The Jovanovich Case in New York

[cymbidia]

and personally, i don't see what's wrong...

... with trying to draw a line, for the purposes of this conversation, between SSC-centered BDSM sexual activites and those in which SSC principles may not come into play.



If i'm off base, please do tell me.

If you're offended at a word or a couple words taken from anything i've said here, please indicate that, too.

I don't know where where the hell this elitist crap has come from but i know i don't feel that way, never have, and i will *not* become someone's whipping girl because they think i'm promoting such a concept.

 

[SpectreT]

Re: because this is where those words came from...

Yep, those were the ones. It wasn't a nasty-bad, hurt, insulted kinda sting, but there was a definite feeling of: "Hey, she could be talking about me... do I approach the level of involvement that she was discussing? Or was I just "piddling in her pool" all those years ago? Am I a fraud who was just playing games?"

I took a look at the list of questions, and realized I'm not a target of those remarks. But it worries me that I could even have had to ask myself the questions, that I had to say, "Yikes! am I a flake or a dilletante?"

<wandering off to contemplate myself and my mind a bit more>

 

[SpectreT]

Re: and personally, i don't see what's wrong...

... with trying to draw a line, for the purposes of this conversation, between SSC-centered BDSM sexual activites and those in which SSC principles may not come into play.



If i'm off base, please do tell me.

If you're offended at a word or a couple words taken from anything i've said here, please indicate that, too.

I don't know where where the hell this elitist crap has come from but i know i don't feel that way, never have, and i will *not* become someone's whipping girl because they think i'm promoting such a concept.

It wasn't the drawing of the line, but the fact that I had to ask myself which side of it I'm on that bugged me. I don't think you're an elitist snob. I would've seen that a long time ago, you would've written me off as a poseur or a jackass if you were an elitist.

In short, upon reflection I was the problem, not your words. I thought I finally had myself figured out, then you went and made me question myself. not my favorite thing to do. So, My bad. We on the same page, now?

and this is hell and gone from the topic, no?

 

[pierced_boy]

Riling against generalizations

.

 

[cymbidia]

You know what, Harry? I've been there, done that with this whole respect/nilla/whatever arguement before. Twice.

The last go round was in January. Before that it was sometime early last summer.

I'm not doing it again, not with you, not with anyone.

Go here. Read these.
http://www.literotica.com/forum/sea...d=168630&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

If you still think i'm some kinda elitist snob after you read it, feel free.

If you elect not to read these and decide to keep thinking i'm some kinda elitist snob, feel free to do that, too.

I'm just not becoming embroiled in this arguement again. Not over in the GB where i've been with it twice before and certainly not here.

I don't have to.
I'm not a BDSM elitist.
I've never been a BDSM elitist.
I'm all done trying to prove that point.

 

[CarolineOh]

Re: Mixed

Caroline I do feel rancor at the liar stuff and I make singular mention of this. I seek to offer some balance against what I see as a sweeping statement, a generalisation. I would be happy to debate this with you or anybody else as long as they take in the entirety of what I said. I have taken this up with CYM offline a well as here.

H

I have no interest in debating with you about anything.

 

[pierced_boy]

Cym Thankyou

.

 

[cymbidia]

Here. Have another link.
http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61442&highlight=BDSM

 

[James Blandings]

Thank you, Lavender.
I attended a discussion recently about legal issues in bdsm, and that is an issue that was raised. There were anecdotes related, and of course, I can't cite cases or verify facts, in which dominants were prosecuted when doctors or other third parties saw bruises or other marks on their partners, and in these cases, supposedly, the submissive partner's statements that they had consented to the activities were disallowed because the courts ruled they would not consent to their own "abuse" unless they were psychologicaly coerced.
As I said, these cases are nothing I can verify, they may be urban legends.
Again, thanks for you reply.

I think I know the case you are thinking of, although I'm sorry to say I cant think of the name.
Basically, what happened was, a married couple engaged in some very heavy playing, which left the wife with very appaent marks. Shortly afterwards, they were going out, and she shut her leg in the car door and broke it.
The emergency room personel saw the marks and called the police, who arrested the husband for domestic abuse. The fact that the wife said it was consentual play was not allowed for a defense because the court ruled that battered wives were basically brainwshed into denial that they were abused.
If I recall correctly, and this was 5 or 6 years ago, so I may not, the husband plea bargained to a lesser charge.

 

[RisiaSkye]

Those of you who know cym at all should know that she's not trying to be an elitist snob. She's trying, I think, to celebrate the beauty and potential of BDSM, and separate it from the ugliness and the worst potential of kinky sex gone horribly wrong.

And the 'nilla wars? It's old, it's tired. It's a word, a catch-all for those who don't understand the idea (at least) of kink. In a sense, it's really just shorthand for those who don't intellectualize their sex to the extent of analyzing it endlessly, as we tend to do. There is, perhaps, a suggestion of superiority to it. It is, I think, pride rather than an intended blow to anyone else. It is, I think, a way of expressing cohesion and community and a mutual appreciation of an idea between people who've had to work very hard and against the vast majority of their social conditioning and surroundings in order to reach that connection to each other.

I know why it bothers you, and I'm sorry it gives offense at times. At the same time, I also think that people tend to choose to take offense to it, because they feel left out, because it makes them feel like outsiders. It is, in that way, very much like the word "pervert." It hurts to be made outcast, but among friends the word doesn't sting. I think we should just all consider ourselves friends here, and be done with it already. But, that's just me.

It's straightforwardly stupid for anyone at all to allow themselves to be put into an isolated situation with someone s/he has only gotten to know via online means. Flat out: such a move is dangerous.

This isn't exclusive to online meetings, either. Not meeting face-to-face just makes it easier to make stupid choices, because you have even less opportunities to trust your reactions to an *actual* person, rather than a persona.

I think we've come a long way since this ugly incident took place in 1996 in terms of our awareness of predators out there utilizing the net as a stalking ground. I can't imagine too many of us, young or old, are so blindly stupid these days as to go private with someone s/he's just met from the net, though i know it happens. It is, i think, a thing that happens with far less regularity now then it did seven or eight years ago when the net was still something relatively new.

Oh, cym, tell me you aren't sticking to this line. How many people, including experienced submissives with strong wills, fail to be safe with a new partner? How many don't follow through on their safe calls, let themselves be gagged with someone relatively new, or trust their gut instincts or the positions someone holds in a community well before they have any solid reasons to trust someone? How many have had an experienced Dom/me step over the edge at least once, have had a session go unexpectedly sour? Come on, girl; I know you aren't this naive.

I *get* where you're coming from, wanting to draw a distinction between the so-stupid-they-should-both-get-an-ass-kicking participants in this case, and the sensitive, self-aware, perfectly happy and generally just-great members of the BDSM community. It's uncomfortable, and really unfair, that such behavior gets lumped in with the choices made by informed and perfectly trustworthy people looking for their own kind of love. But, the fact is that before the law, actions are not the same as motivations, except when it comes to sex. And that's where this whole thing hinges, in terms of it mattering to *US.*

Whether or not it was *really* rape, this case affects us, and it's wrong, I think, to brush it aside. This case, and the others like it, are exactly the reason that SSC is so important. And, for all the lip service we give to it, how many of us can *truly* say we always practice it? How many of us are lucky not to have ended up in jail, in the hospital, or worse?

There's a reason that the 'nilla () world sees us as dangerous. And we are, far too often, our own worst enemies when it comes to those perceptions and stereotypes. Face it--we are dangerous, as a consequence of our own choices. It's not like we're playing with Legos here. In the wrong hands or with the wrong communication, very real danger permeates what we do, and love doing, together in BDSM relations. If nothing else, we're a danger to ourselves when we fail to follow SSC principles.

It's all well and good to draw lines in the sand between "Us" (the good, smart, well informed and fully consenting perverts) and "Them" (the dangerously uninformed to downright scary people). But, we have to live by those lines, too. Otherwise, it's all a lot of semantics and self-delusion.

She called herself a slave, and she may have meant it.
Our desire to separate this case from our own lives and realities does nothing to erase the fact that two lives are severely damaged, at the least.

Rather than argue about whether or not this case matters to us, can't we choose to look at the ways that it does? Let's just try it. So, how do we solve this? How do we make sure that people watch out for themselves, that they do their level best to stay safe and to protect themselves, without forclosing the options for people to ever develop the intense and heightened level of trust that our kind of love demands? How do we truly create separation between foolish and dangerous games, and real searches for intimacy and connection?

Semantics alone won't do it.

 

[pierced_boy]

On snobs, liars and my rancid post.

Cym

I have looked at the threads you sent. Only sampled as I don't have time to take it all in. I saw little there to change how I feel and I have looked again at the threads that offended me so, I still feel the anger. I will post a simple last (for me) response to that thread.

Cym I wrote those words because I was incensed at what I read in the thread. I saw wide ranging insults and generalisations hung on all "nilla" people. Dangerous behaviour, recklessness, stupidity etc. While the assertions may be true for some they are not general asure you (not here anyway).

The prospect is as absurd as this

"Those Americans, they ALL think Sienfield is FUNNY. Shit and they've got the bomb?"

About "nilla" I don't have a problem with the word, never did. It is
jargon to my mind.

About elitism. I have felt it, others have felt it, you have taken
the issue up twice before. Why does it get raised at all?

You assert you are not a snob Cym I believe you.

About liars, I still feel disappointed and saddened that you expect everybody is lieing. It is not not not my experience at all. If it is your 's then it is all the sadder.

Anyway time to go I hear the millipedes and slugs calling me to an interesting discussion on fungi so I'm off back under my rock.

Bye

H

 

[petrel]

eerm, wow *shielding head as I tiptoe into the middle of it all*

Alot of issues have sprung up on here - it seems like all of us at one time or another have experienced the injustice of being judged and labelled by others. Being Bi, Gay, Pervy, Fetishist, BDSMer whatever - anything that deviates from whatever is the norm for your home town is difficult. I know I've had my share of flack over the past 10 years since I came out as Bi and then as being into BDSM and then as a switch.
I guess the problem (or one of them) is that some of us have been dealing, arguing and trying to stand up for ourselves for a long time and when someone else comes along and raises the same issues it feels like - 'oh god not again!!'
for the record here's my contribution to the things that have popped up here:

Cym, I am guessing that by SSC BDSM you mean people who talk about and use safe words, who understand the issues of consensual pain etc etc.
I can see that there is a line between that type pf play where you have admitted that there is the possibiltiy of things going further than a little thrill and 'pretending' to hurt or tie someone up. I think you 'could' be right - I know there is a big difference between what I used to feel at the thought or pretedn play of spankign and the headspcae I got into when I actually got a proper one. I guess by this qualificaiton BDSM play is about pushing things a little about getting aroused from actions that woudl normally leave you hurting. Hey if I had the right words for this life woudl be alot simpler!!
What I do know however is that if someone had said to me 12 months ago - you're just into Kinky play not BDSM I 'might' have been discouraged and felt as if I wasn't allowed to explore any further - it was a club I wasn't a memebr of. I don't hink anyone on here has ever said that type of thing to anyone else and I hope none of us will.
Telling someone (if they ask) that the stage they are at it is probably Kink rather than BDSm (at the moment) and then explaining the headspace of BDSM is not half as insulting as the putdown of 'you're JUST into kink'

pierced-boy - I don't htink cym is an elitist of any type, I can appreciate your anger however as it is difficult when you are exploring BDSM or anhtign else for that matter and you feel as if you are being judged and found wanting because you don't play hard enough or something - I got alot of that beign Bisexual when I was with my last girlfriend - I couldn't possibly be really in love/lust with her after all I wasn't a proper lesbian - the fact that I had never pretended to be a lesbian and that I stayed with her for far longer than the majority of the Scene relationships lasted was irrelevant (sorry digression there)

Maybe we all need to stand up and say - this is me, I don't accept labels, and I don't accept being pushed out of places, but equally I will not label others.

Re 'nilla. Its a word and hey its only a bad word if you think that everyone who doesn't do BDSM is a sad git!! saying someone likes/prefers vanila sex isn't a nasty comment it only become's nasty when we start to use prefectly acceptable words as insults. I rember someone trying to piss of a friend of mine by saying your a bastard - and he replied yes I am - cos he was. The defination of bastard is someone who was born outside a marriage - and he was. It wasn't an insult in the word the insult was in the tone of the person saying it.

and this is where we get the problem of online communicaitons - you can't hear someones tone of voice or see their face. - We all need to tread carefully and be kind to each others foibles and touchy points.

If we stand up for each other no-one else can get to us - right

Lav, I appreciate you posting the case - it rasied interesting points in my head and I am always glad to learn something more. I didn't (and still don't) think that you posted this to say 'BDSM is bad and dangerous' I thought you posted it to make us think, get views on how to avoid this happening and maybe to warn people of what can happen!

anyway that's my contribution - I'm gonna back away very slowly and carefully now so's not to tread on anyones feelings that are lying all over the floor.


now you all take a rose, smell the perfume and take several deep breaths!!

 

[petrel]

Sorry about any spelling mistakes and typo's in that last post -
It got really difficult to edit in the titchy little panel which is all my laptop screen gives me to type in!

 

[James Blandings]

My thoughts on some of the issues that have been raised here.
On the BDSM/kink thing, I believe that what cym was trying to express, (and if I am wrong, I will be glad to have her correct me) is that BDSM is a more closely defined practice than kinky sex, that it is an actual way of life built on an understanding of what is involved in practicing these activities, that encompasses all aspects, mental and psychological (some might say spiritual too) as well as physical. This doesnt put down the physical, just puts it in a context. If we can agree that BDSM is defined by the SSC credo, then any thing that does not accept that credo is, by definition, not BDSM. Is that close, cym?
Which leads me to my second point, that people seem to assume that people are making a value judgement when they use certain terms. BDSM is different from kinky sex, that doesnt mean there is anything wrong with kinky sex. And being vasnilla isnt worse or less than being Kinky, just different. I cant understand why anyone would think it was an insult to be called vanilla. Vanilla is tasty and versatile. It is also very commonly enjoyed. using that word to describe non-kink stuff is a good description in my view, and there is no insult intended by using it. Of course, any word can become a slur if the thought behind it is hurtful, but the term itself is not insulting.