Soft Dominance Discussion

[justyouraveragedaniel]

"Maybe I'm just hyper-sensitive" isn't a defense for misrepresenting people's arguments. If every disagreement gets recast as someone "justifying abuse", you are resorting to character smears instead of addressing what was actually said.

Perhaps you should read my first post, which was a question:

"I thought this thread could be interesting. But is somebody really arguing that Stockholm syndrome is ok because the end result is all that matters???"


If you view a question as a character smear, perhaps you're looking in the wrong direction.

 

[Primalex]

Perhaps you should read my first post, which was a question:

"I thought this thread could be interesting. But is somebody really arguing that Stockholm syndrome is ok because the end result is all that matters???"


If you view a question as a character smear, perhaps you're looking in the wrong direction.

And "That's what I read. Any time somebody is justifying "devotion" as OK when it stems from abuse, I view that as a problem." is not a question. So what? Are we playing "Is it a question or not?" Then it's your turn, I guess...?!

 

[ToPleaseHim]

If real harm happens it is beyond RACK or SSC. Risk Assured Consensual Kink has risk in there, and real harm is not part of that IMO. Safe Sane Consensual with the sane portion of it also to me precludes real harm. The other thing is this may not be a scene, the ones I have seen were TPE D/s where the sub/slave literally allowed for harm, and i saw real examples of things like broken bones because the dominant/master deliberately broke bones. Law enforcement would definitely arrest the dominant in this case is made aware of it, you cannot consent legally to that kind of harm/

Agreed. This is abuse and not BDSM.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

Perhaps you should read my first post, which was a question:

"I thought this thread could be interesting. But is somebody really arguing that Stockholm syndrome is ok because the end result is all that matters???"


If you view a question as a character smear, perhaps you're looking in the wrong direction.

So who was the person you were alleging was making that the claim that Stockholm Syndrome is okay? And can you clarify your intent if the statement wasn’t intended as a judgement on that person’s character?

 

[justyouraveragedaniel]

And "That's what I read. Any time somebody is justifying "devotion" as OK when it stems from abuse, I view that as a problem." is not a question. So what? Are we playing "Is it a question or not?" Then it's your turn, I guess...?!

Man, I don’t come here for this. That’s how I read it. I stated how I read it clearly, which was an explanation for why I asked the question.

Enjoy your night

 

[justyouraveragedaniel]

So who was the person you were alleging was making that the claim that Stockholm Syndrome is okay? And can you clarify your intent if the statement wasn’t intended as a judgement on that person’s character?

Nope. Too old for this petty shit

 

[ToPleaseHim]

Nope. Too old for this petty shit

This is a discussion forum. For more than 2 decades (wow….approaching 3 decades!) people have immersed themselves in deep discussions of all things BDSM here. This thread is actually pretty great, but I do think one needs to be prepared to listen to other perspectives rather than resort to accusations and calling people petty.

 

[justyouraveragedaniel]

This is a discussion forum. For more than 2 decades (wow….approaching 3 decades!) people have immersed themselves in deep discussions of all things BDSM here. This thread is actually pretty great, but I do think one needs to be prepared to listen to other perspectives rather than resort to accusations and calling people petty.

I’m happy to be a part of the actual discussion. I’m not happy to be a part of “you attacked somebody’s character.”

 

[average_red]

This thread has become the most bizarre expression of first world problems that I have ever seen, but at least I now understand where the failure to communicate is.

Look, obviously, everyone agrees that abuse is bad, no one disputes that. Here is the problem: the only real difference between a therapist using psychology to treat her patients and her using it to mentally abuse her boyfriend is the outcome on the subject and intention, not the tools. The only difference between most medicine and poison is dosage. Simply because someone CAN use psychology to abuse people, doesn't mean that someone else can't use it to heal people, and it doesn't make the underlying psychology evil. In a world with sick enough people, through no fault of there own, sometimes you need a little bit of poison in the right dosage to heal people.

This is a BDSM forum, nothing in BDSM isn't reflected in normal sexual relationships or desires, it's just filtered differently and acted on differently, the difference between vanilla and *hard* BDSM is just amplitude and application.

If you want to claim that anything that can possibly be used as abuse makes everything that it touches abusive, you can't use psychology, you can't use medicine, and you can't use normal vanilla relationships- no matter what that phrase means to you. Don't believe me? Look up some fringe feminists. To them ALL heterosexual relationships are abusive, because some heterosexual relationships are abusive, and you don't get more vanilla than heterosexual relationships! EVERYTHING can be used to abuse, and even water is poison in high enough dosage.

Abuse is bad, poison is bad, but we are all adults and sometimes we choose our treatments and our medicine, even if that treatment would be abuse to others with a different application, and even if our medicine would be poison to others in different dosages.