BDSM, Hunting, and Societal Perspectives

[lark sparrow]

Here's my last point guys... we do or do not do things because we want or need to.... I'm just not believing that you go out and shoot animals because you are personally starving or simply because of the greater ecological need or because you feel it's a benefit to the BDSM community lol.

If you don't want growth hormones to the extreme that you need venison, okay... if you need to play indian for a day, okay... but although the other stuff factors into the greater purpose, at the end of the day if you're hunting and you're not broke, it's because you enjoy it... and similarly, if you're not hunting but driving to the safeway for some dead domestic cow, same deal.

 

[catalina_francisco]

So again, you are basing your opinions on a narrow slice of what you KNOW

TN and I offer another perspective, and you choose to disregard what we say and hold on to your culturally biased view
Now do you see why it can be so hard to talk rationally to people who condemn BDSM?
An open mind can be tough to find

I hope nobody minds me joining the discussion, James that is a very smart way of changing words (and I mean that in the nicest possible way) you have just used. Let me translate your quote as I read it.

Since you are not agreeing with what I am saying, you have a closed mind, since you decide that my arguments are not strong enough, you have a closed mind.

That ends my smart arse portion.

About hunting, I am against hunting, but not against hunting for a need but against hunting for pleasure and sport. You are in fact defending that which in my opinion does not need to be defended, we are omnivores and we eat meat, that is human nature, we kill other animals to eat them so we can survived. That is basic human nature and I can not see anything wrong with a person who has a need fulfilling their needs in this way. The problem with hunting is not the hunt for food or meat by a farmer or Rural America.

The problem is simple the imbeciles who hunt down a fox on horse with dogs, the imbeciles who buy the biggest gun they can find and start shooting anything that moves. What I find repelling is the bloodsports. And yes I have a very limited view on it, but I just can not find any reason to shoot a helpless animal just for fun. Killing, the taking of a life, human or animal, can not be justified with just for fun. We are not talking here about a hunter who is hired by government to keep population to acceptable levels, although there are other ways which are more cost-effective and easier I can still understand why that happens, we are not talking here about the minimum income family who needs the meat as a supplement.

What we are talking here about is pure and simple murder for fun. It is unnatural, predators kill to eat and not to have fun. I am not calling for a ban on hunting just a ban on bloodsports. A serious hunter who uses hunting to supplement his food supply should actually be in favour of a bloodsports banning, it would make his hunting a lot safer and it would help in getting rid of the bad publicity hunting is having.

Francisco.

 

[James G 5]

Here's my last point guys... we do or do not do things because we want or need to.... I'm just not believing that you go out and shoot animals because you are personally starving or simply because of the greater ecological need or because you feel it's a benefit to the BDSM community lol.

If you don't want growth hormones to the extreme that you need venison, okay... if you need to play indian for a day, okay... but although the other stuff factors into the greater purpose, at the end of the day if you're hunting and you're not broke, it's because you enjoy it... and similarly, if you're not hunting but driving to the safeway for some dead domestic cow, same deal.

I also said that there are hunters who go out for the thrill of it, not for any reason to do with hunger or meat safety
I said that saying such a thrill or satisfying of primal urges without doing greater home is not condemnation worthy, much as societal condemnation of the thrills of BDSM is misguided
I never said hunting served the greater good of BDSM or that you had to like hunting, I said that understanding the perspectives on these issues and how people react to them might help everyone's understanding of others' lifestyle and recreation shoices as a WHOLE and that would be good for everyone

 

[lark sparrow]

I also said that there are hunters who go out for the thrill of it, not for any reason to do with hunger or meat safety
I said that saying such a thrill or satisfying of primal urges without doing greater home is not condemnation worthy, much as societal condemnation of the thrills of BDSM is misguided
I never said hunting served the greater good of BDSM or that you had to like hunting, I said that understanding the perspectives on these issues and how people react to them might help everyone's understanding of others' lifestyle and recreation shoices as a WHOLE and that would be good for everyone

Yes, always for the greater good you are. What have you learned? lol... good night, James.

 

[James G 5]

I hope nobody minds me joining the discussion, James that is a very smart way of changing words (and I mean that in the nicest possible way) you have just used. Let me translate your quote as I read it.

Since you are not agreeing with what I am saying, you have a closed mind, since you decide that my arguments are not strong enough, you have a closed mind.

That ends my smart arse portion.

Join in by all means
And it's not smart-arse, I dislike people who make that argument.
The remark you were commenting on was a reply to lark saying AGAIN that the people she knows have easy access to grocery stores and money, after TNR and I had both pointed out that not everyone shares that advantage
When she raised that point the first time and we both pointed out that not everyone can do that, then she said it again as a way of justifying her perspective, she was being deliberately close minded in holding on to a discredited stance to hold her view
That is different than me simply insisting her opinion is wrong (which I have not done)
But when one willfully disreagrds a factual argument, not disagrees with but disregards, that person has an issue
I didn't say she was close minded for disagreeing or because she felt my argument wasn't strong enough, I was saying she was close minded for refusing to CONSIDER it

 

[James G 5]

Yes, always for the greater good you are. What have you learned? lol... good night, James.

That I have my opinions and think we should all strive for understanding of one another in hopes of leading happier lives and making the world a better place, and that you don't respect or agree with any of my opinions and think my ideas of making a better life for everyone are simply silly self agrandizement rather than a genuine caring for those around me, I guess

 

[Netzach]

All I know is that I'd rather eat a duck G brought down with one bullet than Chinese cat.

 

[James G 5]

All I know is that I'd rather eat a duck G brought down with one bullet than Chinese cat.

Thanks, I needed a laugh

 

[catalina_francisco]

Join in by all means
And it's not smart-arse, I dislike people who make that argument.
The remark you were commenting on was a reply to lark saying AGAIN that the people she knows have easy access to grocery stores and money, after TNR and I had both pointed out that not everyone shares that advantage
When she raised that point the first time and we both pointed out that not everyone can do that, then she said it again as a way of justifying her perspective, she was being deliberately close minded in holding on to a discredited stance to hold her view
That is different than me simply insisting her opinion is wrong (which I have not done)
But when one willfully disreagrds a factual argument, not disagrees with but disregards, that person has an issue
I didn't say she was close minded for disagreeing or because she felt my argument wasn't strong enough, I was saying she was close minded for refusing to CONSIDER it

But it depends on your definition of factual doesn't it? See the example given of an uncle who lives 45 minutes from a Safeway and 30 minutes from a garage, to an Australian such as I is laughable. For many of our population it is normal to drive 1-2 hours a day just to go to work or the nearest town where we can shop. Your definition is based on an urban understanding of what is inconvenient based on our over indulgent lifestyle where if it isn't at our fingertips, it is unreasonable to accept.

I certainly would want more than that time and distance as an excuse for killing a wild animal of which are diminishing to extinct status everyday. Live in Europe for a few weeks and you will see your future as their lived reality....little to no wildlife outside rabbits and birds. I can accept those who hunt because of a native American cultural background, still using their hunting bow, not gun...there is still at least a more level opportunity for both hunter and hunted as well as cultural validity, and not mass numbers of dead....and all products from the kill used. And yes, I know of two who do this from their cultural perspective so it is not a bygone practice.

Catalina

 

[MystiqDrgn]

-snip- (sorry to snip the cute smart arse part)

What we are talking here about is pure and simple murder for fun. It is unnatural, predators kill to eat and not to have fun. I am not calling for a ban on hunting just a ban on bloodsports.
-snip-
Francisco.

Here is my two cents for what it is worth. You state above..."a ban on bloodsports" Very interesting as can't the same be true of those in the bdsm community who particiapate in "bloodsports?" There are those within the community that have closed eyes toward them.

Everyone will have a different view. It isn't enough to merely "agree to disagree". What I have gotten from reading this thread is one cannot make a blanket statement that one should not be allowed to do XYZ (ie have kids) because they participate in ABC. No matter what XYZ or ABC is. One must be able to open their mind and know we are all different and we all live in the same populous. I personally don't think stupid people shouldn't have kids. I don't lobby for an intelligence test before they have them. I understand that in America we have the right to choose how we live. You can take this argument to just about every activity out there.

Bottom line, everyone has a cause. Everyone has a life and everyone has a RIGHT to live it without being "labeled" bad for doing it because you are unwilling to see the other side of the coin.

~steps off soap box~

~A~

 

[catalina_francisco]

I understand that in America we have the right to choose how we live. You can take this argument to just about every activity out there.


Interesting though a UK reporter on BBC was filmed last night about to leave the US and he stated he was 'about to fly out of the US and back into the free world'. Is a view many have it seems and I have to admit after finding they have to blur out nipples in pics there, it seems the US does not have as many rights as where nipples are cool and natural.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Bottom line, everyone has a cause. Everyone has a life and everyone has a RIGHT to live it without being "labeled" bad for doing it because you are unwilling to see the other side of the coin.

The idea that I should not express my viewpoint because it conflicts with someone else is ludicrous and anti democratic. The idea that I am not allowed to persuade someone that my viewpoint is a valid one is even more ludicrous. Why is it that the moment people disagree and the discussion becomes lively, there are is always someone shouting you are labelling, you are not being polite, you are trespassing my rights.

Discussion means the exchange of ideas, in discussion it is quite normal to defend your own viewpoint, I always thought we were all adults here not little children that get annoyed because someone does not agree with them. When I am disagreeing and expressing my own thoughts I am exercising my constitutional right. In the USA there is still (even with bush as president) freedom of speech.

And if I see the other side of the coin and I do not agree with it why should I shut up and keep quit?

Francisco.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Keep on huntin' James G5. I always thought there was a Libertarian-BDSM overlap.

 

[Kajira Callista]

And some do it to eat. I don't condone killing needlessly, but I feel that feeding your family consitutes need. I have been in the situation before where a deer was a godsend, because the last of your money had to pay for gas for the car to get to work, and thus you didn't have enough to get anything more than Ramen noodles.

lol if you are killing a wild animal to survive, more power to ya, and live another day... I don't think this is the general outlook in America. [/B][/QUOTE]

you would be surprized at how many ppl actually do this because they need to

 

[Kajira Callista]

lol if you are killing a wild animal to survive, more power to ya, and live another day... I don't think this is the general outlook in America.

you would be surprized at how many ppl actually do this because they need to [/B][/QUOTE]

I added my two cents in the other thread before i read this one...bad bad me.

 

[lark sparrow]

That I have my opinions and ..... are simply silly self agrandizement ....I guess

lol Hey, that's pretty close! Just kidding. But your arguments were things I was already aware of and did acknowledge... there are a large majority who hunt for sport, not because of lack of money or a grocery store. I didn't say anything about banning them. I didn't say anything about it being wrong, which you also tried to imply. I didn't say I wouldn't associate with someone on that basis. I didn't say hunters shouldn't have children because they are sick fucks. I said I don't understand the joy in personally killing a wild animal when it wasn't necessary.

That none of your arguments about a portion of poor, rural people changed this opinion (as it does not apply to unnecessary killing) means I am closed-minded and you are a gift of liberal and universal understanding to the people of the world who have the intelligence to accept your overtly caring and open opinion as the word of the day? giggles

lol you just remind me of a kid on a debate team who is so dang proud of himself and loving the audience - or like hearing ms hawaii's wishes and plans for world peace stated again and again at a beauty pageant - but it's kind of a cute mental picture even though annoying. In the mental picture you are naked behind the podium, and the camera keeps pointing at your ass whether we want it to or not. Stay colorful, dude. I have no desire to kill bambi - that doesn't make me close-minded unless you insist everyone should have that desire or an undying respect and admiration for those who do.

 

[WriterDom]

Hunting helps animal populations. If they aren't hunted, nature has her own way of keeping them in balance. Every where I go I see wild turkeys and deer.

That might not be true for trophy hunting in Africa. But when it is properly managed as it is in America, the hunter is a friend of the animals. And the green tree hugging vegetarian liberal is their enemy.

A healthy deer herd on suitable habitat can be reduced by as much as 40 percent with no ill effect on populations; hunters rarely take more than 15 percent. If not harvested, a deer herd can double in size in only two years, quickly deplete available food supplies and face certain starvation. Quail have an annual mortality rate of 75 to 85 percent, whether they are hunted or not.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Hunting helps animal populations. If they aren't hunted, nature has her own way of keeping them in balance. Every where I go I see wild turkeys and deer.

That might not be true for trophy hunting in Africa. But when it is properly managed as it is in America, the hunter is a friend of the animals. And the green tree hugging vegetarian liberal is their enemy.

A healthy deer herd on suitable habitat can be reduced by as much as 40 percent with no ill effect on populations; hunters rarely take more than 15 percent. If not harvested, a deer herd can double in size in only two years, quickly deplete available food supplies and face certain starvation. Quail have an annual mortality rate of 75 to 85 percent, whether they are hunted or not.

A lot of sophisticated city folk have no idea how heavily hunting is regulated in this country. They think hunters are all bambi blasters roaming the wild, exterminating rare species.

 

[Kajira Callista]

A lot of sophisticated city folk have no idea how heavily hunting is regulated in this country. They think hunters are all bambi blasters roaming the wild, exterminating rare species.

You are right....im a relocated NYC girl, i live in the woods in PA now. I never knew the dynamics or importance of all this till i lived here and saw it. These ppl are helping everyone. I posted on the other thread about hitting a deer and being killed...its not a joke when you see the damage to a car, the deer, and the ppl in the car.....it i the most horrific site you will ever see. Watching an animal starve thru the winter is not pretty either....is that to be considered humane...a pregnant animal starving and trying to carry another two so that they can starve next winter. And they are feeding very poor ppl.....families who dont have anything else...why because the gov supplies fs and money to certain areas based on the population of the area....and if there arent alot of ppl, there isnt alot of funding in these areas to help these ppl. NY girl here knows there is plenty of aid for the poor in big cities. Look at the big picture when it comes to humanity and stop worrying about bambi who is suffering and hurt more by a long cold winter then any hunter could hurt them with a bullet or an arrow.

 

[sunfox]

Alrighty, where to start.

I do not eat venison. I don't eat quail, pheasant, goose, duck, or any kind of meat commonly hunted, including rabbit or squirrel. My uncle, who lives in Wisconsin, where commonly the overpopulation of deer causes them to go into cities, starving, and run into cars, people, or jump through shop windowpanes where they bleed to death... he used to bow hunt every year.

Now I didn't eat the meat. But I had no personal issue with him going out there, and doing the legwork to shoot his own deer with a powerful compound bow.. I only remember one or two times he had to shoot an animal more than once to kill it, and neither time was more than twice.

That said, I do have an issue with people who go out there with evident glee, and drink like fish, only to end up shooting the neighbor's cow, or someone's Great Dane. Hunting should not really be about amusing yourself with a semi-automatic rifle. I feel, much like James and TNRkitect2b, that subsistence hunting and hunting for population control, where either the meat is used by the hunter, or given to the hungry, does no harm that isn't already done by our destruction of the natural prey animals that controlled the population.

If you think it's crueler to shoot a deer once and kill it than it is to be pulled down by numbers of teeth at your throat, underbelly, and hamstrings... well.. you believe what you want to. Nature isn't always gentler or kinder. It's just efficient.

Bloodsports, btw, I saw mentioned, and I'd like to comment that bloodsports are cruel and vicious. Foxes are hunted for no reason but the 'fun' of it. There is no viable meat to be had off them, and after the dogs have at the body, before the huntmaster can get them off, the pelt is often ruined and in shreds. There are bloodless hunts, and those I don't disagree with. The fox is always allowed to get away, and it's done simply because people still enjoy riding to the hounds. But cockfighting, dogfighting, dogs against bulls, horse fights, blood foxhunts, etc... have no frame of reference within bloodplay in BDSM, imo. Where did the fox ever say that he didn't mind if we ripped him apart with a pack of forty hounds? When did the horse say he wanted to spend four hours being pounded to death by another stallion's hooves and teeth? (Because a horse's teeth are used like hammers, not to tear) I feel there is a vast difference between consensual bloodplay, and bloodsports.

Wow. This got long. But there you have it.

 

[Pure]

WD://A healthy deer herd on suitable habitat can be reduced by as much as 40 percent with no ill effect on populations; hunters rarely take more than 15 percent. If not harvested, a deer herd can double in size in only two years, quickly deplete available food supplies and face certain starvation. Quail have an annual mortality rate of 75 to 85 percent, whether they are hunted or not. //

The idea that the hunter is 'serving nature's purposes' and therefore has a kind of moral (and maybe legal) legitimacy is dicey.

Some of Sade's characters proposed this same argument as a rationale/justification for murder (and an argument against outlawing it.) It helps adjust the population, just as the plagues do, in a large-scale way; plagues also being 'natural'.

To take the 'quail' figure. Consider a human population of people in their late 80s. Probably 75-85% will die in a year, so maybe 'hunting' them should be an approved sport.

 

[Pure]

rr said,

//They [city folk] think hunters are all bambi blasters roaming the wild, exterminating rare species. //

I don't think bambi blasting is the whole story. I don't see the 'sport' of hitting the deer with a high powered rifle (except as a feat of markmanship from a 1/2 mile). Nor of downing the elephant that way, which I've seen on film.

For bloodsport, I'd like a) man with bowie knife only, against grizzly; or b) man with sword versus bull (without the exploding darts being lodged in the bull); c) man with gloves, only, with cougar; d) man with handheld arm-powered harpoon, against medium sized whale.

Let the blood flow, in both ways.

 

[BlueSugar]

I beleive everyone should read or skim Fast Food Nation, (and Fat World) and come to grips about what we put in our bodies .. in some way the plant life is far worse then the meats. And do some real research on what we feed our "food" so it has the girth or the output to feed our growing (over grown population). In many ways we were better off before the Eurpoeans came and took away for the most part, the hunter gatherer tribal culture.
The beef for instance is already pumped with the wrong products and artificialness that it would be just as cruel to walk up to a "wild" cow and stone it to death. Don't get me started on Veal (which I enjoy when bought the right way, I wouldn't order it out though...) It is already past corrupt, so why spend the money on more drugs to pump our "food" with, just to put it down (AND contiminate other body parts that people do buy and eat)?

Now, I'm not saying lets all strip down to a loin cloth and fuck modern society. It is what it is, we are what we became for the better, and for the worse. It is our own fault.
As far as the city dwelers vs the 'hicks' with red flannel and gun racks on their gun racks (in their beat up pick up truck) ... -- and i can say this because this'll be my 4th year living in VT in a small town that is about a city block long -- I watched hunting season come and go, and I thought it was cruel... seeing the bucks strapped to cars and houses getting bled to be butchered, dryed out and all its other uses... It was horrible to see the animal, but days later (months later) I can still smell the venison cooking in town and I cant help but to think that their meals are 10,000x better then what i'm being served in the caffeteria ((ok, so college food sucks to begin with...)) it is all natural , other then the shit it fed on from human population taking over its natural grounds.
I would rather them hunt with bow and arrow, but with evolution and advancements in technology came gun powder and the like... it became easier, more accurate and more humane ultimately.

I'm not a vegitarian, vegan or anything like that, mentioned above I eat veal ((which is like hanging myself where I go to school... environmental liberal arts, where hippies rule. )) Everyone has good points, but I would have to side with James and the like on the issues presented above. I also say the world and society need to become better informed about the way things were and they way it is now. It is too true that too many people do not think about what is wrapped in plastic under those neon lights.

::sigh:: and onto lifestyles, sex and cultures.
Not wanting a hunter/bdsm-er around children? I'm not even going to comment on that ... killing pixels instead of the living thing... is like playing a race car game and driving for the first time - very different.

Simply, I believe we are too quick to critisize, maybe you've seen my thread on the GB or How To... and if you haven't

Look what happened to the poor Nacerima

Ever think of how those hut cultures would talk about our culture?
Hell, what about an asian person plopped into the US and told to report back the things they've seen, heard and observed... just from the surface - forget about our marriage/religion/sexual behaviors and rituals.

We are always too quick to point fingers to say "wow, that is weird." At other cultures, sexual prefrences, and even music ...

What ever happened to beauty is in the eye of its beholder and to each their own? We surely preach it alot on Lit, let alone the BDSM board.

When we were children it was so easy, black, white, girl, boy, disabled, short, tall ... if they could smile they could play the game or join the "club." We stayed away from certain things because our parents and society dictate what is a norm.

Going through life and learning no one said to us "put yourself in their shoes" ?
heh, if I had a dime for every time I've heard all this before I'd be very wealthy.

::shrugs defeated::
I've already major/minored and taken sociology, anthropology, psychology, cultural studies and gender and the environment -classes ... maybe some of us need a 101 brush up.

 

[Texture]

I don't believe that animals are really aware of the passage of time in the same way that we are, or look into the future. They are fully 'in the moment'. This is the strongest argument for me that it is acceptable to kill them where it would not be acceptable to kill a person.

I would make a distinction between someone who enjoys hunting and killing an animal and someone who actually enjoys watching animals suffer.

 

[Netzach]

In NYC I would have thought only ignorant gun nut assholes would shoot bambi.

Then I moved to a much more rural place, with many people who grew up on real farms. My own ignorance staggers me sometimes.

These people can take a giant ass field and make money. I can't even imagine finding my way out the middle of it.

Competent, reasonable, not-drunk hunters are ok by me. I actually had bambi in my back alley garbage one AM *in the city*

Idiots who can't kill their prey humanely (ie can't aim) have no business doing it.