BDSM isn't abuse

[Ishmael]

Don't know about you folks. But I am getting the drift that Pure is saying "It's abuse. Even if the bottom gives consent. It's abuse because the bottom is in a deluded or demented state and is incapable of giving informed consent. Ergo, BDSM is a form of mental illness. The Top is a cruelly abusive psychotic, and the bottom is suffering from temporary insanity, or is retarded."

Please correct me if that isn't the direction you're trolling that bait.

Ishmael

 

[A Desert Rose]

Don't know about you folks. But I am getting the drift that Pure is saying "It's abuse. Even if the bottom gives consent. It's abuse because the bottom is in a deluded or demented state and is incapable of giving informed consent. Ergo, BDSM is a form of mental illness. The Top is a cruelly abusive psychotic, and the bottom is suffering from temporary insanity, or is retarded."

Please correct me if that isn't the direction you're trolling that bait.

Ishmael

At the very least, Pure is muddying up the issue and in turn, attempting to make it more confusing than it need be.

BDSM is really simple and pleasant and highly enjoyable. And there is no need to make it more complicated, especially considering those who lurk and those who are new to the concept.

As you, Ishmael so often remind me to do, write to the lurkers. It is excellent advice. ~smile&wink~

 

[Ishmael]

At the very least, Pure is muddying up the issue and in turn, attempting to make it more confusing than it need be.

BDSM is really simple and pleasant and highly enjoyable. And there is no need to make it more complicated, especially considering those who lurk and those who are new to the concept.

As you, Ishmael so often remind me to do, write to the lurkers. It is excellent advice. ~smile&wink~

Touche'

Just getting tired of the dance. If you have a point. Make it.

Ishmael

 

[GreenEyedGodess]

no the difference between BDSM and abuse

is CONSENT.

In total agreement with Siren!

I may be a masochist, but I'm a happy masochist!

 

[Pure]

Well, Ishmael,

Again, argument having failed, characterization to the rescue--in respect of 'trolling'.

Further, not having my words that say silly stuff you want, you state
"Pure is saying...." and make up a bunch of stuff.

[Ishmael said,]
Don't know about you folks. But I am getting the drift that Pure is saying "It's abuse. Even if the bottom gives consent. It's abuse because the bottom is in a deluded or demented state and is incapable of giving informed consent. Ergo, BDSM is a form of mental illness. The Top is a cruelly abusive psychotic, and the bottom is suffering from temporary insanity, or is retarded."

Please correct me if that isn't the direction you're trolling that bait. //
==================

In fact, in each example, including my 'extreme' one, the one undergoing the injury was specified as NOT mentally ill-- in my words, "not psychotic or brain diseased." The Top, in the case of a serious flogging--consensual or not-- is inflicting an injury and in that sense, 'abusing' the Bottom (with the Bottom's permission). The Top is not necessarily 'cruel' (or criminal) any more than the player who tackles the other guy very hard on the football field or the boxer who gives his opponent in the ring a stiff jab to the jaw.

Think, reason, argue, quote--- if you're too upset for that, take a Valium and try again. Or pick a topic less emotional, perhaps the design of a new bdsm logo.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Think, reason, argue, quote--- if you're too upset for that, take a Valium and try again. Or pick a topic less emotional, perhaps the design of a new bdsm logo.

You are simply a provocateer.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Touche'

Just getting tired of the dance. If you have a point. Make it.

Ishmael

My post was not directed at you, Darling. ~smile~

 

[Ishmael]

Well, Ishmael,

Again, argument having failed, characterization to the rescue--in respect of 'trolling'.

Further, not having my words that say silly stuff you want, you state
"Pure is saying...." and make up a bunch of stuff.


==================

In fact, in each example, including my 'extreme' one, the one undergoing the injury was specified as NOT mentally ill-- in my words, "not psychotic or brain diseased." The Top, in the case of a serious flogging--consensual or not-- is inflicting an injury and in that sense, 'abusing' the Bottom (with the Bottom's permission). The Top is not necessarily 'cruel' (or criminal) any more than the player who tackles the other guy very hard on the football field or the boxer who gives his opponent in the ring a stiff jab to the jaw.

Think, reason, argue, quote--- if you're too upset for that, take a Valium and try again. Or pick a topic less emotional, perhaps the design of a new bdsm logo.

You pick a grey middle and still imply the same assertions.

It is either consensual or it isn't. The bottom is in control of their mental faculties, or they aren't.

Non-consensual action taken aganst another party, even the act of merely holding their wrist to restrain them, can be considered abuse. It is actionable in a court of law.

Mental duress is much the same but with blurier lines to be sure. To puposely cause injury to another person whose judgement is diminished to the point that they are unable to make an informed decision is also an actionable offense.

Now, if you think that I need a valium, you are way off base.

As for the "trolling", I used that in the fishing sense. Not in the context of an internet forum troll. Perhaps you don't fish.

Ishmael

 

[SexyChele]

This is just my thoughts on the subject and I have a few issues on abuse so forgive me if I come on too strong.

We all have certain issues and situations we feel strongly about, there is nothing to forgive for that. I found your input interesting and hope that you will continue to post here.

 

[SexyChele]

Pure, you and I have gone round and round on the issue of "The Story of O", and that ended without resolution. Except for the realization that you seem to need to have the final word, no matter what.

I see that continuing here. I don't see how you are interpreting Ishmael's responses to you as his needing valium. He is offering calm, balanced reasoning. On the other hand, all I'm getting from your posts seems to be muddied thinking. I'm not even certain what it is that you are trying to prove/disprove anymore.

 

[Pure]

Ishmael,

You said,
It is either consensual or it isn't. The bottom is in control of their mental faculties, or they aren't.

Non-consensual action taken aganst another party, even the act of merely holding their wrist to restrain them, can be considered abuse. It is actionable in a court of law. //
==

I gave five examples. All were labelled consensual. In that respect the action depicted would be NOT actionable.
(boxer, football player, woman in 9 1/2 weeks, woman undergoing genital modification, woman having large gauge piercing of nipple)

All were labelled as abusive, in the sense--see the Merriam Webster Dictionary of Law-- of injurious. The characteristic 'wrongful' --found in several definitions--is best not leaned on, since it tends to beg the question. But, if it's unclear to anyone, none of the five examples were intended to be 'wrongful', precisely because they were consensual.

My point--note this, SC-- has been stated, and with the exception of Ms Desdemona, not really addressed.

{quoting an earlier posting, here:}
The simple point is that, for a variety of reasons, people outside and inside bdsm sometimes consent to bodily harm--agreed and specified beforehand-- aka 'abuse'.

I don't condemn any of the practices, by the way; let each do with his or her body as s/he wishes, and by all means let that be agreed with the dom/me beforehand, as in my last three examples. And the state, absent coercion, threat, mental incapacity, should not interfere.

 

[Ishmael]

Ishmael,

You said,
It is either consensual or it isn't. The bottom is in control of their mental faculties, or they aren't.

Non-consensual action taken aganst another party, even the act of merely holding their wrist to restrain them, can be considered abuse. It is actionable in a court of law. //
==

I gave five examples. All were labelled consensual. In that respect the action depicted would be NOT actionable.
(boxer, football player, woman in 9 1/2 weeks, woman undergoing genital modification, woman having large gauge piercing of nipple)

All were labelled as abusive, in the sense--see the Merriam Webster Dictionary of Law-- of injurious. The characteristic 'wrongful' --found is several definitions--is best not leaned on, since it tends to beg the question. But, if it's unclear to anyone, none of the five examples were intended to be 'wrongful', precisely because they were consensual.

My point--note this, SC-- has been stated, and with the exception of Ms Desdemona, not really addressed.

{quoting an earlier posting, here:}
The simple point is that, for a variety of reasons, people outside and inside bdsm sometimes consent to bodily harm--agreed and specified beforehand-- aka 'abuse'.

I don't condemn any of the practices, by the way; let each do with his or her body as s/he wishes, and by all means let that be agreed with the dom/me beforehand, as in my last three examples. And the state, absent coercion, threat, mental incapacity, should not interfere.

All right, we agree on many of the points.

But I'm still left with the question, "Why did you bring it up in this manner?"

Abuse, self-mutilation by proxy. There are many things that it may be called. The practioners choose not to use those terms. Obviously because they don't feel that they are apropos of the act or the intent.

What purpose is served in bantering about with symantics? Merely an intellectual excersize with no conclusion?

Ishmael

 

[Pure]

Ishmael asks,

What purpose is served in bantering about with symantics? Merely an intellectual excersize with no conclusion? //

============
I'm not sure what your purpose was!

There is indeed a purpose, if nothing else than to show that bdsm issues are not simple. Sorry, Ishmael, but there are indeed gray areas.

Why is this important? Because of the courts. Suppose you give Ms. Z a good flogging with her consent. She shows the marks to the dr., he calls the police and you are charged. And this may hold although she tells the DA she consented.

Why? You inflicted injury, bodily harm. A number of judges believe "Bodily harm can not be consented to." Or--same thing-- put in Siren's terms, "Abuse is inherently non-consensual." Now this position of certain judges may be questioned. Indeed it should, and it's odd to see a defender of bdsm, like Siren, taking it. The position, at first blush, has a kind of logic, of course, in that how could one want harm? it is asked.**

The only other obvious way out of the dilemma, besides what I've suggested--i.e., hold that abuse/injury may be consented to-- is to claim, "It's not really bodily harm or injury." This may work for minor instances, but has obvious limitations: Most ordinary folks would look at the effects of a good flogging -- esp. the lingering marks-- as bodily harm.

So some little 'semantic' issues could have rather great implications, and the 'simple' idea of 'safe, sane, consensual' if intended as protection from the law, has a number of pitfalls, outlined above.

Best,
Pure,

**The answer is rather straightforward; The person believes that the harm/injury/pain is outweighed by other factors, possibly in the area of sexual pleasure, or in the area of the esteem and love of the dom/me. And this is not surprising; breast enlargement--risky, sometimes injurious, painful-- is sometimes undertaken for the same reason.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Pure

On behalf of all who want me to be on their behalf, YOU WIN.
LOL

 

[zipman]

Ishmael asks,

What purpose is served in bantering about with symantics? Merely an intellectual excersize with no conclusion? //

============
I'm not sure what your purpose was!

There is indeed a purpose, if nothing else than to show that bdsm issues are not simple. Sorry, Ishmael, but there are indeed gray areas.

Why is this important? Because of the courts. Suppose you give Ms. Z a good flogging with her consent. She shows the marks to the dr., he calls the police and you are charged. And this may hold although she tells the DA she consented.

Why? You inflicted injury, bodily harm. A number of judges believe "Bodily harm can not be consented to." Or--same thing-- put in Siren's terms, "Abuse is inherently non-consensual." Now this position of certain judges may be questioned. Indeed it should, and it's odd to see a defender of bdsm, like Siren, taking it. The position, at first blush, has a kind of logic, of course, in that how could one want harm? it is asked.**

The only other obvious way out of the dilemma, besides what I've suggested--i.e., hold that abuse/injury may be consented to-- is to claim, "It's not really bodily harm or injury." This may work for minor instances, but has obvious limitations: Most ordinary folks would look at the effects of a good flogging -- esp. the lingering marks-- as bodily harm.

So some little 'semantic' issues could have rather great implications, and the 'simple' idea of 'safe, sane, consensual' if intended as protection from the law, has a number of pitfalls, outlined above.

Best,
Pure,

**The answer is rather straightforward; The person believes that the harm/injury/pain is outweighed by other factors, possibly in the area of sexual pleasure, or in the area of the esteem and love of the dom/me. And this is not surprising; breast enlargement--risky, sometimes injurious, painful-- is sometimes undertaken for the same reason.

Pure,

I think you would have been better served stating your intent upfront rather than by starting with arguing the semantics of the issues. I didn't get your point until your last post.

I'm not quite sure where I fall on this argument. I certainly don't think that BDSM is inherently abusive, regardless of injury as long as there is consent, and it is not an extreme situation like the genital mutilation that you described. So much of this is area (BDSM and the law) is a gray area as the whole topic of BDSM is full of gray areas. But even a topic like genital mutilation has gray areas. Many infants are circumsized, and although it is genital mutilation, it is accepted by our society. There have been numerous court cases recently where men have sued their parents for forcing them to undergo circumcision without their consent. Similarly, injury doesn't necessarily constitute abuse. I can accidentally injure someone and it is not abusive.

There have also been cases where people in the BDSM lifestyle have been accused of wrongful imprisonment and torture for tying up a sub that they had originally met in an online forum. After the couple's first meeting, she pressed charges saying it was against her will even though she had emailed him saying that was what she wanted.

I think the topic of BDSM and the law is indeed a pertinent one to all of us here, especially in the Dom/me role. However, there could also be instances where it could impact subs as well. I don't know if it has happened yet, but I am sure that a legal case could be made against a submissive mother that since she is exchanging her power with another person, she is no longer capable of maintaining custody of her child. While I do not agree with this, I could see it happening.

 

[lovetoread]

I don't know if it has happened yet, but I am sure that a legal case could be made against a submissive mother that since she is exchanging her power with another person, she is no longer capable of maintaining custody of her child. While I do not agree with this, I could see it happening.

That is an awful thought. Tis my greatest fear. I'd quit all this in a heartbeat if that ever was the case.


But what if you do get into a bdsm relationship,and it is abuse?

Could the abuser not claim that you agreed to it?

 

[artful]

To All

no the difference between BDSM and abuse

is CONSENT.

I stand as agreed to Siren, (as I also did in my original post), but I see the point Pure is putting forward, and can see the importance of the grey areas. It still doesn't alter what I believe to be *my* truth. The difference between BDSM and abuse *IS* consent.

Safe, Sane, and Consensual are three words that clearly identify what I wish to pursue in a BDSM relationship. Might it hold up as a defense in a court of law, maybe,...and maybe not.

We who pursue BDSM in it's many flavors, would have various, and different legal issues to deal with, in our practicioning, dependent not only on our geographical locations, (the laws vary from one jurisdiction to another), but also, the views of who might be the judging individuals, (whether it be a Court Judge or jury).

(Whew),...now THAT,...was a long sentence. ^

 

[Ishmael]

I think the topic of BDSM and the law is indeed a pertinent one to all of us here, especially in the Dom/me role. However, there could also be instances where it could impact subs as well. I don't know if it has happened yet, but I am sure that a legal case could be made against a submissive mother that since she is exchanging her power with another person, she is no longer capable of maintaining custody of her child. While I do not agree with this, I could see it happening.

An interesting and valid point. Particularly if the other parent was not in to the practice.

I don't think the non-custodial parent would prevail. But the cost in money, time, and public airing would have a significant toll on the custodial parent and perhaps the children as well.

However this falls into the realm of an interloper and is outside of the relationship proper.

Certainly a point to be considered when dealing in the area of discretion.

Ishmael

 

[lark sparrow]

The conclusion on this (if there has been one reached as of yet) is interesting, although arguing is a bit tiresome to read. The first statement made to start the thread still seems a worthy summation. "Abuse" as defined by law, as defined within BDSM play and as defined in the dictionary may differ - as will each individual's perception of it.

I may be really far off on this, but wonders if there are readers and posters who have done their homework, not entirely brand new to the concepts or lifestyle, (beyond the mottos and things that are incessantly posted on websites) and perhaps feel a bit of frustration when topics are not delved into a bit deeper.

To write each of your posts to the "newbie" lurker, as if everything is simple and good, wrapped up tight in a pretty package is a worthwhile cause, and there is truth there, but there are also gray areas, and if one has accepted the basic premise that it can be a good thing healthy adults can participate in, is it ever safe as a group of kinky people to be human as well - to analyze, struggle, question, ponder the light and the dark, to laugh at ourselves, etc?

The board seems to have both... dismissals of questions that may seem to go against the mottos, as well as many discussions that dig deeper into gray areas, which does not negate SSC or basic premises to the lifestyle and often comes full circle, explaining it rather then throwing out a motto... each person will read or respond to them a bit differently. Just an aside from a person new to your forum (or perhaps just stating the obvious).

 

[artful]

lark

To write each of your posts to the "newbie" lurker, as if everything is simple and good, wrapped up tight in a pretty package is a worthwhile cause, and there is truth there, but there are also gray areas, and if one has accepted the basic premise that it can be a good thing healthy adults can participate in, is it ever safe as a group of kinky people to be human as well - to analyze, struggle, question, ponder the light and the dark, to laugh at ourselves, etc?

lark,...I hope you don't mind me shortening your ID,...please call me Art. Thanks for entering the discussion, and welcome to the Forum. I hope to see you participating more and more, as you settle yourself in.

We encourage new ideas, new posters, and new perspectives. Many who lurk and read, may be enlightened by the discourse offered on this thread, and that is our hope.

Opinions are valued,...name calling, and personal verbal attacks on others are unseemly at the very least, and will be found on MOST interactive web sites.

I hope you are not intimidated by any of THAT type of posting, and contribute freely, as time and circumstance allow. Again,...a warm welcome to you.

 

[Pure]

Lark sparrow's phrase,

"discussions that dig deeper into gray areas" -- that's been my aim, but the execution--so to speak-- is this medium is difficult. Perhaps all of us need(ed) to remember

1) a word typed, is not necessarily read how it's intended;

2) it doesn't hurt to ask some one what they meant;

3) it's good to show charity in readings: if there's two ways to read, one which is silly, and one which makes sense, give the writer the benefit of the doubt.

Misunderstandings here have certainly occurred. As far as I played a part in them, I regret it.

 

[Siren]

 

[lark sparrow]

Re: lark

lark,...I hope you don't mind me shortening your ID,...please call me Art. Thanks for entering the discussion, and welcome to the Forum. I hope to see you participating more and more, as you settle yourself in.

We encourage new ideas, new posters, and new perspectives. Many who lurk and read, may be enlightened by the discourse offered on this thread, and that is our hope.

Opinions are valued,...name calling, and personal verbal attacks on others are unseemly at the very least, and will be found on MOST interactive web sites.

I hope you are not intimidated by any of THAT type of posting, and contribute freely, as time and circumstance allow. Again,...a warm welcome to you.

I don't mind the shortening of the ID at all, and thank you much, Art.

Understands that this occurs in groups everywhere. (It's actually refreshing in truth, to come to a new place where one is ignorant to history, dramas, cliques, because personalities and opinions can be taken at face value more easily. The down side being the lack of friendships, lack of understanding the focus in the group and lack of intimacy in belonging to, easy laughter/having fun, in being known in a community.)

I've very much enjoyed reading through the responses to the topics and occasionally adding. The forum seems comprised of fairly diverse individuals, which makes it a valuable (and sometimes challenging) place to learn, debate and share.