The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'

[Homburg]

You keep painting me as a pitiful human being and people are going to start feeling sympathy for me that despite 80 pages of harassment and abuse, I'm still here.

A hunter decides that he wants to go bear hunting. He gets his rifle, hops into his truck, and treks out into the woods. Stalking as quietly as he can, he finally spies a bear.

As he holds his breath and lines up the shot, he feels a tap on the shoulder. Looking up, it's a very large brown bear. The bear shakes his head "No" at the hunter, bends him over, pulls down his pants, and proceeds to ass-rape our intrepid hunter.

After a month or so recovering, the hunter decides he's going to go out to the woods and find that bear. He gets his rifle, hops into his truck, and treks out into the woods. Stalking as quietly as he can, he finally spies a brown bear.

Thinking that it might be the same bear, he holds his breath and lines up the shot. Then he feels a tap on the shoulder. Looking up, it's the very large brown bear. The bear shakes his head "No" at the hunter, bends him over, pulls down the hunter's pants, and proceeds to ass-rape him again.

Another month of recovery, and our boy decides he NEEDS that revenge. He gets his rifle, hops into his truck, and treks out into the woods. He stalks as quietly as he can, doubles back, and uses every trick he has. Finally spies what he thinks is that butt-raping brown bear.

He holds his breath, lines up the shot, and he feels that familiar tap on the shoulder. Looking up, it's that bear again. The bear looks the hunter up and down and says, "You ain't comin' here fer the hunting, are ya?"

 

[Stella_Omega]

If you were around at that time then you would probably recall someone named "Wulf", who took over the role of 'target' after Jon left.

Wulf argued that the trust of a submissive for his or her dom/me was a "gift", and should be respected as such.

Via Etoile's earlier post;
Bringing this to the front;
1997, the FAQ mentioned earlier:
Quote:
Folks,

Those of you curious about the recent dump of wulf-spew into a.s.b, and also
*anybody* tempted to believe any part of Wulf's angst-ridden fictional
quest-spam might wish to read this special a.s.b edition of our standard Woofie
FAQ to get a bit of perspective, hm? The FAQ was created in
alt.personals.bondage to explain the woof-critter to new users there who might
be wondering why this idiot posts his 38 part quest-spam (it's been as long as
47 parts) more or less continuously - up to 8 parts and sometimes nearly 1400
lines per day!

If you're not interested, my apologies for wasting even this small amount of
bandwidth.

The following questions are compiled from email addressed to me over the past
month or so. Most of the questions were private, although some of them were
also posted to the a.p.b newsgroup, as is the case with our lead-off and MOST
frequently asked question:

1. Who the &%$#! is WULF?

Wulf appears to be an obsessive individual who apparently is living alone in
rural Ontario, probably somewhere west of the town of Jasper.

Wulf claims to be a "master" searching for a submissive female partner, his
"beloved", who is required to conform to a list of some very rigid (and probably
very unrealistic) requirements. These requirements are detailed in an endless
personal manifesto titled "Wulf's Quest." This is a very romanticized document
presently subdivided into thirty-eight or more parts totaling about 1/3
megabytes of text weakly disguised as a personal ad, and designed to entice the
interest of inexperienced submissive women.

Wulf claims to be a professional writer, but apparently has been out of work for
some time and living in a state of poverty. In a couple of reported cases, he
has attempted to get "beloved" candidates to give him title to their cars so he
could sell the cars to meet living expenses.

2. Where the %^&#$ did this idiot come from?

Wulf first appeared on the internet about a year ago, with a series of more or
less conventional CHUDWAH style personals. For example, here's the
end of his ad dated 4/27/96:

> ...you may apply to me at W...@rc.toronto.on.ca. You will prepare for me a
>500+ word essay about you and your need to be a slave. You
> will provide me with your e-mail address and your phone number.

> I'm waiting...

> Master Wulf

A year later, wulf is still waiting. However, the internet soon found out that
this was no COMMON chudwah. Within weeks, wulf began posting the
early beginnings of his manifesto as a series of ads and articles describing
himself among other things as "brilliant and wise" and bragging that he was a
self-made master living "on the edge of society."

For his personal philosophy, Wulf presented most of the standard chudwah
fantasies - isolating his submissives from contact with the" outside world" and
reducing their intellectual and emotional environment to whatever substance he
alone would provide. He castigated mainstream Dominants as being insincere
pretenders, imitators of his own superior style of mastery

During this early series, he slipped back and forth between a voice describing
his view of slavery and one directly addressing his submissive audience, as in:

> She is willing to be your footstool, your urinal, your whipping post, your horse.

and

> You wonder how Master can love you or cherish you when he uses your
> body as a urinal or a whipping post.

He also briefly alluded to a presumably real life experience with an
unidentified live-in slave:

> From this experience I developed other techniques to prevent my slave from
> reading my thoughts and anticipating my actions.

Over a period of weeks and months, Wulf elaborated on this early comment until
the present story of "little lamb" appeared. Despite the apparent evolution of
the story, there does appears to be some evidence that the woman "little lamb"
actually existed, and that wulf's efforts to mold her into the pattern of his
"beloved" essentially drove her into a nervous breakdown.

Wulf claimed 16 years of experience, but most of the ideas he presented had long
been understood by the mainstream BDSM community to be unhealthy for real women
in a real-life long-term master/slave environment. Within a week, wulf had come
under severe criticism for his ideas. In response to the critique, wulf
(characteristically) counter-attacked.

His innate sense of personal grandeur led him to post explanatory articles with
titles such as "Wulf Speaks to Humanity." His "personal ad" changed from "Wulf
Seeks Subs" to "Wulf Seeks Lambs", and doubled in size. He justified himself by
insisting that all realities are equally valid, especially his own.

During the late spring of 1996 the situation in alt.sex.bondage deteriorated.
Confronted with the repetition ad nauseum of wulf's blend of personal angst,
biography and romantic fiction proposed as a valid BDSM philosophy and disguised
as a personal ad, various individuals in a.s.b took matters into their own
hands. Wulf's newly announced website was apparently attacked by hackers as
well as his mailbox at W...@rc.toronto.on. He disappeared from the net for a
few days and reappeared as W...@fox.nstn.ca, where he remains today.

Essentially driven out of a.s.b, he has found a haven in alt.personals.bondage,
where the transient nature of the users has provided a certain amount of
reduced-hassle security for him.

3. So does this guy have a life or what?

It seems arguable whether wulf has a "real life" in the sense that most users of
a.p.b might understand. He prides himself on being a loner located outside
mainstream BDSM, and his posts give little evidence of any current face to face
interaction with people other than a woman he calls "vicki" or "painslut."

Apart from going fishing, he has very little to do during the day but visit the
internet. He has been known to post thousands of lines of the same repetitive
unaltered text in a single day. During one three day period not long ago, wulf
singlehandedly posted over half as many lines of text to alt.personals.bondage
as ALL COMMERCIAL SPAMMERS COMBINED during the same period!

4. So why not just live and let live?

Wulf commits two basic continuing offenses in alt.personals.bondage:

First, he uses the group in an inappropriate manner, spamming the group by
posting and reposting over and over the same huge personal manifesto, most of
which remains unchanged from its initial posting. For example, in Quest-spam
No. 14, wulf is still describing a root cellar he used as a dungeon when he was
living in Toronto last summer. Similarly, his references to time are
meaningless - a reference to something happening last week may actually mean
last Summer, if it actually happened at all.

Alt.personals.bondage is intended as a newsgroup for personal ads, not a
presentation forum for endlessly detailed personal
philosophies/biographies/therapies, no matter what the perpetrator may call
them. There is no justification for wulf to hog so much bandwidth for himself,
and plenty of evidence that his spamming is an annoying ineffective waste of
resources. Imagine how congested and unusable the newsgroup would become if
every user claimed wulf's prerogative and posted in wulf's manner.

Second, wulf intentionally targets inexperienced submissive women for his
attentions. This is a group (as most genuine Doms know from having to deal with
submissives who have been injured by wulf-like critters) which is the most
vulnerable to predators who talk the talk, but actually walk a much darker and
more dangerous walk.

Wulf's romantic fiction has enough legitimate BDSM substance to mislead people
with limited real life experience. Significantly, wulf isolates himself from
the general BDSM community, and NONE of his supporters come from the ranks of
those with any significant real-life BDSM experience.

Is this a sign of a Grand Conspiracy against wulf? Actually, just the opposite.
It's the sign of an individual so out of touch with how BDSM actually works that
he can't hold his own against more knowledgeable people. Despite wulf's
accusations, his critics here are likewise not part of any coherent "plot" -
just ordinary individuals with individual gripes about wulf's misuse of the
newsgroup. Wulf's designation of "goons" includes almost anybody who has
publicly criticised wulf in any way for any reason.

5. What about all wulf's accusations about various people?

Wulf's basic style is to look at his own deficiencies and attribute them to
other people. If you want to know what wulf's personal insecurities are, look
at the accusations he makes toward others, both in his quest-spam and in his
more interactive personal attacks. He knows where his weaknesses are and
typically seeks to bolster himself by trying to tear others down to or below his
own level.

In interactive dialog, he typically reacts in copy-cat/big-lie mode - i.e., if
somebody calls wulf a dolt, he will respond by calling that person a dolt, not
once, but over and over, elaborating his response with other misrepresentations
and outright fabrications about the other party's behavior or motives. When
asked to substantiate his attacks, he ducks and runs, usually directing people
to DejaNews where he knows people would have to wade through well over 3000 -
4000 messages to find factual content, even it existed, which is rarely the
case.

Anyone interested in understanding this conflict probably SHOULD go read wulf's
early articles in DejaNews, beginning in late April, 1997. Since wulf changed
ISPs during the summer, you should search on W...@rc.toronto.on for early
messages.

6. Most people don't seem to want him here, so why does wulf hang around?

Wulf presents himself as a stoical master on a heroic quest, beset upon by the
jealous rage of lesser beings.

This idea may play well in the "country", but has not found many advocates in
cyberspace. I'm aware of several contrary conjectures which are currently in
vogue.

One is that wulf is simply a masochistic nut case who has found a really fun new
playground and is having a wonderful time leading folks on.

Another is that wulf is an abusive cyber predator who understands that
experienced submissive women are not going to fall into his clutches, so he
targets the inexperienced newbies with seductive romantic fiction.

Another is that he's a mental patient of some sort, living on public welfare and
otherwise isolated from society, with only the internet as a source of contact
with other individuals.

Whatever the truth, wulf has made it clear that he intends to stay until he
finds his "beloved." Based on past experience, that could take a very very long
time.

7. Perhaps he has only been questing for attention?

There may be something to that idea. Woof is an articulate person and despite
his rejection of mainstream BDSM culture, he does not appear to be a stupid
individual. It's hard to believe that he fails to understand at some level that
the sheer accumulated weight of his many months of net-abuse reveals the very
personality characteristics that make him unsuited to be a responsible Dom. It
is possible he has given up expecting to actually find his "beloved" here and is
now uploading his spam just to gather attention and hit back at his critics.

The continued postings may also be a red herring, or perhaps a gill-net
stretched across the newsgroup in hopes of trapping an unwary submissive while
he's busy elsewhere. Rumor has it that woof has recently shifted his attention
to AOL... Be warned.

8. So what the &^#$% can we do about this idiot?

If you're just tired of listening to him, try putting him (and for that matter,
me and the rest of his more vocal critics) in your kill-file or filter-file. If
you don't know how to set up a kill-file or filter-file, check with your ISP or
sysadmin.

If you frequent a.p.b, you'll be pleased at the result - wulf-spam alone
sometimes accounts for as much as 25 percent of the traffic in the newsgroup.

If you think wulf is dangerous, or if you object to his interminable spamming,
you have to make your own decision about what to do.

For myself, as long as I'm active on the internet and wulf keeps up his
obnoxious spamming, continues to specifically target newbie femsubs, and
generally continues to treat alt.personals.bondage as his own private hunting
ground, I'm going to keep expressing my opinion.

My thanks to a.s.b users for tolerating this special edition of the Woofie FAQ.
I hope the effort has been informative and helpful for understanding the recent
wulf-spew contamination here in a.s.b.

I suggest we simply keep on reposting these old alt.net entries over and over as evidence of this guy's intrenched nuttiness.

 

[RuReal]

You know it is funny I think I remember seeing one of those Wulf messages someplace before. reading this brought that back to me.

 

[00Syd]

Awwww, that would have been cool. The first time I ever experienced wax was with my hands tied over my head and a flogging after. There hasn't been any bondage with it since. Lots of giggling and moaning, but no bondage...

I'm pretty sure the class was on ways to do wax play without ruining all of your nice, expensive ropes. But I could be wrong. I'm not sure.

One of the local guys did a cool fire suspension scene with a lady where he set the ropes on fire, though.

That sounds awesome!

At least tell me the "something else" was worth missing the wax...

I don't remember the schedule well enough to know what we did during that exact time slot, but everything we went to was fabulous! There were so, so many great classes. It was hard to choose!

 

[chy_girl]

That sounds awesome!

If you're on Fet pm me and I'll send you the link to the pictures the guy has up from it.

 

[Etoile]

Via Etoile's earlier post;
Bringing this to the front;
1997, the FAQ mentioned earlier:

That the guy has been a one-trick pony for more than a dozen years has caused me to lose all interest. Yawn. I still like kittens, though.

 

[Stella_Omega]

If you're on Fet pm me and I'll send you the link to the pictures the guy has up from it.

Ooooooh pretttyyy....

 

[chy_girl]

That the guy has been a one-trick pony for more than a dozen years has caused me to lose all interest. Yawn. I still like kittens, though.

I thought of you and your kitties when I saw this one. Not the messed up journal part, but the lol-kitty part.

 

[chy_girl]

Ooooooh pretttyyy....

LOL - You and my Mistress...

Personally, I haven't discovered the joy of any fire not attached to a candle wick... or little burning balls of wax that use to be attached to said wick.

Have you seen any ove glove fire play yet? Now that's cool to watch... and a strong testament to the ability of said product.

 

[Etoile]

I thought of you and your kitties when I saw this one. Not the messed up journal part, but the lol-kitty part.

That made me laugh so hard I had an asthma attack. ROFL!!!

 

[chy_girl]

That made me laugh so hard I had an asthma attack. ROFL!!!

Glad you liked it. Sorry about the asthma attack, though...

 

[00Syd]

If you're on Fet pm me and I'll send you the link to the pictures the guy has up from it.

Are you the same sn on fet as you are here?

Have you seen any ove glove fire play yet? Now that's cool to watch... and a strong testament to the ability of said product.

There are a couple of guys around here who are super into fire play, and I've seen them using a glove before, yeah. It's really, a very performative type of play. I wonder if the actual sensations live up to the hype.

 

[BLoved]

Are you trying to say there is no such thing as a female submissive with low self-esteem?

Those are the ones I've talked about, as they are most at risk when faced with the tactics that have filled 80 pages of this discussion.

There are also a lot of female submissives with healthy self-esteem. The only way they're going to get involved in casual 'bdsm' is if they are misinformed regarding the risks.

And that does raise a question ... why are you and your friends trying to silence the one man who is trying to make them aware of those risks?

If you actually had a solid argument in favour of casual 'bdsm', why haven't you presented it rather than wasting 80 pages to tell everyone you intensely dislike the fact I have the freedom to express my point of view on the subject?

And there is a very good answer ... there isn't one.

And it is because there isn't a solid argument in favour of casual 'bdsm' you've wasted 80 pages trying to distract everyone by attacking me, personally.

That is the 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'.

And they are still proving me right.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

From Weakness:



Clearly, over and over, the message is made: "I want what I want and I'll do whatever it takes to get it."

You see this in the discussion forums whenever they face serious opposition.

You see this whenever you look over the vast number of male dom personal advertisements on any site where personals exist.

You see this in the ubiquitous complaints made by many female submissives regarding form letters and men who do not bother to read their ads.

You hear this whenever you talk to the submissives victimized by casual players.

Clearly it is part of the casual 'bdsm' paradigm to use deceit, subterfuge, bullying, and any other tactic they believe will get them what they want, without concern or consideration for anyone else.

Dog-eat-dog.

Used or be used.

Concepts such as "consent", "competence", "responsibility", "commitment" and "maturity" are meaningless in the casual community.

The only 'ethic' is "do whatever it takes to get what you want".

In what way does this distinguish casual 'bdsm' from date rape, assault, forcible confinement, abuse and other forms of predatory behaviour?

The BDSM element is irrelevant to the discussion of ethics. Period.

Individuals are ethical, or they are not. Regardless of the activity they are engaged in or the population segment you query. Arguing about "the ethics of casual BDSM" is just as spurious an argument as "the ethics of Islam" or "the ethics of online gaming" or "the ethics of NASCAR racing" or any other subset of human beliefs and activities.

People are people are people are people. Be they vanilla, or kinky, sci-fi geeks or mundane, happy or sad, male or female, Dominant or submissive, insert one race here or another one here, ad nauseum.

You are dealing with PEOPLE and their values and ethics.

My grandfather, wise man that he was, once told me "Geoff, my boy, if ONE man calls you a jackass - HE has a problem with you. If TWO men call you a jackass - it's a coincidence. If THREE men call you a jackass - you need to be looking for a feed bag and a harness."

 

[Kikori]

Nice to see you again, Geoff.

But educated thoughts have been proven to not work. CutieMouse has made a very good example of giving him questions that either damage his case or require thought, and earn being avoided in return.

 

[BLoved]

The BDSM element is irrelevant to the discussion of ethics. Period.

Individuals are ethical, or they are not. Regardless of the activity they are engaged in or the population segment you query. Arguing about "the ethics of casual BDSM" is just as spurious an argument as "the ethics of Islam" or "the ethics of online gaming" or "the ethics of NASCAR racing" or any other subset of human beliefs and activities.

People are people are people are people. Be they vanilla, or kinky, sci-fi geeks or mundane, happy or sad, male or female, Dominant or submissive, insert one race here or another one here, ad nauseum.

You are dealing with PEOPLE and their values and ethics.

My grandfather, wise man that he was, once told me "Geoff, my boy, if ONE man calls you a jackass - HE has a problem with you. If TWO men call you a jackass - it's a coincidence. If THREE men call you a jackass - you need to be looking for a feed bag and a harness."

"If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him." -- Mark Twain

Or let's put it another way ...

How many people on the planet say BDSM is a healthy choice, and how many say it is not?

Ethics, Geoff, is the only thing that divides BDSM from rape, assault, forcible confinement, and a number of other serious crimes.

Going to argue BDSM doesn't require ethics when a submissive's lack of consent is ignored by the guy she just met?

Going to argue BDSM doesn't require ethics when a submissive finds out the guy she just met plans on using her without a condom?

Going to argue BDSM doesn't require ethics when the submissive learns the one-night-stand she's been tied up for will also include several other people she was never told about and doesn't know?

Going to argue BDSM doesn't require ethics when someone gets it into their head that kids would make for good subs?

Why should anyone want to get involved with BDSM if there are no ethics?

The only people who benefit from a lack of ethics in bdsm are the abusers.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Nice to see you again, Geoff.

Nice to see you too, Kikori. I need to visit Lit more often! ;-)

 

[Homburg]

There are a couple of guys around here who are super into fire play, and I've seen them using a glove before, yeah. It's really, a very performative type of play. I wonder if the actual sensations live up to the hype.

When I was playing around with fire play, I used my left leg as my primary test surface. I'm not about to try something like this out on somebody else when I have perfectly serviceable body parts of my own. Anyway, my left leg was not super impressed by the sensations of applying the alcohol, lighting it on fire, and wiping it off. The hair on my leg was pretty impressed, but I don't really count its' observations.

Fire-cupping, on the other hand, was all sorts of interesting. I've also heard that flash cotton can be an interesting feeling, and devil's fire is definitely a sensation you remember. Other than that, yeah, I think it is performative and primarily for visual entertainment.

--

My grandfather, wise man that he was, once told me "Geoff, my boy, if ONE man calls you a jackass - HE has a problem with you. If TWO men call you a jackass - it's a coincidence. If THREE men call you a jackass - you need to be looking for a feed bag and a harness."

Hey Geoff! Good seeing you again.

This one is highly resistant to external reality, just so you know.

 

[FurryFury]

Good to see you!

You are the one I've come closest to having a casual BDSM scene with! LOL If only there had been enough time and fewer subs that needed it! I believe it involved fire! Or maybe eye drops.

The BDSM element is irrelevant to the discussion of ethics. Period.

Individuals are ethical, or they are not. Regardless of the activity they are engaged in or the population segment you query. Arguing about "the ethics of casual BDSM" is just as spurious an argument as "the ethics of Islam" or "the ethics of online gaming" or "the ethics of NASCAR racing" or any other subset of human beliefs and activities.

People are people are people are people. Be they vanilla, or kinky, sci-fi geeks or mundane, happy or sad, male or female, Dominant or submissive, insert one race here or another one here, ad nauseum.

You are dealing with PEOPLE and their values and ethics.

My grandfather, wise man that he was, once told me "Geoff, my boy, if ONE man calls you a jackass - HE has a problem with you. If TWO men call you a jackass - it's a coincidence. If THREE men call you a jackass - you need to be looking for a feed bag and a harness."

 

[Evil_Geoff]

How many people on the planet say BDSM is a healthy choice, and how many say it is not?

Probably as many that say Mountain Climbing or sky diving or insert high-risk behavior here is, or isn't.

Ethics, Geoff, is the only thing that divides BDSM from rape, assault, forcible confinement, and a number of other serious crimes.

An incorrect premise on the face of it. INFORMED CONSENT is what separates BDSM from those crimes. Whether one subscribes to the tenets of SSC or RACK or some other philosophical alignment under the BDSM umbrella, what we do is done with consent. If someone crosses that line of consent, that person is no longer practicing BDSM.

Going to argue BDSM doesn't require ethics when a submissive's lack of consent is ignored by the guy she just met?

Not at all. See my above statements regarding consent

Going to argue BDSM doesn't require ethics when a submissive finds out the guy she just met plans on using her without a condom?

No, but I would ask how is this different from someone getting picked up in a vanilla bar?

Going to argue BDSM doesn't require ethics when the submissive learns the one-night-stand she's been tied up for will also include several other people she was never told about and doesn't know?

No, but again, how is this any different from the gal who goes to the vanilla bar and gets gang raped on the pool table?

Going to argue BDSM doesn't require ethics when someone gets it into their head that kids would make for good subs?

Children, by definition, can't give INFORMED CONSENT, therefore, anything involving children (or mentally disabled adults) isn't covered by the BDSM umbrella

All of your questions above are spurious, straw man arguments - vanilla relationships require ethics in the same manner and situations. The BDSM aspect itself is irrelevant.

Why should anyone want to get involved with BDSM if there are no ethics?

You are arguing that the unethical practices of some make the whole activity unethical. Again, a spurious argument.

There are unethical doctors - that does not make the practice of medicine an unethical one. You would argue "Why would anyone want to get involved with medicine if there are no ethics?". There are unethical plumbers. That does not make plumbing an unethical career choice. But your argument would be "Why would anyone want to get involved with plumbing if there are no ethics?" There are unethical poker players. That does not make playing poker an unethical pastime. But you would ask "Why would anyone want to get involved with poker if there are no ethics?"

The only people who benefit from a lack of ethics in bdsm are the abusers.

The only people in BDSM who suffer from a "lack of ethics" ARE the abusers.

The rest of us are just fine, thank you.

After reading a great deal of your writing here, it would appear to be that the whole premise behind your work is that you are making yourself out to be some kind of White Knight, a lone prophet howling in the wilderness against the iniquities of an unjust society.

It is also clear that you subscribe to the belief that women are inferior, unthinking, gullible creatures that need to be protected from themselves AND that all the other men out there that aren't dressing themselves up as White Knights and promising "...and we'll live happily ever after.." are in fact, predators and abusers.

Which is as far from the truth as the Oort cloud is from the Sun. Frankly, White Knights tend to tire of 24/7 working relationships pretty quickly. They want to run off and rescue the next Damsel In Distress. Their version of "happily ever after..." ends with "... until the next real sub having a crisis requires ME to ride off and save the day."

That is the reason The Lone Ranger was The LONE Ranger.

I'm a VERY ethical person, and do "casual BDSM" play. I deal with my casual play partners as people of equal value and worth. I deal with them honestly, never promising more than I am willing and able to deliver. I honor their negotiated limits, and if an activity is NOT approved of before play starts, it stays off the table until well after the original scene is over and we can both re-negotiate with clear heads.

The people I play with and associate with are ethical people, and you disrespect each and every one of them, and me, with your broad brush strokes painting "casual BDSM", in and of itself, as an unethical activity, and therefore accusing those who practice "casual BDSM" as being unethical people for choosing to engage in casual BDSM activity.

You may wax eloquently about the beauty and harmony and joy to be found in long term, committed, power exchange relationships. I will absolutely support your right to pursue your relationships and relationship style and to tell everyone how wonderful and fulfilling it is for you and yours.

You may rant all you wish about unethical individuals. I will, in fact, support such arguments because I can't abide liars and cheats and those who would use manipulation and deceit just to get laid. My antipathy to such individuals has nothing to do with BDSM and everything to do with their lack of honesty.

But your premise that those who live and love and choose to practice this lifestyle in a manner that isn't just like your Harlequin Romance/CastleRealm cyber fantasy version of BDSM are somehow unethical simply because they choose, as responsible, consenting adults to do it differently? Sorry, bub, but that isn't going to fly.

 

[BLoved]

"If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him." -- Mark Twain

Or let's put it another way ...

How many people on the planet say BDSM is a healthy choice, and how many say it is not?

Probably as many that say Mountain Climbing or sky diving or insert high-risk behavior here is, or isn't.

So you concede that the opinion of the majority should have no bearing on the self esteem or reputation of a person.

Ethics, Geoff, is the only thing that divides BDSM from rape, assault, forcible confinement, and a number of other serious crimes.

An incorrect premise on the face of it. INFORMED CONSENT is what separates BDSM from those crimes.

So you concede that ethics is essential to bdsm.

Going to argue BDSM doesn't require ethics when a submissive's lack of consent is ignored by the guy she just met?

Not at all. See my above statements regarding consent

So you concede ethics is essential to bdsm.

Going to argue BDSM doesn't require ethics when a submissive finds out the guy she just met plans on using her without a condom?

No

So you concede that ethics is essential to bdsm.

Going to argue BDSM doesn't require ethics when the submissive learns the one-night-stand she's been tied up for will also include several other people she was never told about and doesn't know?

No

So you concede that ethics is essential to bdsm.

Going to argue BDSM doesn't require ethics when someone gets it into their head that kids would make for good subs?

Children, by definition, can't give INFORMED CONSENT, therefore, anything involving children (or mentally disabled adults) isn't covered by the BDSM umbrella

So you concede that ethics is essential to bdsm.

All of your questions above are spurious, straw man arguments - vanilla relationships require ethics in the same manner and situations. The BDSM aspect itself is irrelevant.

So despite all the examples where you refused to argue, you turn around and still insist ethics has nothing to do with bdsm.

Why should anyone want to get involved with BDSM if there are no ethics?

You are arguing that the unethical practices of some make the whole activity unethical. Again, a spurious argument.

No, Geoff. I'm arguing that casual, love-less 'bdsm' is emotionally abusive.

As a form of abuse it is unethical to practice it.

The only people who benefit from a lack of ethics in bdsm are the abusers.

The only people in BDSM who suffer from a "lack of ethics" ARE the abusers.

I see you are conceding my point.

The rest of us are just fine, thank you.

Let's see about that.

You said:

After all, if I get a bad reputation via "word of mouth" and the "subbie grapevine" the supply of play partners will dry up.

I don't seem to have any shortage of casual play partners so I must be doing something right.

Apparently you go through "play partners" fast enough to not only worry about your "supply" drying up, but to brag that you have had so many.

And you think you must be doing "something right" because your "supply of play partners" hasn't yet dried up.

Where do these play partners go when you're done with them, that you are in constant need for a fresh supply?

In what way is a constant need for more a manifestation of "doing something right"?

I'm a VERY ethical person, and do "casual BDSM" play. I deal with my casual play partners as people of equal value and worth. I deal with them honestly, never promising more than I am willing and able to deliver. I honor their negotiated limits, and if an activity is NOT approved of before play starts, it stays off the table until well after the original scene is over and we can both re-negotiate with clear heads.

And yet you are in need of a constant "supply" of yet more "play partners".

The people I play with and associate with are ethical people, and you disrespect each and every one of them, and me, with your broad brush strokes painting "casual BDSM", in and of itself, as an unethical activity, and therefore accusing those who practice "casual BDSM" as being unethical people for choosing to engage in casual BDSM activity.

And yet you are in need of a constant "supply" of yet more "play partners".

I wonder what it is like to go to these people whom you allege you treat with "equal value and worth" and tell them you're bored with them and need to pick up a new "play partner" to use.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

So you concede that the opinion of the majority should have no bearing on the self esteem or reputation of a person.

Not at all. The opinion of "the majority" regarding a particular activity has no bearing on whether or not the activity itself is "healthy" or not.

So you concede that ethics is essential to bdsm. (x6)

Again, incorrect. Ethics are essential to all human interaction, not just BDSM. Your hyper focus on BDSM completely ignores other facets of human relations and surmises that because there are unethical people practicing BDSM, that BDSM is an unethical activity. It is a fallacious argument.

So despite all the examples where you refused to argue, you turn around and still insist ethics has nothing to do with bdsm.

None of your examples have anything to do with BDSM. They are examples of unethical behavior. Period. The BDSM element you use as window dressing is irrelevant to the whether the behavior is ethical or not.

Your insistence on inserting a BDSM element into the argument is like someone putting mustard on a sandwich, then arguing that makes the lunch about mustard. Lunch is still about the sandwich, the mustard is irrelevant to the meal.

No, Geoff. I'm arguing that casual, love-less 'bdsm' is emotionally abusive.

Is casual, love-less sex emotionally abusive too? How about roller coaster rides? Or sky diving? How about boxing? Playing football or rugby or OMG, hockey? Is masturbation emotionally abusive? What other fun, exciting, consensual activities do you consider "abusive" if they aren't done with "love"?

As a form of abuse it is unethical to practice it.

It isn't unethical or abusive if the parties are aware adults consenting to the activity. It is, in fact, VERY ethical if all parties involved are walking away from the activity very happy and fulfilled with what they have shared.

Apparently you go through "play partners" fast enough to not only worry about your "supply" drying up, but to brag that you have had so many.

Actually, I don't "go through" play partners. I don't active search for play partners. They seek me out because of the reputation I have in our community as a safe, ethical, responsible Top. When they want to experience some form of play for the first time, or need a sensation scene or some damned hard play without emotional baggage, they know I won't cross their physical and emotional boundaries. I respect the people I play with, my lover and life-partner is well aware of any scenes I do with others, just as I am aware of the things she does with her boy and others.

And you think you must be doing "something right" because your "supply of play partners" hasn't yet dried up.

I KNOW I am doing something right because not only has the supply of new play partners not dried up, the supply of previous play partners who would like to play again hasn't dried up and they continue to provide referrals for others to me. If they weren't happy they would trash my reputation, and they would make damn sure that no one else sought me out.

Where do these play partners go when you're done with them, that you are in constant need for a fresh supply?

I don't need a fresh supply. I am quite happy with my Tori. However, I do enjoy types of SM play that she doesn't - for example, needle play. And she is quite happy for me to have the opportunity to poke needles in other people who DO enjoy that activity.

As I said before, those who have played with me before are more often than not regular and semi-regular play partners. They are friends, not lovers, and they often recommend me to their friends.

In what way is a constant need for more a manifestation of "doing something right"?

It isn't a need for more that is indicative of "doing something right." It is the kind words and recommendations of those I play with that is indicative of my doing something right.

It is the reputation I have within the community that indicates I am doing something right.

It is the fact that I am invited to groups around the Southeast to present on various BDSM subjects that indicates I am doing something right.

It is the fact that I am asked to publicly and privately tutor other Tops, or asked by Tops to mentor them that means I am doing something right.

I founded a BDSM group in 1999, and wrote the bylaws to limit the President of the group to two one year terms, and yet the members of the group saw fit to nominate me to other offices on the Board and to elect me to those offices for 10 years. After moving to another state, living in a town 3 hours away I tried to resign from the Board, to allow them to fill the position with someone able to serve locally, and they refused to accept my resignation. That would indicate that I am doing something right.

And yet you are in need of a constant "supply" of yet more "play partners"...

And yet you are in need of a constant "supply" of yet more "play partners".

Again, an incorrect supposition. I am not in need at all. But I am available to scene with those who would like to do so.

I wonder what it is like to go to these people whom you allege you treat with "equal value and worth" and tell them you're bored with them and need to pick up a new "play partner" to use.

Since none of them are coming to me looking for a relationship, nor am I agreeing to play with any of them on the basis of a promised relationship, there is no need to tell them I am bored (I'm not), or that I need to pick up a new play partner (I don't).

You refuse to admit to the simple reality that there are people who, for any number of reasons, are not looking for some kind of romance, love, or long term relationship at the moment. Those people may have a need to find fulfillment in some form of service. Or have a need to have a one-time scene with someone. Or semi-regular play partners.

These people are not unethical when they seek to have these and other needs met. And the people they connect with are not unethical, either. When two (or more) adults approach each other, honestly, with clearly defined needs and desires, with clearly defined boundaries, and agree to engage in those activities without ulterior motives, or baggage, that behavior is not unethical. It is absolutely ethical.

The only thing unethical here is your monotonous insistence that your way is "the one true way" and that any other form of BDSM play is unethical. You keep insisting that ethical BDSM for anyone and everyone requires "love".

Wrong.

All it requires to be ethical is honesty and consent. Some people may require a loving relationship to fully explore their submission, to engage in sexual activity, to surrender to intense SM play. Other people most emphatically do NOT require "love" in their play, and in point of fact, there are many who find that the idea of "loving" their Master/Mistress or a slave is completely antithetical to their needs and desires in a power exchange relationship.

You are not the arbiter of BDSM truth. You possess a fragment of the truth but not the whole of it

 

[Stella_Omega]

nice posts, Geoff

...Southeast, you say? Note to self; if I ever go back to Georgia...

 

[Homburg]

nice posts, Geoff

...Southeast, you say? Note to self; if I ever go back to Georgia...

Geoff is good people, and a good presenter as well.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Thanks Stella and Hom.