Death By Firing Squad

[DVS]

the judge

That's scary.

 

[4bidnfruit]

I would not want the responsibility of making the decision on someone’s life because I don’t want blood on my hands. However, I believe I’d be disappointed in a few bullets to the chest if I cared enough to witness an execution, especially since they covered his face.

Just wanted to give my 2 cents on topic. I started out with a few more but that was based on consent. Interesting topic here and it raises a lot of questions in my mind but before i go running off with the fingers, I need to review and get my thoughts together.

 

[Seurat]

Not to go completely off topic, but I think they should have gotten it right the first time with this guy.

http://articles.mcall.com/2010-06-2...hampton-borough-home-morganelli-allentown-man

 

[Stella_Omega]

I agree with you, that consent has nothing to do with sexual desire or sadistic urges (or behavior) per se. Since I personally think of "BDSM" in a non-culturally specific way, I further agree that consent has nothing per se to do with JM-defined "BDSM" or kink (i.e., sexualized restraint, control, or sadism throughout all of humanity and across all time).

you're talking about a kink-- but the non-con -- if actually practiced that way, as opposed to the fantasy-- puts it outside the realm of BDSM.

But the point that others are making here is that BDSM - the acronym, in its widely recognized and culturally identifiable form - is itself a social construct. A set of mores and behavioral standards. Devised in the modern era by kinksters, to legitimize certain behaviors and prevent punishment through that other social construct, the law.

Exactly-- And until that particular construct came into being, the acronym BDSM did not exist... that term is very very specific.

Of course, the notion of full risk awareness and unequivocal consent is an ideal or goal - even among BDSM practitioners. Some live up to it, some don't.


You can break the rules, and still be playing ball. That's why they have refs and umpires. Penalties, lost yardage, etc.

Similarly, violation of consent, and abuse, occur in culturally identifiable BDSM relationships or exchanges. Props to the culture for setting the standard. Shame on the culture for pretending that violation of the standard never occurs.

Violations of the code are a constant topic of discussion. people talk about cases, they warn newbies about possibly dangerous potentials, there are thousands of articles easily available about staying as safe as possible in BDSM-- all of which talk about violations.

We don't have refs and umps, we only have community education and when possible, community pressure. So, that's the way we do it, and that's why we argue with people who conflate non-consentual abuse and torture with BDSM-- to keep that difference clear and present.

 

[Primalex]

But the point that others are making here is that BDSM - the acronym, in its widely recognized and culturally identifiable form - is itself a social construct. A set of mores and behavioral standards. Devised in the modern era by kinksters, to legitimize certain behaviors and prevent punishment through that other social construct, the law.

If this would be the case, they would not have had the urge to define SSC and RACK. The Geneva Convention is not intrinsically part of the concept 'war', no matter how many countries sign the convention. And let's face it: If the States would have to choose between losing a war and breaking the Geneva Convention, what would be the decision? Moral standards are followed as long as it's opportune to do so.

 

[Seurat]

If the States would have to choose between losing a war and breaking the Geneva Convention, what would be the decision? Moral standards are followed as long as it's opportune to do so.

Considering the actions of the United States (and almost all other countries) when comparing actions to the 'grave breaches' of the Geneva convention,

* willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
* willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
* compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power
* willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial
* taking of hostages
* extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
* unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.

I think I'd be hard pressed to find a country that hasn't justified breaking the Geneva Convention to survive a war, let alone win it.

I find it somewhat amusing that these actions, in a somewhat ameliorated fashion, are the basis for some of the better BDSM interactions, fantasies, and topics of literature.

* willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments - treating people as animals or furniture, beating/whipping, etc.

* willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health - everything from erotic asphyxia to needle play.

* compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power - giving a sub to another dom.

* willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial - punishing without cause other than to punish.

* taking of hostages - kidnap and hostage fantasies.

* extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly - removal of personal effects or generalized humiliation.

* unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement - Bondage, anybody?

 

[JMohegan]

Violations of the code are a constant topic of discussion. people talk about cases, they warn newbies about possibly dangerous potentials, there are thousands of articles easily available about staying as safe as possible in BDSM-- all of which talk about violations.

We don't have refs and umps, we only have community education and when possible, community pressure. So, that's the way we do it, and that's why we argue with people who conflate non-consentual abuse and torture with BDSM-- to keep that difference clear and present.

But the warnings often say things like: "Here's how you know he's not a Dom, just an abuser." It's this notion that BDSM practitioners are, by definition, adhering to the ideal that I find absurd.

This is actually a perennial topic of discussion on the board. One of the better threads on the subject may be found here, if you're interested.

Perhaps I misunderstood your previous post (quoted below). To me your analogy seemed to suggest a belief that violating the bounds of consent would be comparable to picking up a football in a basketball game. Meaning, you would no longer be practicing basketball (BDSM.)

Analogies aside, here's my question. Let's say that an s in a D/s relationship tells her D: Face slapping is off the table. Over time, he makes the judgment that she can not only take it without falling apart, but might actually find it hot. So one day, he slaps her face anyway. Clearly violating the bounds of previously expressed consent. What just happened? Obviously it's a risky move on his part, from a trust perspective. But was it a non-BDSM event, by definition?

BDSM practitioners have overwhelmingly defined BDSM-- as a set of practices that take place with consent. The consent itself is what makes it BDSM. Minus consent it's abuse, or rape, or assault, or torture, or murder. It doesn't matter if the perp gets off on those things, they are still-- not-- BDSM.

There are lots of ball games. There are balls that are idle with no one playing with them. You change the rules of basketball, or pick up a football toplay it with and it's not basketball.

 

[satindesire]

Analogies aside, here's my question. Let's say that an s in a D/s relationship tells her D: Face slapping is off the table. Over time, he makes the judgment that she can not only take it without falling apart, but might actually find it hot. So one day, he slaps her face anyway. Clearly violating the bounds of previously expressed consent. What just happened? Obviously it's a risky move on his part, from a trust perspective. But was it a non-BDSM event, by definition?

In my opinion...no.

He 'decided' without speaking to her, making a choice FOR HER, without her consent. That's not BDSM, that's him taking her limit and basically shitting on it. Whether he thought she could "take it without falling apart" or not, he still should have talked to her.

There are a lot of things that would be NOT OKAY in. Say, he decides that she could deal with him fucking another woman even though monogamy WAS the only acceptable practice in that relationship. He goes out and does it, does that make it BDSM?

No, that makes it cheating. She said no. He did it anyway, without asking or talking about it.

It's not BDSM and to me, not okay.

 

[JMohegan]

In my opinion...no.

He 'decided' without speaking to her, making a choice FOR HER, without her consent. That's not BDSM, that's him taking her limit and basically shitting on it. Whether he thought she could "take it without falling apart" or not, he still should have talked to her.

There are a lot of things that would be NOT OKAY in. Say, he decides that she could deal with him fucking another woman even though monogamy WAS the only acceptable practice in that relationship. He goes out and does it, does that make it BDSM?

No, that makes it cheating. She said no. He did it anyway, without asking or talking about it.

It's not BDSM and to me, not okay.

In my view, the relationship doesn't instantly morph into vanilla, just because he fucked around. I'd call that cheating in a D/s relationship.

Just as people who take that vow re forsaking all others, but then go out and cheat on their spouses, don't automatically stop being married. It's a violation of the terms of the social construct, sure. But all by itself, breaking the rule doesn't dissolve the construct itself.

Back to the slapping - he may have assumed that pushing through that particular "limit" would be an effective and ultimately acceptable means of dominating his partner. He might be wrong, but in some cases he might be right. Not all s-types in that situation would walk out the door and never look back, or even get pissed off about it. Depending on the person and circumstances, his guess that she would end up taking it well might be right.

For the record, I'm not endorsing cheating or nonconsensual slapping - regardless of the flavor of relationship. Just giving my opinion on the subject of violations of consent in BDSM.

 

[Netzach]

If this would be the case, they would not have had the urge to define SSC and RACK

This was pretty much mandated by the assumption of the society at large that there is no difference between what's done in organized Leather and what shows up on the nightly news. The acronym-driven explanations were rooted in survival and self-articulation, not some kind of a PR snow job, as you're suggesting.

The original intent in "safe" in SSC was simply "we're trying not to transmit HIV to every third one of us, that's not the end goal" - it never was meant to imply that play should be devoid of all risk. It was coined at the height of the decimation of the community, the height of the Regan era policy, the height of the feeling that SM might be a kind of death cult.

 

[Stella_Omega]

But the warnings often say things like: "Here's how you know he's not a Dom, just an abuser." It's this notion that BDSM practitioners are, by definition, adhering to the ideal that I find absurd.

This is actually a perennial topic of discussion on the board. One of the better threads on the subject may be found here, if you're interested.

Perhaps I misunderstood your previous post (quoted below). To me your analogy seemed to suggest a belief that violating the bounds of consent would be comparable to picking up a football in a basketball game. Meaning, you would no longer be practicing basketball (BDSM.)

Hmm. By "violating the bounds of consent" do you mean the guy who kidnaps a woman, rapes her repeatedly, maybe leaves the mangled remains of her body for her parents to find-- to take an extreme example? Because there is no consent at all, there. That's kidnapping, torture and murder.

Or do you mean, the guy who took guys back to his apartment on the pretext of playing, strung them up and battered them pretty heavily (ignoring safe words I need hardly mention) then let them go assuring them the cops would never listen to a faggot like them...

That guy is a sadist who knows the words that signal BDSM. He's the kind that the community warns newbs about.

That guy is doing time now, because surprise surprise, there are cops out there that do listen to fags.

There are extreme scenes, sure. Consent can be pretty iffy, and hard to believe for the onlookers. There are no hard and fast lines. But there is a bit of "know it when you see it." Frat boys roofing a coed and fucking her while she's unconcious-- nope, not BDSM. A gangbang at the Leather Rose on a Saturday night-- yep, BDSM.

Analogies aside, here's my question. Let's say that an s in a D/s relationship tells her D: Face slapping is off the table. Over time, he makes the judgment that she can not only take it without falling apart, but might actually find it hot. So one day, he slaps her face anyway. Clearly violating the bounds of previously expressed consent. What just happened? Obviously it's a risky move on his part, from a trust perspective. But was it a non-BDSM event, by definition?

You've answered your own question by the way you've framed it, really.

 

[Homburg]

In my view, the relationship doesn't instantly morph into vanilla, just because he fucked around. I'd call that cheating in a D/s relationship.

Why would it morph into vanilla because of a breach of consent? It's not an either/or situation. A relationship can be not-vanilla and likewise not-BDSM. BDSM is a cultural thing, a social construct with certain conventions. Break those conventions and you are no longer really playing within the same boundaries that the rest of the culture is.

The core concept here is that when consent is breached, it ceased to be what the vast majority of BDSM participants consider to be positive, healthy BDSM.

 

[JMohegan]

Hmm. By "violating the bounds of consent" do you mean the guy who kidnaps a woman, rapes her repeatedly, maybe leaves the mangled remains of her body for her parents to find-- to take an extreme example? Because there is no consent at all, there. That's kidnapping, torture and murder.

Or do you mean, the guy who took guys back to his apartment on the pretext of playing, strung them up and battered them pretty heavily (ignoring safe words I need hardly mention) then let them go assuring them the cops would never listen to a faggot like them...

That guy is a sadist who knows the words that signal BDSM. He's the kind that the community warns newbs about.

That guy is doing time now, because surprise surprise, there are cops out there that do listen to fags.

There are extreme scenes, sure. Consent can be pretty iffy, and hard to believe for the onlookers. There are no hard and fast lines. But there is a bit of "know it when you see it." Frat boys roofing a coed and fucking her while she's unconcious-- nope, not BDSM. A gangbang at the Leather Rose on a Saturday night-- yep, BDSM.
You've answered your own question by the way you've framed it, really.

By "violating the bounds of consent," I meant literally that. Behavior that goes beyond that to which the other person has consented.

There are extreme forms of that violation, as you mention, and then there are lesser examples, such as the nonconsensual slap in my example.

 

[JMohegan]

Why would it morph into vanilla because of a breach of consent? It's not an either/or situation. A relationship can be not-vanilla and likewise not-BDSM. BDSM is a cultural thing, a social construct with certain conventions. Break those conventions and you are no longer really playing within the same boundaries that the rest of the culture is.

The core concept here is that when consent is breached, it ceased to be what the vast majority of BDSM participants consider to be positive, healthy BDSM.

We're not talking about the difference between "positive, healthy BDSM" and unhealthy BDSM. We're talking about whether the cheating would automatically make the relationship non-BDSM.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Why would it morph into vanilla because of a breach of consent? It's not an either/or situation. A relationship can be not-vanilla and likewise not-BDSM. BDSM is a cultural thing, a social construct with certain conventions. Break those conventions and you are no longer really playing within the same boundaries that the rest of the culture is.

The core concept here is that when consent is breached, it ceased to be what the vast majority of BDSM participants consider to be positive, healthy BDSM.

I would rather say that when there was no issue of consent in the first place-- or when one person (the sadist, usually of course) lied about what they were asking consent for-- then it isn't BDSM. If you ask a nice lady out for coffee and then rape her, that's not BDSM. If you and the nice lady make an agreement that some how, some day, when she least expects it a coffee date will end up in rape-- that's pretty damn hot.

If you make an agreement that she'll be raped but no face slapping, and a face slapping happens-- then you have someone not respecting the boundaries of the consent that nevertheless was given. Maybe you are right, maybe you're wrong about that face slap. If you're wrong then you're a Dom who fucked up.

A breach of consent may be unhealthy BDSM, as it would be considered an unhealthy moment in vanilla relationships as well, but there was consent to be breached, and there was an agreement to start with.

We're not talking about the difference between "positive, healthy BDSM" and unhealthy BDSM. We're talking about whether the cheating would automatically make the relationship non-BDSM.

Are you asking for a hard and fast line? There isn't one.

 

[JMohegan]

I would rather say that when there was no issue of consent in the first place-- or when one person (the sadist, usually of course) lied about what they were asking consent for-- then it isn't BDSM. If you ask a nice lady out for coffee and then rape her, that's not BDSM. If you and the nice lady make an agreement that some how, some day, when she least expects it a coffee date will end up in rape-- that's pretty damn hot.

If you make an agreement that she'll be raped but no face slapping, and a face slapping happens-- then you have someone not respecting the boundaries of the consent that nevertheless was given. Maybe you are right, maybe you're wrong about that face slap. If you're wrong then you're a Dom who fucked up.

A breach of consent may be unhealthy BDSM, as it would be considered an unhealthy moment in vanilla relationships as well, but there was consent to be breached, and there was an agreement to start with.

Are you asking for a hard and fast line? There isn't one.

No, not asking for a hard and fast line. Just seeking clarification for what you meant when you said, "The consent itself is what makes it BDSM."

This post explains your perspective, and makes a lot of sense.

 

[Homburg]

We're not talking about the difference between "positive, healthy BDSM" and unhealthy BDSM. We're talking about whether the cheating would automatically make the relationship non-BDSM.

No, we're talking about whether or not consent is core to BDSM or not. It has been expanded to what constitutes consent.

The phrase "positive, healthy BDSM" was used to differentiate between the cultural concept as a whole, and "BDSM" used solely as linguistic shorthand for a vague set of semi-related behaviours.

Once you step outside of negotiated, mutually agreeable behaviours, it ceases to be a structured BDSM dynamic vis a vis the cultural concept. Small breaches do not automatically invalidate the whole, but there is certainly likely to be a renegotiation or at least a discussion. If the top steps across the line willfully and no discussion happens, well, it's not really within the realm of this wacky thing called BDSM. People have limits for a reason, and they should be respected.

--

I would rather say that when there was no issue of consent in the first place-- or when one person (the sadist, usually of course) lied about what they were asking consent for-- then it isn't BDSM. If you ask a nice lady out for coffee and then rape her, that's not BDSM. If you and the nice lady make an agreement that some how, some day, when she least expects it a coffee date will end up in rape-- that's pretty damn hot.

Coffee that turns into rape is too easy of an example. It's blatantly not the sort of thing that, regardless of how it might titillate the kinky mind, does not fit in with the ideas behind BDSM as a whole.

Still, it comes to limits. "Don't rape me," is a pretty damned easy limit to assume for the vast majority of people on the planet, kinky or vanilla, and, in this scenario, there is no respect for said limit (or the law, or the individual, etc). It violates the most basic levels of the Social Contract and is thus way outside of acceptable behaviour.

If you make an agreement that she'll be raped but no face slapping, and a face slapping happens-- then you have someone not respecting the boundaries of the consent that nevertheless was given. Maybe you are right, maybe you're wrong about that face slap. If you're wrong then you're a Dom who fucked up.

Not in my eyes. There is no "maybe you are right" in this scenario. If the bottom says face-slapping is a hard limit, there should be no face-slapping. Moving the bounds is conceptually respectable with a nod towards personal growth, but, in my opinion, it needs to be prefaced with some sort of discussion, or at least a warning. Experimenting nonconsensually with another person's psyche is dancing in a minefield.

A breach of consent may be unhealthy BDSM, as it would be considered an unhealthy moment in vanilla relationships as well, but there was consent to be breached, and there was an agreement to start with.

Like I said above, you step across the line and you have moved outside of the structure. If it is done with no discussion, it is a breach of agreed bounds. No, it is not rape, but it is still breach of trust. In that basic sense, it differs by degree.

I still think that the analogy of bringing a football to a basketball game is the best one. If you willfully break the rules in a material fashion, you aren't really playing the same game as everyone else.

 

[Stella_Omega]

No, not asking for a hard and fast line. Just seeking clarification for what you meant when you said, "The consent itself is what makes it BDSM."

This post explains your perspective, and makes a lot of sense.

Oh, good!

I might have been clearer if I'd put it that the mutual engagement is what makes it BDSM.

 

[Etoile]

Are you asking for a hard and fast line? There isn't one.

Let me start it, then. I'm totally first in line for hard and fast whatever.
what? it's the cafe! I can joke!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Let me start it, then. I'm totally first in line for hard and fast whatever.
what? it's the cafe! I can joke!

Steely Dan coming your way, baby

 

[satindesire]

In my view, the relationship doesn't instantly morph into vanilla, just because he fucked around. I'd call that cheating in a D/s relationship.

I never implied that him slapping or cheating or whatever made the relationship -suddenly- vanilla. I just said that it, meaning that one event of non-consensual item A, wasn't part of widely accepted BDSM (within it's social mores...)to do something without consent, because without consent there is no BDSM as that event per say, just "insert your idea here, aka abuse, etc." One of the things that builds a BDSM relationship is communication, and when a member of that relationship does something that had been previously expressed as a hard limit within the bounds of that relationship, violating that trust isn't good BDSM, it's being selfish and arrogant. That one moment of non consent doesn't turn the whole relationship vanilla, it simply isn't a GOOD healthy BDSM event as within the widely accepted social structure that makes BDSM safe(r) for people to practice.

It would be arrogant of the Dom, whether in the end he was right or not, to assume that his girl would be 'fine' with him slapping her. Arrogant to the point where he didn't care if it could cause potential emotional permanent harm to the s, he didn't care if it could end the relationship. Instead of being a good decent D, he was arrogant and made a choice that could have fucked his entire world up rather than ask a simple question.

To me, that's not BDSM, because BDSM is about consent and communication. It's NOT vanilla either. It's a different animal than either of those.

Back to the slapping - he may have assumed that pushing through that particular "limit" would be an effective and ultimately acceptable means of dominating his partner. He might be wrong, but in some cases he might be right.

As per my reply above, this to me smacks of arrogance. He'd risk the emotional health of his sub and the entire relationship just to be able to slap her RATHER THAN do the responsible thing and ask a simple question. Again, that's not BDSM, in my eyes. YMMV.

Why would it morph into vanilla because of a breach of consent? It's not an either/or situation. A relationship can be not-vanilla and likewise not-BDSM. BDSM is a cultural thing, a social construct with certain conventions. Break those conventions and you are no longer really playing within the same boundaries that the rest of the culture is.

The core concept here is that when consent is breached, it ceased to be what the vast majority of BDSM participants consider to be positive, healthy BDSM.

I don't think I was communicating myself very effectively, so I'm just going to point and say "That's what I meant to say!"

 

[JMohegan]

Homburg and SD, you seem to be saying the same thing, so I'll respond to both of you here. I like Stella's phrase "mutual engagement," so I'll use that to denote any intimate relationship, of any flavor, in which standards and boundaries have been set. "Flavors," including: vanilla, kinky but not culturally BDSM, or culturally identifiable T/b, D/s, M/s.

A violation of the boundaries of a mutual engagement is a violation of the boundaries, regardless of flavor. The people who invented the cultural concept of BDSM didn't invent the concept of boundaries. What they said was: we can incorporate power and pain into our exchanges and have boundaries too.

This conversation reminds me of discussions surrounding the question: Can a married woman be raped by her husband? My answer: yes, of course she can. On this board, we've debated the question: Can an s in a D/s or M/s relationship be raped by her D or M? My answer: yes again. A revocation of consent is just that, no matter the flavor of mutual engagement. And as both a legal and ethical matter, nonconsensual fucking is wrong.

So from my perspective, it makes no sense to say "nonconsensual fucking in a D/s relationship is not BDSM," just as it makes no sense to say "nonconsensual fucking in a vanilla relationship is not vanilla." Nonconsensual fucking is rape, period. Regardless of flavor of engagement.

 

[JMohegan]

It would be arrogant of the Dom, whether in the end he was right or not, to assume that his girl would be 'fine' with him slapping her. Arrogant to the point where he didn't care if it could cause potential emotional permanent harm to the s, he didn't care if it could end the relationship. Instead of being a good decent D, he was arrogant and made a choice that could have fucked his entire world up rather than ask a simple question.

To me, that's not BDSM, because BDSM is about consent and communication. It's NOT vanilla either. It's a different animal than either of those.

A nonconsensual slap is assault. Whether you slap a random stranger on the street, or a partner who has stated that slapping is out of bounds. Assault is what that is.

Would an s press charges against her D in that situation? She could, but probably not. Would the s lose trust for the D, decide he was an arrogant prick, and terminate the relationship? Maybe. Would the s appreciate the arrogance in this particular context, finding it hot hot hot? That could happen too. It depends on the individuals involved.

 

[Etoile]

Delia Day, anyone?

ETA: Her article in Wikipedia is slated for deletion. I wrote most of it, so they informed me, but I have no particular connection to it. I dunno.

 

[JMohegan]

Not in my eyes. There is no "maybe you are right" in this scenario. If the bottom says face-slapping is a hard limit, there should be no face-slapping. Moving the bounds is conceptually respectable with a nod towards personal growth, but, in my opinion, it needs to be prefaced with some sort of discussion, or at least a warning. Experimenting nonconsensually with another person's psyche is dancing in a minefield.

Some people get off on dancing in that particular minefield, even when they care deeply about both their partner and the sustainability of the mutual engagement. Just as some people get off on breath play.

Risky? Sure. People take all kinds of risks.