Is it really safe, sane, and consensual?

[Pure]

Francisco said,
I would like to point you to a mistake you have made in your calculations.


Page 5.
Block and Christakos (1995) examined 2556 intimate partner homicides that occurred in Chicago over a 29-year period, and found sexual jealousy was a motive in up to 19% of male offenders who killed their former common-law partners and extramarital affairs
resulted in up to 20% of male offenders who killed their ex-girlfriends.

Source:
Intimate Partner Violence
By Callie Marie Rennison, Ph.D. and Sarah Welchans BJS Statisticians
Page 10.
Intimate partner homicide, by gender, 1998 Females 1,317

A child can do the math now:
20 %, results in 263 deaths in 1998 where the direct result of extramarital affairs, Ok the number is not huge, I mean what we are talking about 263 women murdered by their partner. Because of extramarital affairs, if we now add the numbers of the jealous boyfriends who have killed their SO. Which is 19 % of the total we get an additional 250 deaths.

Total number 513 deaths, yes this is not a huge number but this is every year over and over again. This however is just the tip of the Iceberg, these are the worst case scenarios, were it has resulted in death.

=====
Thanks for reading the document.

The first point is that, supposing you are right, I would point out the impact on the final ratio, which I said was 16 to 1. Your figures result in 10 to 1. The woman is ten times as likely to die in traffic as from a jealous husband.

Yes, this holds each year; carnage on highways and smaller carnage in domestic violence. I did extrapolate the risks over 40 yrs.

Now as to your argument. First we are dealing with a summary of Bloch's study and neither of us appear to have looked at it. The summary just isn't clear or precise in the area we want.

My argument is that: 1) probably the two categories are exclusive; and that, I suggest,2) affairs were placed in the affair category only. So the 'jealousy' category, I suggest is where no mention was made of an affair. Now, *some percentage* may be due to affairs not reported, but surely you know jealousy isn't based in the real. Also, if real, it can be 'you danced too long with him. ' So I'd say, being generous, allow only 1/2 of the jealousy cases (or 9%) as related to actual affairs of the wife.


The math is 263 + 250/2 = 388. I used 312. The 388 figure gives a ratio of about 13 as opposed to 16.

There's one additional reason for preferring the lower number.
The Canadian data did NOT break out affairs separately, but used jealousy, I think, to cover both. That percentage was 25%. Which suggests that your proposal of 40% is high. I can live with 30%. With the Canadian data, of course, there are 'quarrels', and so it's unclear how many of those might be affair related, but a quarrel over an affair sounds like jealousy to me.

Of course I don't like that three or four hundred women get murdered by hubbies, or that 1000 die of AIDS. The context of the argument though, was a woman contemplating an affair or a man having the opportunity. Hence the question of relative risk.

You use the phrase "a bullshit argument as is comparing intimate homicides to road accidents."

I remind you that the whole exercise was started when you or Catalina quoted some factoid about deaths related to cheating being more than from accidents in airplanes and trains combined. I assume you'll acknowledge that that was a bullshit argument or factoid, as well (misleading, if not untrue).

It would be pleasant if you showed the tiniest bit of positive valence toward the work presented; if you noted that data were presented in an orderly fashion allowing your analysis. If the quarrel whether the ratio is 13 or 16, remains unsettled, I think that's pretty good agreement.

Best,
J.

Added: There is another argument that the 40% you propose is too high. We know that, on some estimates, about 1/3 of married women have cheated. Now that's a cumulative figure, so how many have cheated in a given year? 1/6, 1/10.

But, taking 1/3 for the sake of arguement, as the ones getting killed likely to show a very different percentage? Well, there are two arguments.

You're in effect taking the First: there is *higher* proportion of cheating wifes in those who get killed. These are the adventurous or desperate one that catch the flak.

Second. Among the killed, affairs are less common. Those getting killed have often been abused. They are intimidated and NOT adventurous; they often have histories of being assaulted, which make them careful if not scared.

I lean toward the latter. Hence I'm happy with the 1/4 to 1/5 [of all women murdered in intimate homicide] as an estimate.

 

[Temptress_1960]

Another thought on the original topic of this thread...

I am reminded of the arguments between Right to Life and Pro-choice factions, which, in my opinion, essentially stem from the definition of when life begins.

This thread started with the question of "Is it really fully consensual if a sub (or a Dom, for that matter, I'd say) is participating in a D/s relationship without the knowledge of their spouse or SO?"

It seems to depend on your definition of consensual: does consensual include spouses and SOs?

It seems that for some of us, it does... and for others, not necessarily.

We've focused mostly on the submissives... what about Dominants who are cheating on their spouses or SOs?

 

[Ebonyfire]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feminist Analysis

That is funny I got a whole different impression.

It seems to me that it all depends if you want to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Impression, opinion, assholes.... we all got 'em.

And some people do like to beat a dead horse.

Whoa.

I am indeed entitled to my impressions, though that isn't quite how I'd put it.

What I'm telling you is that this is the impression your words give. The impression I get from your words may not be true to what you think, but it is what your words imply.

I am not trying to make an effect here, I don't need or expect attention, I'm not asking for support, I don't feel guilty... and I may be ignorant, but let me tell you that I am perfectly capable of getting a reasonably accurate impression of what the words you choose imply.

I may not be as academically credentialed as you are, but part of my job is proofreading a newspaper, not just for spelling, grammar, and punctuation, but also for content. I am quite accustomed to reading copy and analyzing the impression it makes.

I have read what you say about who you are and how you feel, and again, what I am telling you is that many of your remarks give an entirely different impression.

I think that often happens with this medium; what we mean does not always match what we say, with the different cultures and experiences we all bring to this table. I have had to back-track and further explain myself, both here and in chat, when what I thought was crystal clear took on a different meaning for another person.

I was unaware that not capitalizing your name was offensive to you or to your master, given that your user name itself is not capitalized. I wouldn't exactly call it an oversight, since your user name and signature are not consistant, but it certainly was not meant to offend you or your master.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Dom/me or sub..

If you want to cheat (using your own definition), do so.

Just don't try to dress it up and call it something else.

It's your bizness. But be prepared to have it dished if you post in this forum.

 

[Pure]

For WE* are a very moral bunch.

Or is it 'munch'.


(*Supply your own list)

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

For WE* are a very moral bunch.

Or is it 'munch'.


(*Supply your own list)

I don't know why we wouldn't expect a higher standard from the BDSM community.

 

[Pure]

'Cuz we* aren't any better than anyone else?

*(Supply own list)

 

[Temptress_1960]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feminist Analysis

That is funny I got a whole different impression.

It seems to me that it all depends if you want to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Impression, opinion, assholes.... we all got 'em.

And some people do like to beat a dead horse.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Pure]

Memorandum

To: Ms Ebony Fire,
From: Dead Horse Floggers Association DHFA

Re: "Impression, opinion, assholes.... we all got 'em. And some people do like to beat a dead horse."

Thank you for your inquiry. Unfortunately, the saying that opinions are like assholes will not qualify you to join the DHFL.

We feel it to be more in the nature of cliche than 'dead horse.'

However, in view of the interest you have evidenced by your continued presence at our gatherings, I, as a Charter Member and as Corresponding Secretary am please to offer you the chance to become an honorary one-year Member in our auxilliary, Lurkers Unimpressed By Excessive Shittalk, or LUBES as it is commonly known.

I have enclosed a brochure of LUBES activities, to which all Members are entitled to come, including specific threads the DHFA has planned, for the coming month of August.

Hope to see you there.

Salutations,

J.

CS for DHFS

 

[catalina_francisco]

'Cuz we* aren't any better than anyone else?

*(Supply own list)

We better be, since the 'games' we play are dead serious.

Since this is the SSC thread I remind you of the SSC. Most 'nilla' people do not live by such strict guidelines. Even more than in vanilla relationships, trust, honesty and honour are words that not only mean something but are essential to a successful BDSM relationship.

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

//SSC. Most 'nilla' people do not live by such strict guidelines. //

I believe Francisco, you once agreed that a number of things which you, and maybe even I prize, like forthrightness or loyalty or not fucking others' spouses do not constitute a part of Safe Sane Consentual _per se_. Conversely, SSC does not comprise a number of things that it's good for relationships to have.

Do you agree?

I'm of the school--and you need not agree-- that says the slogan was originally a way to ensure 'we' were within the boundaries of a decent community: in particular, SSC ensures, and was designed to ensure, that the law** is not broken and the other
{Added, line dropped: participant(s) do not end up in the hospital}


It can be seen that most vanilla relationships fall within this, and that every 'vanilla' person violates SSC at his/her own peril. E.g., to act without consent is to open oneself to a rape charge.

Their standard is the same, in my opinion.

you say,

//We better be, since the 'games' we play are dead serious.//

I don't think lives are in peril in most BDSM encounters, if that's what you mean. 'Edge play' is not the norm.

But in any case, 'vanilla' couples are in 'dead serious' games. I'd propose that the couple that goes rock climbing together are those who'd better know what they're doing and look out for the other's safety.

Too, there are vanilla games with an element of danger, like shagging on the train tracks, or getting/giving bj while cruising down the highway.

There are, in my opinion, {Added: limiting our consideration to those who follow SSC} highly principled folks and scummy, among both the BDSM community and the 'nilla community; folk who care tenderly for their partners, and those who almost kill them in treating them like trash.



**perhaps with slight clarifications, deletion of 'blue laws' etc.

 

[FungiUg]

There are, in my opinion, highly principled folks and scummy, among both the BDSM community and the 'nilla community; folk who care tenderly for their partners, and those who almost kill them in treating them like trash.

True! 100% agreement here.

Also, "vanilla" relationships can still be dead serious (to reinforce your point, Pure). Having been through a marriage breakup that devastated my life at the time, well before I got into D/s, I can assure you of that.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hello Pure,

I am proud to be part of a community that can see a person being fucked by a dog and still can judge that person as a worthwhile person.
I am proud to be part of a community that includes members of all sexual orientation and does not judge that person.
I am proud to be part of a society where women and men are really considered equal in all, where it is normal for a man to serve a woman or a woman to serve a man.
Where things as honesty, trust and honour are not empty words but essential to the relationship.
Where teaching others have become the most normal thing, where consensual is really consensual.

And this was in answer to your remark why we could not expect a higher standard from the BDSM community. Safe words are not only there for edge play Pure, do not know where you got that notion, any ‘game’ played in BDSM can be dangerous if you do not know what you are doing, almost any ‘game’ played in SM games can be fatal or bring serious harm to your partner. We can and we should expect a higher standard, because we have to.

Trust becomes something essential if your partner is standing over you with a whip, or he is tying you up. Honour is essential without it no Dominant would have to keep to the safe word which then would break the trust.

Yes I feel we have to expect more than of the average ‘nilla’ couple, it is only normal if a sub places her life, her trust, her whole being into the hands of a Dom/me that the Dom/me needs to have above average values and the same can be said of switches and subs.

Not that I am saying we are superior beings but we have to be better then average or we better move out of the lifestyle.

About your remark about rock climbing, very interesting can you tell me the percentage of the amount of BDSM people involved in rock climbing compared to the percentage in ‘nilla’? Do feel it is important since your remark carries in it the hidden equation that there are more percentage wise rock climbers in ‘nilla’ relationships then in BDSM relationships, because if not do not see why you brought it up.

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

Hi Francisco,

Those are some interesting thoughts, very well stated.
you said in part


I am proud to be part of a community that can see a person being fucked by a dog and still can judge that person as a worthwhile person.

Unfortunately not true. If you examine 'bestiality' threads you will find either: most avoid the topic; of those the 'join', most express disgust, wonderment and yes, even condemnation. Oddly, yours truly is one of a handful to say something non-condemnatory or positive.



Where things as honesty, trust and honour are not empty words but essential to the relationship.

I believe you're thinking of Camelot, not any 'real' group. It's insulting to 'straights' to suggest that honor is less essential to them. Or that a greater proportion of SM folks have honor than 'nilla folks.

where consensual is really consensual.

All relationships are being re-evaluated in light of feminist and other 'agitators'. True informed consent is becoming a standard, and 'rape' is better defined; and that didn't start in the leather community (or, more accurately, not any more so than the 'straight' community.)


And this was in answer to your remark why we could not expect a higher standard from the BDSM community. Safe words are not only there for edge play Pure, do not know where you got that notion,

I did not say that. I didn't discuss safe words, which are used by many kinds of players. I simply said 'edge play' is a minority pastime, i.e., play involving immediate threats to life, e.g., stopping someone's breath.

'Safe words' are widely used among all kinds of partners, ie., 'Stop, dear, that hurts.' Among vanilla strangers, proceeding past that request is a crime; hence 'safe word' practice is followed by honorable straights and gays (non leather).



any ‘game’ played in BDSM can be dangerous if you do not know what you are doing, almost any ‘game’ played in SM games can be fatal or bring serious harm to your partner. We can and we should expect a higher standard, because we have to.

I don't see the 'almost any', at all. How about being tickled with a feather; horsehair whipped; peed on; master servant games; etc.

The rest sounds like myth, to me. Many non BDSM partners can try dangerous things: lesbians and gays fisting, for instance.
A fetishist who wants to be wrapped in Saran Wrap by a mommy.


Trust becomes something essential if your partner is standing over you with a whip, or he is tying you up. Honour is essential without it no Dominant would have to keep to the safe word which then would break the trust.

If, in a fun play with no bdsm element, a gay partner is jamming a dildo a foot long and thick as a beer can up someone's ass, there had better be 'honor.'


Yes I feel we have to expect more than of the average ‘nilla’ couple, it is only normal if a sub places her life, her trust, her whole being into the hands of a Dom/me that the Dom/me needs to have above average values and the same can be said of switches and subs.

life, trust, whole being, is found in lots of serious relationships. Evidence: the suicide of those 'left.' Read 'Romeo and Juliet'.


Not that I am saying we are superior beings but we have to be better then average or we better move out of the lifestyle.

Horse pucky. It's like 'pro gay' line that says "We're extra sensitive and if you aren't, you don't belong here, you belong among the callous straight 'breeders.'"


About your remark about rock climbing, very interesting can you tell me the percentage of the amount of BDSM people involved in rock climbing [...]if not do not see why you brought it up.

Yes, good joke

Maybe I wasn't clear. I was giving an example of a dangerous 'play' or undertaking of some vanilla couples (of course there are others non vanilla participants too). I was saying, if a straight hubby and wife go rock climbing they better be knowledgeable and trust each other. Lives are at stake.

I was likening that risky undertaking to risky play of bdsm couples.

It's a non sexual risky play, but above I have also given all kinds of sexual play examples where there's risk, but the activity is not necessarily of the BDSM type.

Thanks for some stimulating thoughts; I given reasons for an alternative view to yours.

J.

 

[Ebonyfire]

I don't know why we wouldn't expect a higher standard from the BDSM community.

Like most everything, there is the good old bell curve.

Most folks sit squarely in the middle of any issue. And the minority opinions sit on each end of the spectrum.

 

[Netzach]

I've tasted this 3-bean potluck salad before.

I am a lesbian/bisexual, therefore I should know better behave better than misguided straight women and I reflect on my community.

We are Jews. We are the moral standard bearers in a world full of prejudice and inequality, we should know better than the filthy goyim.

I spank my fiance and have to negotiate a way to do this safely, therefore I have to be held to a higher standard than the people who just fuck, they can't possibly get hurt that way.

 

[FungiUg]

I've tasted this 3-bean potluck salad before.

Do you have the recipe?

I do agree with your sentiments, Netzach.

 

[Netzach]

Kidney beans, a victimisation complex, and vinegar.

 

[Pure]

Connoisseurs add a splash of fresh piss.

J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Being a dominant I am going to write this out of the Dominant viewpoint. Pure have you not written before in several posts the importance of choosing your partner, the importance of safe words and safe call’s? I have seen you give good advice when asked about how to conduct yourself when meeting a new possible candidate. Tell me something Pure, why it that the safe call is is not a widely spread custom in the ‘nilla’ world as it is in the ‘BDSM’ world, I remember a campaign a couple of years ago, was it not something of the sort: “No means NO”. I wonder if safe words are held in such high esteem in the ‘nilla’ why it was and is necessary to keep trying to make people understand the value of the word no.

As a Dominant if you do not keep to certain values you will find yourself to be extremely lucky to find a partner, and if you will those partners will most likely be very inexperienced. Subs learn very quickly in the game to keep a very strict set of guidelines in choosing their partners, like Dom’s (and by Doms I mean male and female dominants) do. Is there a experienced submissive that will trust or respect a Dominant, that does not keep his word, that changes his mind on a flimsy, that does not use SSC. BDSM has an Darwinian quality to it that the ones that do not keep their word, that are not honourable and trustworthy find themselves quickly out of the picture, without partner praying on the inexperienced.

It has nothing to with being part of Camelot but with reality, although I personally would not mind being compared to Lancelot or Arthur and in effect take it as a compliment that you compare my world to that of Camelot. Although of course you could be comparing me to Mordrid . It is not that we in the BDSM world are more honourable by nature than vanilla people; it is circumstances that force us to be.

Take a look at Netzach and Fungi, both dominants/tops and both of them have very high standards concerning honesty and truthfulness. As stated by them in the past in lots of posts. Let me ask a question to the both of you, since interestingly enough the two of you come from different dominant perspectives; Fungi more from the online world and Netzach more from leather. If I am wrong please correct me and I apologize already in advance if I have made a mistake.

How big is the change for the two of you to find partners to play with, to have a scene with or enter a relationship in if you do not uphold values as honesty and if you are not to be trusted?

I would gladly also put the question to you Pure, but I simply do not know what your experience is in BDSM, I do not know if you are a sub, a switch, a dom or an interested bystander. What I do know is that you write excellent intelligent postings, but what your experience in the BDSM world is, I do not know. Not that I am saying that being inexperienced or not a participant makes yours or anyone’s opinion more or less valid, it just is an opinion not based on practical knowledge.

About the dangers of BDSM well I refer you to the following articles that might help you in realizing more how complex issues are and that even the simplest of SM games can be dangerous.

http://www.sexuality.org/l/bdsm/safesm2.html
http://www.houseofdesade.org/safety/offline.htm

Also this I find a very interesting article although probably more appropriate to discuss in RACK versus SSC thread started by MissTaken.

http://www.domsublifestyle.com/article9.html

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

Hi Francisco,

you said,

About the dangers of BDSM well I refer you to the following articles that might help you in realizing more how complex issues are and that even the simplest of SM games can be dangerous.

http://www.sexuality.org/l/bdsm/safesm2.html
=====

First of all, I'd remind you that I'm not saying bdsm activities are without dangers. I said many or most did not involve immediately life threatening situations. I said that the dangers are, by and large, comparable to those of other sexual practices . Which is to say that, for most activities, the knowledge, skill, foresight, medical info required of 'practitioners' is NOT peculiar to BDSM. And 'honesty' is not a peculiar requirement.

Francisco, I was involved in writing AIDS brochures for an alternative community in my city, and a sexual education counsellor for a national organization. I don't require 'help' to realize 'complex issues.'

But in that SM pamphlet, lets look at the topics, for the benefit of readers. The question being Are SM activities, by and large, more dangerous than those of other 'groups'. Lets, ftsoa, say, straight vanilla (SV); gay/lesbian[no bdsm]*GL; fetish [with no bdsm]* (F); and bdsm (B).

*To enable the comparison, I've set aside the areas of overlap amongst the groups.

Here is the list:

From the SM safety pamphlet prepared by Toronto SM activists:

HIV transmission SV,GL,F ,B [Notice that honesty is key, here]
**Safe Word B only for the sake of argument.
Lubricants SV,GL, F, B
Rectum, condom use SV,GL,F,B
Douching, Enemas SV,GL,F,B
Vagina, lubricant condoms SV,GL,F,B
Toys, cleaning SV,GL,F, B
Watersports GL,F,B
Fisting GL,B?
Rimming GL, B
Piercing, Shaving Branding GL, B
**Whipping B
Needles and Syringes, SV,GL,F,B [AIDS issues all should worry about, including whether your *partner* or *partner's other partner uses needles]
**Electricity B only, for the sake of argument.

Clearly most issues are not peculiar to BDSM, in fact, the three I've starred, if we set aside the argument on 'safe words.' About 80% of the pamphlet could make a fine guide to the GL community. Consider the example of fisting: GL (non leather) community activities in that respect are more dangerous than many BDSM activities; these, in the main 'het' subgroup don't don't commonly involve fisting; that's my impression at the BDSM forum here at Literotica.

The pamphlet, as one can see, highlights the AIDS issue, one that arose, in particular in the GL community and in the drug using 'straight' communities, so the 'knowledge' (how not to get AIDS) required of gays and lesbians is pretty high, for the last decade or so. Indeed as the pamphlet points out

Most SM activities have always been low-risk for getting HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus).

If I were to use your image, honesty (sexual past, HIV status) regarding the person with the whip is less critical (to saving your life) than regarding the person about to shove his cock into your ass.

Yes, I've written the BDSM forum guide to internet meeting, esp. with ref to bdsm. One thing I discovered, and it's obvious in seeing how the essay is laid out, is that most issues are NOT peculiar to bdsm, but have to do with the 'sex with strangers' or 'meeting strangers' or 'keeping privacy' problems.

The SM parts were worked on with Lark Sparrow, who is a lesbian sub. One of the few specific issues, iirc correctly (re read it a few days ago, as it will be posted elsewhere), is the issue of bondage by a stranger. That I concede.

As far as 'safewords' and strangers, I seem to recall suggesting NOT to getting into a situation involving reliance on them, since the other party is unknown (their 'honor', as we might put it).

Even if it were the case--as you propose-- that BDSM community 'members', recognizable amongst themselves, were more honorable, a prospective dom or sub of either sex, has no easy way of knowing if s/he is dealing with the
'genuine article', esp. since a 14 year old, or a sexual psychopath, can read extensively at literotica, learn the jargon, practice 'play' in chatrooms, etc.

I trust this will make complexities clearer, and generally supports the view that 'honor' and 'knowledge' requirements for BDSM are --by and large--not special to, peculiar to that community.

Best,

J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hello Pure It seems from what you say that your vision of BDSM community exist mainly out of internet groups. I am sure you are aware that next to the Internet there exist a complete community that meets and talks in real life. It is not possible there for a 14 year old to impersonate a dominant or an adult. I have had most of my BDSM experiences in real life and very little to none on the Internet. So yes when you are part of a real life community there is the Darwinian rule. And as you can see from stories I have told earlier I have been mentored by a female Dominant, I have lived in this so called Camelot you seem to think does not exist.

Clearly most issues are not peculiar to BDSM, in fact, the three I've starred, if we set aside the argument on 'safe words.' About 80% of the pamphlet could make a fine guide to the GL community. Consider the example of fisting: GL (non leather) community activities in that respect are more dangerous than many BDSM activities; these, in the main 'het' subgroup don't don't commonly involve fisting; that's my impression at the BDSM forum here at Literotica.

Like I said Pure, the BDSM community is a lot bigger then only literotica, fisting is something considered quite normal, also in the heterosexual BDSM groups I have been part of, and since I have been part of groups in 3 different countries, although not the States so can not claim to know that for sure, can not imagine that it is something only heterosexual or only homosexual. I have done fisting anal and vaginal.

[....]

About the pamphlet of sexuality.org, well yes I admit I pushed the cut and paste button on that one to soon. It was the wrong article to send, it deals to much with the health risk which are not only to be found in BDSM.

Francisco.

 

[Netzach]

That Darwinian aspect, I find rather lacking. I think we like to create a sense that if someone's got a bad reputation it will catch up with them, as a means to reassure new people, but I've rarely RARELY seen this happen, and when it does the person also managed not to be savvy enough to community politics to have enough "followers" to keep him/her out of hot water.

This is my experience in the pansexual/hetero world, anyway.

I saw a relatively loserly, unskilled, unattractive guy get reamed a new one by a "community leader" whom I personally trust not a minute.

He still shows up to events, though.

There is, in the same community, a Domme I would not allow at my ass with a ping pong paddle let alone a singletail and no one has ever pointed out this womans dangerousness and general lack of skill. I'm sure she'd have hundreds of recommendations.

It takes a LOT to get ousted. By the time a person has they've already done their damage, and done it multiple times.

Having hung around long enough, I have decided that the best advice I can give anyone is to hang back, watch a person, drink in their vibe and see what they DO versus what they say they do, then decide.

I'd still hold back before assuming that Pure doesn't get out much. I would say I have about equal exposure to SM as a 'net junkie, Pansexual/fetishy/girl and Leatherwoman.

As to your assertion that heteros fist too, yes, they do. But not nearly as much, not by a long shot. Slings at GLBT centric parties have lines behind them, they don't get used much at pan parties. Heterosexual players are less public about sex, in general. You are less likely to find a leather person who says "it's not about sex" it's definitely about sex! It may not ONLY be about sex, but sex feels more integral to me in the way we publicly play.

 

[Netzach]

As to the question posed to me and Fungi, I have a hard time answering it.

I don't go around thinking "ok, I uphold honesty" I just try to be honest, at times brutally so.

I listen to the things the other person tells me, the way they act with me, and I read them, and I hope I do a good job.

As for trustworthiness, I compare what the person says with what they do. If that usually matches up, nine times in ten, I begin to let my guard down.

I'm much more likely to trust someone who says "I'm married" than someone who says "We're separated. I'm working on a divorce. Really really really."

I lie to my mother on a regular basis. She is intrusive, has poor boundaries, makes me crazy at times, and I don't mean this casually, and I can't take the limited long distance contact we have at times.

If I lie to her, consistently, I don't think that affects my scene with a prospective sub. Whether it's a mother, a spouse, an employer or the tax man, a scene with a bottom is very much *here* and *now* you and me.

I see myself as something akin to a Catholic Priest. Whoever you are outside, you're with me and God now.

Although I would turn in murderers and baby-rapers, the general sinner is safe with me.

 

[Pure]

Francisco says,



[deleted]
About the pamphlet of sexuality.org, well yes I admit I pushed the cut and paste button on that one to soon. It was the wrong article to send, it deals to much with the health risk which are not only to be found in BDSM.

Same old. Same old.

You claim there are special risks to BDSM, and post a link.
I point out that your link refutes your own claim. I refute your claims about special requirements of honor or knowledge.

You say you hit the wrong button. Well it wasn't a rice pudding recipe you sent, it was a pamphlet on safety and danger in SM, by those in the Toronto Community.

You are telling us you didn't send the right one; why isn't it right?

it deals to much with the health risk which are not only to be found in BDSM

I see. That, of course was my position, so I can see how this pamphlet might spend 'too much' time agreeing with me.

By the way, Fungi and Netzach to whom you do concede experience, also agree with me.

[deleted]

J.