miles between fiction and news, between fantasy and reality.

Most of this argument is semantic, of course. We all pretty much agree that the actual acts perpetrated are very bad, and that some level of mutual consent is what separates OK from Not OK. The arguing isn't about what's right and what's not right, it's really more about our differing definitions of "BDSM." So here's mine:

Of course, as has been pointed out above, we all "know" what bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism mean. Bondage is restraint. Discipline is punishment, usually physical, sometimes mental or emotional. Sadism is getting a thrill out of inflicting pain, while masochism is getting a thrill from experiencing pain. These words, individually, have clear, distinct, and separate definitions. A cop handcuffing you while arresting you for shoplifting is bondage, but it's not BDSM. A parent spanking his child is discipline, but not BDSM. A serial killer peeling the skin off his living victim is sadism, but not BDSM. A woman repeatedly seeking out abusive partners who beat and belittle her is masochism, but it's not BDSM. Used seprately, bondage and discipline are nothing more than physical activities; sadism and masochism are either physical activities, or ultimately selfish and narcissistic states of mind.

When you put the letters together and capitalize them, however, they become special, and they become ours and ours alone. Abusers like the ones in the news story have no claim on them. What often gets overlooked when you say, "BDSM," is that it's not just bondage, displine, sadism, and masochism; the letters were arranged as they were to include a "D" and an "s" in order, too. Dominance and submission. These two words make all the difference.

Dominance AND submission, together, imply a willing exchange of power, a consensual relationship in which one person submits to another, in which one person takes responsibility for another. A sadist doesn't need a masochist as a victim--he can get his thrill from hurting an unwilling person; a masochist doesn't need a sadist as a tormentor--he can find a garden-variety abuser much more easily.

So, from my point of view, BDSM is an acronym which applies only to consensual interactions between willing Dominants and submissives. What happened to that girl in Phoenix was abuse. She was clearly held in bondage; no mention of physical discipline is made (the use of the word "torture" in the article is very vague, and could easily refer only to the mental trauma of the entire ordeal). Her captors may well have been sadists; it's remotely possible--though there is no hint of it this in the article--that the victim has masochistic tendencies. But there was no voluntary power exchange in this circumstance, no willing submission or responsible Dominance.

It is vitally important for our freedom from persecution and prosecution that we be VERY clear about the difference between bondage, discipline, sadism, and masochism, and BDSM. Used separately and in lower case, many or most of those words could apply to this crime; put together as our acronym, they have nothing to do with it at all.

 

[Quint]

I disagree with pretty much everything said there, and I think that most of what I disagree with has already been covered.

If it WERE a BDSM scene turned bad, I'd have expected the story to include a lot of lurid details about BDSM paraphenalia, like floggers and nipple clamps and leather harnesses. The vanilla press loves that kind of thing, because it sells papers. If there's been a row of single-tails hanging on the wall in the room with the dog kennel, I promise you, the story would have mentioned it. Unless the police were holding back a LOT of information--and again, even the cops love to talk about busting up "S&M rings"--this looks like a pretty vanilla crime of abuse and coercion.

We aren't our toys; we certainly don't include them in every scene, nor are they necessary. The lack thereof certainly does not disprove BDSM activity.

Just because a story includes some details that some of us might fetishize doesn't mean that the story is BDSM. After all, just because some people use a zucchini as a dildo doesn't make every salad bar an adult toy store.

So first we shouldn't take it to be BDSM because there aren't any toys, but now we shouldn't take it to be BDSM because there WAS some bondage gear? I'm not saying either way is convincing, just that you're arguing both sides.

A cop handcuffing you while arresting you for shoplifting is bondage, but it's not BDSM. A parent spanking his child is discipline, but not BDSM.

As bb put it, there's no sexualization of these activities. The intent is what changes the act, in my opinion.

A serial killer peeling the skin off his living victim is sadism, but not BDSM. A woman repeatedly seeking out abusive partners who beat and belittle her is masochism, but it's not BDSM.

Are you so sure? Why not? This goes to Marquis' excellent thread, and it's very thought-provoking. But I don't think it's so cut-and-dried as "these aren't BDSM, period."

Used seprately, bondage and discipline are nothing more than physical activities; sadism and masochism are either physical activities, or ultimately selfish and narcissistic states of mind.

When you put the letters together and capitalize them, however, they become special, and they become ours and ours alone. Abusers like the ones in the news story have no claim on them. What often gets overlooked when you say, "BDSM," is that it's not just bondage, displine, sadism, and masochism; the letters were arranged as they were to include a "D" and an "s" in order, too. Dominance and submission. These two words make all the difference.

Dominance AND submission, together, imply a willing exchange of power, a consensual relationship in which one person submits to another, in which one person takes responsibility for another. A sadist doesn't need a masochist as a victim--he can get his thrill from hurting an unwilling person; a masochist doesn't need a sadist as a tormentor--he can find a garden-variety abuser much more easily.

This is where I feel your argument truly falls apart. When a newbie comes to the forum and asks the age-old question, "What is BDSM? I don't like pain, do I have to get hurt if I just want to obey my master?" we always answer, "No. BDSM can come in any combination. Take D/s without SM. Take your pain without yielding to another. Take bondage without anything else." There IS no "one size fits all." The letters were thrown together because it's convenient. Why isn't F in there for fetish? Why isn't R for roleplay? These are also components that may be present in a kinked relationship--or may not. We have some labels, but it's not the alpha and omega of our sex life. It's just a catchphrase. So saying that there MUST be a combination of elements just doesn't seem accurate at all. I've submitted when nobody was dominating me. I've hurt when my partner wasn't enjoying it. Sure felt like BDSM to me.

So, from my point of view, BDSM is an acronym which applies only to consensual interactions between willing Dominants and submissives. What happened to that girl in Phoenix was abuse. She was clearly held in bondage; no mention of physical discipline is made (the use of the word "torture" in the article is very vague, and could easily refer only to the mental trauma of the entire ordeal). Her captors may well have been sadists; it's remotely possible--though there is no hint of it this in the article--that the victim has masochistic tendencies. But there was no voluntary power exchange in this circumstance, no willing submission or responsible Dominance.

That's your POV. I think we've already gone over "there's no C for consensual in BDSM," although of course we didn't come to a final answer.

It is vitally important for our freedom from persecution and prosecution that we be VERY clear about the difference between bondage, discipline, sadism, and masochism, and BDSM. Used separately and in lower case, many or most of those words could apply to this crime; put together as our acronym, they have nothing to do with it at all.

Bah. bb (again) said it best: responsible practitioners of BDSM abide by safety codes. That's the difference: who is and is not responsible. There's responsible handling of a gun; I'm not going to say they should all be banned because some parents aren't responsible and their kid ends up getting shot. Likewise, if some people are not responsible (easier to define than "fucked-up," "psychopathic," etc.) and kidnap a girl and sell her into prostitution, that should by no logical means reflect on the responsible torturing folks in the world.

 

[serijules]

From what I can tell, the crimes described in the article don't qualify as BDSM because there's no indication of BDSM intent on the part of the participants. Kidnapping isn't inherently BDSM, nor is forced prostitution, nor is involuntary confinement. There's no indication that the perpetrators were motivated by any sort of Dominant/submissive power exchange--they just kidnapped a minor, threatened her life and the lives of her family, and sold her body against her will to strangers. There's nothing in the story to suggest that they were motivated by the desire to "top" a submissive in anything like the sense that we mean it when we say it here.

<snip>

This post in its entirety is the only one in this whole thread that makes perfect sense to me. I agree 100%.

 

[Jay Davis]

Quint--

We don't disagree by nearly as much as you think we do. I'm going to quibble with a couple of your minor points first, but bear with me, because I'm going to end up by showing you how we agree on the big picture.

We aren't our toys; we certainly don't include them in every scene, nor are they necessary. The lack thereof certainly does not disprove BDSM activity.

No, the lack of toys doesn't incontrovertably disprove that this was a BDSM scene, but the only BDSM-ey elements I see in the story are the presence of a dog kennel--an item used occasionally for BDSM purposes, but much, much more commonly to kennel dogs--and the choice by the reporter to include the word "torture," a word we occasionally use ourselves, but which is used far more often by the general public to describe the deliberate infliction of abuse for the purpose of non-erotic coersion. Any BDSM content in this story is being inferred by the reader. I can't PROVE it wasn't a BDSM scene gone bad, but I see very little evidence in the article presented that it was anything other than a garden-variety crime of vanilla kidnapping and abuse.

So first we shouldn't take it to be BDSM because there aren't any toys, but now we shouldn't take it to be BDSM because there WAS some bondage gear? I'm not saying either way is convincing, just that you're arguing both sides.

I am not arguing both sides at all. I made two points, both of which support my thesis--this wasn't BDSM--and which in no way conflict with each other. Point one was that there ain't much BDSM paraphenalia in this report. Point two is, the one item that a few people use for BDSM is used thousands of times more often for a completely innocent, non-erotic purpose. The abductors were far more likely to have had a dog kennel to lock the girl up in because they breed pit bulls than because they are BDSM lifestylers. My argument is, there's only one BDSM-ey item in the story, and that one item possibly--even probably--has a non-erotic explanation for being in the house. If they'd locked her in a set of stocks, I'd say yeah, that's BDSM, because no one owns stocks these days but lifestylers. But a dog kennel? There are far more pet owners than Dominants buying and using dog kennels in this country.

Are you so sure? Why not? This goes to Marquis' excellent thread, and it's very thought-provoking. But I don't think it's so cut-and-dried as "these aren't BDSM, period."

Yes, Quint, I am absolutely sure. All but a couple of Marquis' "excellent" scenarios are clear-cut cases of abuse. Yes, many of us, perhaps most of us, are excited by at least some of Marqius' scenarios, but the fact that we fetishize abuse does NOT make that abuse BDSM. I am, quite frankly, disturbed by a number of posts in that thread, by the way. I think a lot of us are letting the fact that the fantasy of certain acts of sadomasochism excites us blur the clear distinction between right and wrong, responsible and irresponsible, narcissism vs. interdependence.

Hannibal Lecter is a top and a sadist, but he's not a BDSM Dominant. A BDSM Dominant accepts the gift of submission, given willingly, and treats that gift and its giver with respect and caring. That doesn't mean that the Dominant isn't calling the shots, or that He doesn't get to make the decisions or push the submissive to gradually higher and higher levels of submission. But it does mean that He acknowledges and accepts his responsibility for his submissive's welfare, at least for the duration of any given scene.

This is where I feel your argument truly falls apart. When a newbie comes to the forum and asks the age-old question, "What is BDSM? I don't like pain, do I have to get hurt if I just want to obey my master?" we always answer, "No. BDSM can come in any combination. Take D/s without SM. Take your pain without yielding to another. Take bondage without anything else." There IS no "one size fits all."

No, this isn't where my argument falls apart. It's precisely where you and I agree.

I never, never said BDSM necessarily required specific activities, costumes, or equipment. The only thing required to make a relationship or an interaction BDSM is a willing, consensual exchange of power between the participants. Maybe you're going to top me, and you know I can't stand polka music. We arrange a scene for Saturday night; I have no idea what you have in mind, but I trust you not to permanently injure me. So you plan to tie me down and blast polka music into my head for an hour with a pair of headphones. You enjoy watching me writhe and moan in anguish at the torturous accordian riffs, you cruel bastard, while I get my kicks by enduring the challenge or punishment you've set before me. You never touch me, I never touch you, no one cums. It's a wierd scene, but it's still BDSM, because I willingly gave myself to you to use for your entertainment, trusting you to make me squirm without doing me permanent injury.

As you say, there is no one size fits all. BDSM includes a host of activities, some of which will be essential to one person, but absolute dealbreakers another. For example, some people love roleplaying scenarios; they do nothing for me. Some people can't stand to be tied up; I can't hold still for intense pleasure without it. (I'm pretty steady under a flogger, but if you plan to bring me to orgasm, you better tie me down.) But the one thing that all BDSM scenes have in common is consent. Without consent, it ain't BDSM, it's just sadomasochism.

The letters were thrown together because it's convenient. Why isn't F in there for fetish? Why isn't R for roleplay? These are also components that may be present in a kinked relationship--or may not. We have some labels, but it's not the alpha and omega of our sex life. It's just a catchphrase. So saying that there MUST be a combination of elements just doesn't seem accurate at all.

Actually, you're wrong about this. The letters were not just thrown together for convenience. They were specifically and carefully chosen by the organized sadomasochistic lifestyle community about three decades ago--probably by the Janus Society in California, but I'd want to check a couple sources on my bookshelf before I swore to that. The label "BDSM" was deliberately taken by the early organized community as it expanded beyond the gay leather scene of the 50s and 60s to encompass the lifestyles and activities of willing participants, especially heterosexual ones. These pioneers arranged the B&D and S&M in the order they to deliberately include D/s in the acronym. They could have foregone the D/s initials and called it SMBD, but they didn't; that decision was both conscious and purposeful.

So BDSM is not "just a catchphrase." It's the name this community carefully chose for itself, to distinguish its activities and lifestyles from those of abusers and sociopaths, who may engage in superficially similar activities from time to time. If we ever hope to enjoy any measure of acceptance and tolerance for what we do and who we are in the broader, vanilla world, we absolutely must defend our good name jealously, and keep the distinction between ourselves and criminal rapists, kidnappers, molestors and murderers crystal clear.

The mainstream psychiatric community still calls us sadomasochists, and officially lumps us in with abusive husbands, pedophiles, serial killers, self-mutilators and habitual battered women. The ONLY thing we have separating us from those unhealthy and unfortunate psychological invalids is our self-chosen name, BDSM.

That's your POV. I think we've already gone over "there's no C for consensual in BDSM," although of course we didn't come to a final answer.

No, it's not my POV. It's the factual history of the early BDSM community. Several of the better books available on the lifestyle discuss this early, formative period; if I remember correctly, SM 101 covers the early days of the Janus Society in some detail. It's been long enough since I read this material that I can't readily point you to specific volumes and page numbers, but if you do a bit of reading on our history as well as our how-to, you'll learn a lot of very meaningful stuff.

There's no C in BDSM because it's implicit in the D/s. To include another letter would not only ruin the rhythm of the acronym when spoken, but would be redundant.

...responsible practitioners of BDSM abide by safety codes. That's the difference: who is and is not responsible. There's responsible handling of a gun; I'm not going to say they should all be banned because some parents aren't responsible and their kid ends up getting shot. Likewise, if some people are not responsible (easier to define than "fucked-up," "psychopathic," etc.) and kidnap a girl and sell her into prostitution, that should by no logical means reflect on the responsible torturing folks in the world.

I couldn't agree more. The irresponsible, sociopathic actions of these criminals certainly should not reflect on the responsible practice of BDSM. And one way we can help assure that those people and those actions never do reflect on us is to keep the distinction between us and them clear, by jealously guarding our name for ourselves. There are lots of words for what they did--imprisonment, coersion, rape, abuse, possibly even sadism--but our word for ourselves does not apply to them. We should never allow anyone outside our community apply our name to these sick bastards, and we should sure as shit should never do so ourselves.

Going back to the original question of this thread:

Was there bondage in this news story? Clearly.

Was there discipline in this news story? Possibly, though it isn't mentioned explicitly in the article.

Was there sadism in this news story? Probably; the behavior of the perpetrators was either sadistic or sociopathic, and probably both.

Was there masochism in this story? Remotely possible, but absolutely nothing is said in the article about the frame of mind or original intent of the victim, so to infer masochistic tendencies in her strikes me as projection of our own fetishes on a rape victim, which I find particularly troubling.

Was there BDSM in this story? Not a bit. BDSM refers specifically to our community and our lifestyle, and by its original definition, it requires willingness and consent. Consent is absent from this story (and most of Marquis' scenarios in that other thread, for that matter), and therefore there is nothing like BDSM in this story.

An event may well involve bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism, but without consent, it's just bondage, discipline, and sadomasochism. It isn't BDSM.