Death By Firing Squad

[Primalex]

Actually, there are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

For a second I was worried you would contribute something interesting.

 

[Etoile]

For a second I was worried you would contribute something interesting.

Who are you, and what have you done with Primalex, the guy who started the "geek and kink t-shirts" thread? That binary joke is on tons of t-shirts!

 

[JMohegan]

Now, dear children, what has SSC and RACK to do with BDSM?

Right, they are methods and concepts how to employ BDSM or if you prefer a moral point of view. SSC and RACK are as much part of BDSM, as visiting a church is part of a religion.

I agree with this.

 

[DVS]

Now, dear children, what has SSC and RACK to do with BDSM? They both make it more PC? Wait...maybe that's PYL/pyl C.

But what's any of this got to do with a firing squad?

 

[JMohegan]

Now, dear children, what has SSC and RACK to do with BDSM? They both make it more PC? Wait...maybe that's PYL/pyl C.

But what's any of this got to do with a firing squad?

See post 3.

It's an interesting perspective, at least. Though I usually think of someone getting off on the proceedings, if I'm gonna call it kink.

 

[Vixandra]

Now, dear children, what has SSC and RACK to do with BDSM? They both make it more PC? Wait...maybe that's PYL/pyl C.

But what's any of this got to do with a firing squad?

Because if you ignore those (or blatantly disregard them) you could kill a partner(s) and end up possibly facing the death penalty? Its a stretch, because its not premeditated (hopefully) but the possibility may be there in some states.

 

[DVS]

Really? This is the ultimate in BDSM. Am I wrong? There is bondage. Sadism in the form of an institution executing a person. Discipline, certainly; the ultimate form. Masochism-maybe on the part of the condemned.

Institutional sadism? Not in a civilized society...at least not for anyone to see. Sadistic people working in the system? Maybe.

I don't see any masochism unless someone is committing crimes then trying to get caught, craving for that ultimate punishment. Maybe, as in the case of the Utah law (now changed), the condemned could pick his/her method of death. I could see a little bit of masochism there. The ultimate orgasm on society's dime? Whatever floats your boat.

 

[DVS]

Because if you ignore those (or blatantly disregard them) you could kill a partner(s) and end up possibly facing the death penalty? Its a stretch, because its not premeditated (hopefully) but the possibility may be there in some states.

I think it would be difficult to claim premeditation, but I could see some DA using it as a test case to get media attention.

 

[Primalex]

Who are you, and what have you done with Primalex, the guy who started the "geek and kink t-shirts" thread? That binary joke is on tons of t-shirts!

Yes, I know. But what has the joke to do with the topic? Nothing.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

It's not at all about consent. There is no C in BDSM.

None in Assault, nor Rape either.

 

[satindesire]

None in Assault, nor Rape either.

QFT! ...

 

[Vixandra]

I think it would be difficult to prove premeditation, but I could see some DA using it as a test case to get media attention.

I can see the headline now:

"Murder by the Master: A strange story of sex, silence and sodomy."

 

[Primalex]

None in Assault, nor Rape either.

Now this could have become an interesting debate:
"Non-consensual BDSM play - deliberate intention of rape or negligence case? The culpability of criminal acts in a kinky relationship."

Good enough for a complete thesis.

But really - you didn't want an intelligent discussion about this, right? Otherwise you wouldn't have just chucked up some words.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

But really - you didn't want an intelligent discussion about this, right?

If i had, i would have quoted someone with at least a modicum of intelligence if not a general understanding of law.

Otherwise you wouldn't have just chucked up some words.

Certainly better than spraying bullshit.

 

[DVS]

I can see the headline now:

"Murder by the Master: A strange story of sex, silence and sodomy."

Oooooh, sodomy.

 

[Vixandra]

Oooooh, sodomy.

Thought you'd like that. I like the alliteration of it.

 

[Primalex]

If i had, i would have quoted someone with at least a modicum of intelligence if not a general understanding of law.

What for? You wouldn't be able to discuss with someone so superior.

 

[Etoile]

Now see, aren't we all happy the thread stayed over here?

 

[Netzach]

How exactly is non-consensual violence BDSM?

If you think BDSM is any garden variety act of violence, then you can get in a bar fight and try acting like it's an SM scene. Fight Club notwithstanding, it's not.

"BDSM" is a culturally specific doomahickey pretty dependent on being a well fed westerner who doesn't have violence lapping at your toes every day as part of your life.

You're not going to find a lot of "BDSM" going on in cultures normalizing violence, pain and ritual - in other ways. Some people look for BDSM content in every exchange they look at - I've always maintained that if it doesn't know it's BDSM, it pretty much isn't. Kink, rough sex, fucked up, totally healthy, inverted sexuality, twisted little relationship, beautiful sexual music, masochistic - whatever. But it's not the acrynom-based understanding of sexuality under the lens "BDSM."

So "rack and ssc has nothing to do with BDSM" is, to me, pretty nonsensical. It's just brutality without explicit complicity from the person being brutalized. Awareness and consent are the factor that moves it into another category from garden variety violence, which just ain't so fucking special sunshine.

Not every time someone gets an awed spiritual tingly feeling is religion, in other words. Sometimes it's just gas - Martin Luther should have considered the possibility.

 

[satindesire]

"What does consent have to do with BDSM" is like "What does food have to do with eating?"

One cannot exist without the other. Period.

 

[JMohegan]

How exactly is non-consensual violence BDSM?

If you think BDSM is any garden variety act of violence, then you can get in a bar fight and try acting like it's an SM scene. Fight Club notwithstanding, it's not.

"BDSM" is a culturally specific doomahickey pretty dependent on being a well fed westerner who doesn't have violence lapping at your toes every day as part of your life.

You're not going to find a lot of "BDSM" going on in cultures normalizing violence, pain and ritual - in other ways. Some people look for BDSM content in every exchange they look at - I've always maintained that if it doesn't know it's BDSM, it pretty much isn't. Kink, rough sex, fucked up, totally healthy, inverted sexuality, twisted little relationship, beautiful sexual music, masochistic - whatever. But it's not the acrynom-based understanding of sexuality under the lens "BDSM."

So "rack and ssc has nothing to do with BDSM" is, to me, pretty nonsensical. It's just brutality without explicit complicity from the person being brutalized. Awareness and consent are the factor that moves it into another category from garden variety violence, which just ain't so fucking special sunshine.

Not every time someone gets an awed spiritual tingly feeling is religion, in other words. Sometimes it's just gas - Martin Luther should have considered the possibility.

If you want the acronym, take it, along with all the other cultural labels.

Personally I see a difference between restraint, control, and sadism that is sexualized, and restraint, control, and sadism that is not. This is the difference between tying someone to the bed as a prelude to fucking, and tying someone to the bed so they'll be out of the way while you rob the house.

There is such a thing as nonconsensual but sexualized sadism. Regrettably, not just in the fantasy world. The way I see it, consent is part of the line that divides ethical sexualized sadism from the despicable kind. (The other part of that line being effect on the subject.) But I do not consider consent itself to be an intrinsic part of the urge.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

What for? You wouldn't be able to discuss with someone so superior.

Congrats on proving Ron White correct on both counts.

 

[Stella_Omega]

If you want the acronym, take it, along with all the other cultural labels.

Personally I see a difference between restraint, control, and sadism that is sexualized, and restraint, control, and sadism that is not. This is the difference between tying someone to the bed as a prelude to fucking, and tying someone to the bed so they'll be out of the way while you rob the house.

There is such a thing as nonconsensual but sexualized sadism. Regrettably, not just in the fantasy world. The way I see it, consent is part of the line that divides ethical sexualized sadism from the despicable kind. (The other part of that line being effect on the subject.) But I do not consider consent itself to be an intrinsic part of the urge.

sure-- but the current definition of BDSM does not include nonconsensual sexual abuse.

Sure, it used to, back when there was Masochism and Sadism, named after two of the most clumsy and primitive fantasists to ever have disgraced the printed page. Back then, masochism was considered a psychosis that was best treated by electric therapy and straight jackets. And sadism-- was a brutal, possibly homicidal personality quirk.

 

[JMohegan]

sure-- but the current definition of BDSM does not include nonconsensual sexual abuse.

Sure, it used to, back when there was Masochism and Sadism, named after two of the most clumsy and primitive fantasists to ever have disgraced the printed page. Back then, masochism was considered a psychosis that was best treated by electric therapy and straight jackets. And sadism-- was a brutal, possibly homicidal personality quirk.

Take the acronym meant: define BDSM however you want. If you don't want to include all sexualized versions of restraint, control, and sadism, then don't. I have no vested interest in cultural kink.

I'm talking about how sexualized sadism feels to me. Consent has nothing to do with the urge, just as consent has nothing to do with the urge to fuck.

 

[satindesire]

Take the acronym meant: define BDSM however you want. If you don't want to include all sexualized versions of restraint, control, and sadism, then don't. I have no vested interest in cultural kink.

I'm talking about how sexualized sadism feels to me. Consent has nothing to do with the urge, just as consent has nothing to do with the urge to fuck.

No, consent has nothing to do with urges. It has nothing to do with fantasies, either.

Consent has everything to do with legal actions. You fuck without consent, that's rape. You go to jail. Consent has EVERYTHING to do with actions that don't have legal consequences.