where did you first hear the terms for BDSM?

[4bidnfruit]

This is a lot like the argument that we get about the difference between "Real sadism" and BDSM sadism. Somewhere else I offered a link to devicebondage.com, which is pretty hardcore IMO. Someone said something like... "Well, I suppose it's like a funhouse ride for those women, they are okay at the end instead of sliced into small gobbets of flesh."

Yeah, exactly. there are Sadists in a BDSM sense of the word, and there are homicidal criminals who are tagged with the term "Sadist." The difference is subtle but unavoidable.

osg you are a real, genuine slave, and there is no question of consent, if your owner decided to sell you to an HIV+ baboon that would simply be your lot in life. If he wanted to kill you he has the right to do so--- oh, wait, he does not.

And you know damn well he's not going to do sell you You are perfectly safe making that claim, because it's never going to be put to the test.

The differences are subtle, but there.

You are NOT playing at slavery, you are a real genuine owned slave, but the differences between your situation and the ones we read about in the newspaper are as wide as the differences between eastern Sun's gangbang scenarios and the wartime tortures in Bosnia.

The little details... like unending grief, and murdered children, and amputated body parts... they are part of the definition of "the real thing." (which should, I agree, have a different word.)

I am confused~ if a person is tortured to death in a sexual manner, does the death negate the sexual aspect of the crime. If someone survived being taken off the streets, bound and tortured, would it change the correctness or incorrectness of him being tagged a sadist.

I sound like a fucking idiot and I am not trying to debate this either way, because I don’t know enough about BDSM. I’m just trying to understand why a homicidal criminal should not be tagged as a sadist. Hell, I might be as stupid as I sound and that is not what you were saying at all. I will be the first to admit that I had tunnel vision so long on the subject that sometimes I can’t see the bigger picture, even when it is right in front of me. Maybe you are saying just the opposit and BDSM isn't real sadism?

The first time I heard the term BDSM was during an investigation. In that instant, it was associated with evil, violence, torture, and a term used for sexual rage. A few years later, I met my husband and he introduced me to erotic literature and I thoroughly enjoy it but somehow I still missed that B=Bondage and D=Dominance, in a consensual world. And then i found this forum. It was right there in front of me and I just couldn’t grasp it but I had a pretty good grip on what S&M was (or so I thought).

Well, I had more to add but I think i've shared enough for now.

Edited to add.. to my knowledge i have never been touched by a sadist so please don't assume i am a suviving victim of torture. I know a good mind fuck when i see it though.. I learned that term here too.

 

[Etoile]

Don't forget that what is legally the case (eg, you cannot consent to murder) is not necessarily semantically the case (Bernd Brandes did it).

So while one cannot legally consent to slavery - and the legal definition is the one most commonly used - the semantic use of "slave" refers to one's captivity, not how one entered into captivity.

 

[where]

Don't forget that what is legally the case (eg, you cannot consent to murder) is not necessarily semantically the case (Bernd Brandes did it).

So while one cannot legally consent to slavery - and the legal definition is the one most commonly used - the semantic use of "slave" refers to one's captivity, not how one entered into captivity.

but Meiwes was not found guilty of murder, only manslaughter because you cannot consent to your own murder, only to someone killing you. So semantically and legally, Brandes wasn't murdered.

 

[ownedsubgal]

This is a lot like the argument that we get about the difference between "Real sadism" and BDSM sadism. Somewhere else I offered a link to devicebondage.com, which is pretty hardcore IMO. Someone said something like... "Well, I suppose it's like a funhouse ride for those women, they are okay at the end instead of sliced into small gobbets of flesh."

Yeah, exactly. there are Sadists in a BDSM sense of the word, and there are homicidal criminals who are tagged with the term "Sadist." The difference is subtle but unavoidable.

osg you are a real, genuine slave, and there is no question of consent, if your owner decided to sell you to an HIV+ baboon that would simply be your lot in life. If he wanted to kill you he has the right to do so--- oh, wait, he does not.

And you know damn well he's not going to do sell you You are perfectly safe making that claim, because it's never going to be put to the test.

The differences are subtle, but there.

You are NOT playing at slavery, you are a real genuine owned slave, but the differences between your situation and the ones we read about in the newspaper are as wide as the differences between eastern Sun's gangbang scenarios and the wartime tortures in Bosnia.

The little details... like unending grief, and murdered children, and amputated body parts... they are part of the definition of "the real thing." (which should, I agree, have a different word.)

i don't think you mean a million different little words. for our purposes the english language is sufficient. i don't know how many times i have to say that the differences between slaves who consented and slaves who do not are astronomical. but no matter how big the differences, if there is ownership at the bottom line, it is all slavery. that's all i've been trying to get across.

as for sadists, that one gets me too. a sadist is not someone who is turned on by inflicting someone with pain that they loooove so much they cream all over themselves. a sadist is not someone who genuinely does not wish to cause anyone harm. therefore most folks in the lifestyle who refer to themselves as sadists just aren't. most aren't even sexual sadists. but i'm not very familiar with the history of the Leather scene, perhaps "S&M" implied something entirely different within that culture, something divergent from the clinical definitions of those terms and more "sexy." and perhaps that's where the current common usage of the terms stems from. but with my literal-minded brain i get confused when someone describes themselves as a sadist but in the same breath passionately proclaim how they want their "victim" to enjoy everything they do.

and one note on being sold...you're right i feel pretty confident that my Master would never sell me, but not so confident that he wouldn't just give me away someday if i became too much for him. it has been mentioned. next to losing him from this world altogether that is my greatest fear.

 

[Etoile]

but Meiwes was not found guilty of murder, only manslaughter because you cannot consent to your own murder, only to someone killing you. So semantically and legally, Brandes wasn't murdered.

Okay, bad example.

From a semantic perspective, you can consent to being killed. Legally, you cannot, because the legal system assumes that if you are making such a statement, you must be insane and therefore lose your legal right to consent.

But you can certainly walk up to somebody and say "please kill me" and have them do it.

 

[where]

Okay, bad example.

From a semantic perspective, you can consent to being killed. Legally, you cannot, because the legal system assumes that if you are making such a statement, you must be insane and therefore lose your legal right to consent.

But you can certainly walk up to somebody and say "please kill me" and have them do it.

I'm done with this, I think

 

[Etoile]

I'm done with this, I think

But...but...we haven't invoked Godwin's Law yet! *cries*

 

[where]

But...but...we haven't invoked Godwin's Law yet! *cries*

I'll just take a short cut and accept the label of forum nazi for denying slaves of their status or something.

 

[Etoile]

I'll just take a short cut and accept the label of forum nazi for denying slaves of their status or something.

ooooooh. I see what you did thar.

 

[where]

ooooooh. I see what you did thar.

make an almost incomprehensible sentence?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I am confused~ if a person is tortured to death in a sexual manner, does the death negate the sexual aspect of the crime. If someone survived being taken off the streets, bound and tortured, would it change the correctness or incorrectness of him being tagged a sadist.

I sound like a fucking idiot and I am not trying to debate this either way, because I don’t know enough about BDSM. I’m just trying to understand why a homicidal criminal should not be tagged as a sadist. Hell, I might be as stupid as I sound and that is not what you were saying at all. I will be the first to admit that I had tunnel vision so long on the subject that sometimes I can’t see the bigger picture, even when it is right in front of me. Maybe you are saying just the opposit and BDSM isn't real sadism?

they are both labelled "sadism." One is consensual sadism, the other is criminal sadism. The Marquis De Sade, from whom the term comes, was all about the non-consent, and was also very picturesque in his descriptions-- His name got stuck to the whole thing. (Likewise that poor bastard Sacher-Masoch, who practiced a sort of wishful, non-consensual masochism that has very little bearing on what we now think of as the M in BDSM)

In other words, BOTH things are properly called "sadism" but there are huge differences in the two practices. One leads to trauma and the other leads to fulfilment. Sort of like... I dunno, driving on a freeway, and driving off a cliff.

The first time I heard the term BDSM was during an investigation. In that instant, it was associated with evil, violence, torture, and a term used for sexual rage. A few years later, I met my husband and he introduced me to erotic literature and I thoroughly enjoy it but somehow I still missed that B=Bondage and D=Dominance, in a consensual world. And then i found this forum. It was right there in front of me and I just couldn’t grasp it but I had a pretty good grip on what S&M was (or so I thought).

Well, I had more to add but I think i've shared enough for now.

Edited to add.. to my knowledge i have never been touched by a sadist so please don't assume i am a suviving victim of torture. I know a good mind fuck when i see it though.. I learned that term here too.

In my day, you did not admit to all and sundry that you wanted to be tied up and whipped-- let alone that you wanted to tie someone else up and whip them. This sense of entitlement, this desire to share and be approved of-- it amazes me.