When did BDSM begin?
his_...@my-dejanews.com
lie? In the little reading I've done about it, I've seen so many opinions,
and I'm not sure what to make of any of them. Actually, one could reason (if
you take the Bible literally) that BDSM began with the creation of man,
essentially. Does anyone have opinions on this, or maybe resources for me to
take a look at? I'd love to hear what everyone thinks :)
--
his_love
becoming a stressball, its not pretty
SSB Diplomatic Corps - central Illinois
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
kare...@my-dejanews.com
When the first caveman hauled his beloved away by the hair of her head.
--
Karen
Submissive, Not Stupid!
MMan
<snip>
> Actually, one could reason (if
> you take the Bible literally) that BDSM began with the creation of man,
> essentially. Does anyone have opinions on this, or maybe resources for me to
> take a look at? I'd love to hear what everyone thinks :)
>
> --
> his_love
> becoming a stressball, its not pretty
> SSB Diplomatic Corps - central Illinois
Sounds about right to me. BDSM seems to be a part of human nature, seeing
as how it doesn't seem to be something that is learned (slight stretch,
but hey). The rules of engagement have probably changed over the years.
I'm sure conscentuality was less of an issue in the times before laws
were brought to bear....
M
--
Try a dot edu (not commercial) if you want to contact me.
gwg...@iname.com
wiitwd
> lie?
Funny, this is one of the final questions posed to participants in the on
line BDSM / SEX research project detailed earlier in this group.
In the little reading I've done about it, I've seen so many opinions,
> and I'm not sure what to make of any of them.
There isn't much reading to be done, unfortunately, from my attempts at
research into this. Opinions do vary quite wildly.
Actually, one could reason (if
> you take the Bible literally) that BDSM began with the creation of man,
> essentially.
That's the answer I gave. It seems to me that humans have hunted, explored
and gone to war as part of a genetic make up which gives us aggression so
that can survive (Being the hairless and rather poor physical specimens that
we are.) AS to when the first humans practiced BDSM for thrill, fun or
sexual pleasure, I think it may not have been the very first two humans, but
it probably wasn't too much later. I wonder though who came first, the top?
or the bottom?
Bob ... Edmonton, AB.
Jack Peacock
<6ue4hj$r6c$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6udvjh$lvl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> his_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> I was just wondering when BDSM actually began.
>
of her head.
>
>--
behind your back, so she can't see what's coming. I like
her hair, last thing I want to do is pull any out. Besides,
ever try hauling away someone by the hair while also
dragging your knuckles on the ground, and carrying a club?
Just can't be done.
Jack "the clueless but considerate cavedom" Peacock
Jack Peacock
>Actually I do take the Bible as literally as I can. [1]
And I believe
>that D/s started *before* the creation of man. Heaven
contained happy
>subbies, willingly serving God (their Dom) when Lucifer
decided he
>would make a better Dom than a submissive. So,
deliberately moving
>out from under God's (Domly) authority, he recruited
like-minded
>subbies, proclaimed himself a deserving Dom . . . and the
rest is
>history. [2]
>
>As to where SM started, you really don't want to know what
I think.
Your master wants to know....
Jack "still at work cavedom" Peacock
DonSideB
In a way, it is pre-human. Dominant and submissive behavior as a bonding
experience is common among other pack hunting predators, particularly canines.
don
That which does not kill us is a good scene,
SSBB/SSS Diplomatic Corps: Tidewater Virginia
WhyNot789
his_...@my-dejanews.com schreibt:
>I was just wondering when BDSM actually began. Where
>do the roots of wiitwd lie? In the little reading I've done
>about it, I've seen so many opinions, and I'm not sure
>what to make of any of them.
It's not surprising that you've seen so many opinions as
nobody knows for sure. What such discussions usually
come down to is the good ol' "nature vs. nurture" argument
- is BDSM genetic or is it learnt behaviour? The trouble is
that it may also be a mixture of the two.
From all I've read on the subject -and I've read everything
I could find, which wasn't all that much - I think only one
thing is for certain: Whenever someone comes along and
claims to have found *the answer* or, even worse, *all the
answers* he/she is wrong. 'Cause when you look at the
research you'll find he/she didn't take into account all
possible factors, thus rendering his/her conclusions
meaningless.
No, I don't think it's possible to answer this question.
Hans
kare...@my-dejanews.com
fo...@unforgettable.com (foggy) wrote:
> A hardworking CaveDom quoted his girl, then ordered:
>
> >>As to where SM started, you really don't want to know what
> >I think.
> >
> >
> >Your master wants to know....
> >
> >Jack "still at work cavedom" Peacock
>
>
> The invention of the mamogram marked the onset of S&M as we know it.
>
> your loving,
> foggy
>
And here I thought it came about with the invention of the "silver shaft."
I'm almost sure that you don't want to know about it <g>. Of course, I'll
tell you anyway. It's a cute little device about 18 inches long and used to
examine the intestines for irregularities. <g>
--
Karen
Submissive, Not Stupid!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
KaLoMW
>From: whyn...@aol.com (WhyNot789)
>No, I don't think it's possible to answer this question.
Of course it is, as long as you're making it up as you go along, and the truth
isn't a terribly high priority <g>
Karen
Submissive, Not Stupid!
Jack Peacock
<19980924195525...@ng87.aol.com>...
>
>>From: whyn...@aol.com (WhyNot789)
>
>>No, I don't think it's possible to answer this question.
>
>Of course it is, as long as you're making it up as you go
along, and the truth
>isn't a terribly high priority <g>
>
a creative answer is more important than a truthful one. Go
ahead and make something up, if the President can do it, why
not everyone else?
Cavedom theory on origins of BDSM: In the dim pre-history
of the early paleolithic era, Master Ughh the cavedom
decided he'd be better off if he was selfish and kept subbie
ughette all to himself instead of sharing her with the
tribe. Ughette liked the idea, Ughh was a good provider and
the rest of the tribe's guys were short, scrawny, and didn't
bring in the raw meat like Ughh did. Besides, Ughh hadn't
bothered to ask her anyway, so she figured she'd make the
best of the situation.
Now Ughh liked to keep ughette all to himself, so he had to
make sure she didn't "wander" off when he wasn't around. A
few strategically placed hide ropes on the sleeping rock
held ughette quite well, she was conveniently placed for his
use and she wasn't going anywhere till he decided she could.
Thus was born bondage and D/s.
Jack "the historically clueless cavedom" Peacock
out to email.ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> his_love wrote:
>
>
>>I was just wondering when BDSM actually began. Where do the roots of wiitwd
>>lie? In the little reading I've done about it, I've seen so many opinions,
>>and I'm not sure what to make of any of them. Actually, one could reason (if
>>you take the Bible literally) that BDSM began with the creation of man,
>>essentially. Does anyone have opinions on this, or maybe resources for me to
>>take a look at? I'd love to hear what everyone thinks :)
Since the Bible was rewritten so many times by so many men, it's
pretty hard in my opinion to use reason in relation to it. I'm not
sure what all of the different kinks you feel are mentioned, but BDSM
includes more than Ds, so we also have the problem of defining just
what BDSM is before we could explore whether it is biblically
approved.
Mostly it seem to me, the correct answer is 'We don't know what
causes people to like BDSM', so therefore, 'We don't know when it
started.' I suppose if you believe that it a genetic thing, then if
you are christian, it would be hard for me to see how you could avoid
recognizing the pleasure as one of God's many gifts.
It might be interesting to find out when the earliest mention of it
is, but then again, we still would have to define the term first.
>
>
>Hi, his_love,
>
>Good question ..
>
>Actually I do take the Bible as literally as I can. [1] And I believe
>that D/s started *before* the creation of man. Heaven contained happy
>subbies, willingly serving God (their Dom) when Lucifer decided he
>would make a better Dom than a submissive. So, deliberately moving
>out from under God's (Domly) authority, he recruited like-minded
>subbies, proclaimed himself a deserving Dom . . . and the rest is
>history. [2]
>
>As to where SM started, you really don't want to know what I think.
>;-))*
In other words, I'm hearing you say that since you are a submissive
female hetersexual nonSM oriented person, everybody else is supposed
to be just like you and Jack are or they are immoral or tainted by the
devil or whatever it is that you are trying to imply there.
Gee foggy, it must be wonderful to be so special in God's eyes that he
decided you are one of the few get the kink that contains his truth,
but forgo to give so many others that 'special feeling'.
Why do you think he did that? Do you think you deserve the 'special
approved' kink more than someone else?
>
>foggy
>
>[1] In deciding how I would deal with Biblical content, I had three
>choices. (1) Decide which parts I thought might be true or accurate.
>This approach seemed a tad presumptuous and much like writing my own
>gospel. (2) Ask others which parts were true or accurate. But which
>others would *know* ... So, I chose (3), Just accepting that it was
>all true, most especially the parts I didn't agree with or understand.
So why don't you ask your pastor to help interpret it for you? Isn't
that what he's there for?
>
>[2] That's an over-simplification, but it'll suffice.
Arrow
Janet Hardy
his_...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6udvjh$lvl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I was just wondering when BDSM actually began. Where do the roots of wiitwd
>lie? In the little reading I've done about it, I've seen so many opinions,
>and I'm not sure what to make of any of them. Actually, one could reason
(if
>you take the Bible literally) that BDSM began with the creation of man,
>essentially. Does anyone have opinions on this, or maybe resources for me
to
>take a look at? I'd love to hear what everyone thinks :)
I think the eroticization of pain and power is way older than the human
race.
I think that BDSM as we know it, in which the eroticization of pain and
power are confined to a safe and contained space with such tools as
negotiation and consent, is an artifact of a larger cultural belief that
fundamental equality between partners is a Good Thing, and can thus track
along the same timelines as the civil rights movement and the women's
movement.
Verdant
Steven S. Davis
: On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 18:53:41 GMT, fo...@unforgettable.com (foggy)
: wrote:
:
: > his_love wrote:
: >
: >
: >>I was just wondering when BDSM actually began.
The first requirement to answer that question is an agreement
on what "BDSM" means (unlikely). Certainly people have
craved power over other people from the earlieest human
history, and doubtless before that. And to enhance their
power they've treated other people with vast cruelty
intended to terrorize and cow - ah, make that "initimidate"
or JK will be claiming that the ancient Sumerians followed
his rules - people, and this cruelty required restraint,
so people have been restraining, dominating, and torturing
other people for as long as we have records and doubtless
much longer than that. And undoubtedly many people enjoyed
the dominating and torturing, some sexually, and others
realized that - and enjoyed the fact - that if you could
dominate and torture people you could also get sex from
those people without have to offer anything else (and so
was created the first chudwah).
I am personally of the opinion that "BDSM" requires
a consciousness that one is engaged in personal (ie,
not done for political or legal purposes) exploration
of power, pain, and pleasure because one enjoys
(whatever the type of enjoyment may be) the
exploration of power, pain, and pleasure as ends and
not solely as means. I suspect that this awareness
is of relatively recent vintage, and so I believe that
a case can be made that "BDSM" began after modern life
ceased to contain as a norm the elements of personal
power (with the explorations of pain and restraint
they often involved) that had long been commonplace
(note: power and torture continue to be employed by
the powers that be in different societies, of course,
but in an impersonal and bureacratic manner that leaves
the participants in the process alienated from it).
But that's just one opinion, and it depends very much
on that one person's definition of BDSM.
: >Actually I do take the Bible as literally as I can. [1] And I believe
: >that D/s started *before* the creation of man. Heaven contained happy
: >subbies, willingly serving God (their Dom) when Lucifer decided he
: >would make a better Dom than a submissive. So, deliberately moving
: >out from under God's (Domly) authority, he recruited like-minded
: >subbies, proclaimed himself a deserving Dom . . . and the rest is
: >history. [2]
: In other words, I'm hearing you say that since you are a submissive
: female hetersexual nonSM oriented person, everybody else is supposed
: to be just like you and Jack are or they are immoral or tainted by the
: devil or whatever it is that you are trying to imply there.
I see no such implication. All I see her saying is that all angels
should be submissives; since few of us are angels (even those of
us that are submissives or subs (but not "subbies" harrumph !)),
that doesn't apply to us, and the fall of Lucifer had, as best I can
recollect, no bearing on the creation of humans or the nature of
humanity.
: Gee foggy, it must be wonderful to be so special in God's eyes that he
: decided you are one of the few get the kink that contains his truth,
: but forgo to give so many others that 'special feeling'.
Arrow, she may perhaps believe that, but she was not so graceless
as to say it, so why make an issue of it ?
FWIW, if there is a god, I'm rather glad that my kinks don't
meet with his approval, as he doesn't meet with mine.
If I may say so, you do seem to have a bit of an issue with religion.
Now, for the record, so do I. And not just with the Christian
superstition, but with all them (may as well be nondiscriminatory
and irk everyone equally).
But I manage not to say that on a regular basis. As long as no
one wants to conduct a jihad to convert the infidels by force
(anyone who allows themselves to be converted by persuasion,
that's their misfortune), I won't conduct an unholy-war against
the religious (not that there aren't a few pagan prietesses
here that I wouldn't mind seeing as POWs and subjecting to
a long process of interrogation - though, of course, I wouldn't
really mind working for the religious types if it meant a chance
to work on a captured Arrow <evil leer>)). Nothing good would
come from my antagonizing people whose supersitions are different
from mine.
: >[1] In deciding how I would deal with Biblical content, I had three
: >choices. (1) Decide which parts I thought might be true or accurate.
: >This approach seemed a tad presumptuous and much like writing my own
: >gospel. (2) Ask others which parts were true or accurate. But which
: >others would *know* ... So, I chose (3), Just accepting that it was
: >all true, most especially the parts I didn't agree with or understand.
:
: So why don't you ask your pastor to help interpret it for you? Isn't
: that what he's there for?
Not all Christian traditions stress the authority of the clergy.
Some do require believers to think on their own (or to apply their
own thought to the authority of scripture). How many do is another
question, of course.
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
The SSB Hompage: http://ssbb.home.ml.org/
The ASB/SSB Welcome: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/wel.htm
My homepage: http://links.magenta.com/lmnop/users/sd/sd.html
s...@bob.eecs.berkeley.edu
> I think the eroticization of pain and power is way older than the
> human race.
yep
> I think that BDSM as we know it, in which the eroticization of
> pain and power are confined to a safe and contained space with
> such tools as negotiation and consent, is an artifact of a larger
> cultural belief that fundamental equality between partners is a
> Good Thing, and can thus track along the same timelines as the
> civil rights movement and the women's movement.
On the one hand, "sure" but ... how many SM'ers really consider
the factors you list (negotiation, safe and confined space, etc.)
to be central or essential to BDSM? If we wipe out these
cultural add-ons, we would still have BDSM.
And, for many of us, it would still be "BDSM as we know it", because
my observation (limited data set, of course) is that SM-community
concepts such as negotiation and safety have maybe a 5% impact
on the progress or content of an S/M relationship. The other 95%
has to do with the participant's inclinations and preferences
and drive. I think, usually, it is rooted too deep to have much
to do with larger cultural belief's.
Just my perspective of course.
Steve
Jack Peacock
in message <360afe77....@enews.newsguy.com>...
>In other words, I'm hearing you say that since you are a
submissive
>female hetersexual nonSM oriented person, everybody else is
supposed
>to be just like you and Jack are or they are immoral or
tainted by the
>devil or whatever it is that you are trying to imply there.
>
>Gee foggy, it must be wonderful to be so special in God's
eyes that he
>decided you are one of the few get the kink that contains
his truth,
>but forgo to give so many others that 'special feeling'.
>
>Why do you think he did that? Do you think you deserve the
'special
>approved' kink more than someone else?
>
There seems to be a recurring thread here that some people
are extremely uncomfortable discussing a religious basis for
D/s. Ignoring the transparent attempt to flame for One True
Wayism, it's obvious all foggy did was state her beliefs,
foggy and I both wonder at why a few on the ng seem to react
so negatively. Is there some kind of underlying guilt at
work here? Really Arrow, it's ok if you can't fit in. The
relationship foggy and I have isn't for everyone and we
aren't missionaries out to convert anyone. But her beliefs
are central to foggy's submission to me, they are a valid
topic for discussion in this newsgroup, so I suggest you
work out your feelings on religion in some other venue.
Do you really need to have every poster here explicitly
state that the post is an opinion? Come on, we all know
it's an excuse to launch a flame, not a reason. Why not
tell the real reason you react so violently when foggy and I
attempt to discuss what works for us?
The topic of this thread was a question on where BDSM
originated. Does anyone seriously think that the religious
principle of submission of the wife to the husband has no
place in a discussion about the origins of D/s?
Foggy is a submissive het female who isn't interested in SM.
I suspect that puts her in the majority group of women
interested in D/s, if not BDSM as a whole. But there is no
tyranny of the majority here, Arrow, if you don't fall into
that group then go your own way and don't feel so guilty
about it.
Oh, and just so there are absolutely no doubts:
DISCLAIMER: All content in this post is purely the personal
opinions of Jack and foggy and in no way should be construed
as advocating a particular lifestyle over another. THIS
POST DOES NOT MAKE ANY CLAIMS AS TO A ONE TRUE WAY FOR BDSM
RELATIONSHIPS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTS OF
THIS DISCLAIMER YOU ARE DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PLACE JACK
AND FOGGY IN YOUR NEWSGROUP KILLFILE.
Jack "the happily clueless cavedom" Peacock
kall...@anon.nymserver.com
>
Good question, these are some random thoughts. Disclaimer: I have no evidence
to back any of this up.
I would agree that abuse is as old as humanity, but BDSM is something quite
different (isn't it?). Sadists and Masochists have probably always existed,
although many sadists would be able to find non-consensual victims. And
that's only one dimension of what goes on.
It has been observed that historically BDSM is practiced by the well-to-do,
although how can we really know? I would conjecture that it became widely
practiced about the same time cilivization created "idle-time" and more
importantly a list of "thou-shalt-nots". To me, the experiencing all the
things we're told we shouldn't is a big part of it.
I have heard that the Catholic church stopped floggings because they found
that over time people really started to like them. And that in the 1700's
flogging was the number one specific request of prostitutes (either top or
bottom).
Anyway, I doubt we'll ever really know.
kallisti
"I need to be whipped, mmmm I love that stuff
Good old-fashioned beating, can't get enough"
"Spank my Booty" by the Lords of
Janet W. Hardy
And one with which I disagree. I think inequality in relationships, and
the use of aversive stimuli to further erotic ends, are the bricks with
which BDSM is built -- but if you don't have the property to build it on
and the blueprints to build it, you don't have BDSM.
Verdant
T. Eckhart
>: On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 18:53:41 GMT, fo...@unforgettable.com (foggy)
>: wrote:
>: >>I was just wondering when BDSM actually began.
>I am personally of the opinion that "BDSM" requires
>a consciousness that one is engaged in personal (ie,
>not done for political or legal purposes) exploration
>of power, pain, and pleasure because one enjoys
>(whatever the type of enjoyment may be) the
>exploration of power, pain, and pleasure as ends and
>not solely as means. I suspect that this awareness
>is of relatively recent vintage, and so I believe that
>a case can be made that "BDSM" began after modern life
>ceased to contain as a norm the elements of personal
>power (with the explorations of pain and restraint
>they often involved) that had long been commonplace
>(note: power and torture continue to be employed by
>the powers that be in different societies, of course,
>but in an impersonal and bureacratic manner that leaves
>the participants in the process alienated from it).
>
>But that's just one opinion, and it depends very much
>on that one person's definition of BDSM.
You and I have similar opinions perhaps.
Treasure and I were talking about this in the car.
My opinion is this: BDSM is related to consent and thus requires
that all parties both give consent and be able to consent.
This situation has not existed for long in the USA (where I live)
and does not currently exist in all places on this planet perhaps not even
in my own country for everyone.
Therefore I believe it is a new relationship that takes on the
language, symbolism, and some of the equipment of some of the oldest forms
of social death and power.
I believe that only people who believe they have choices can make
the choice to be in a BDSM relationship. The belief in choice is based on
one's economic, social, political, and religious environment and I see no
evidence that before this century institutions and conditions have given
people a more fairly balanced possiblity to those around them. In short,
believing one has a choice comes from believing one is and can be treated
equal to the person one is thinking of engaging in a relationship with.
Just my personal philosophy and opinions here.
--
--
Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips, & Chains,
TammyJo Eckhart (teck...@kiva.net)
http://www.kiva.net/~teckhart/
Information about my publications and samples of my writing can be found at
http://www.kiva.net/~teckhart/publications.phtml
T. Eckhart
>In article <6ue4hj$r6c$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> kare...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> In article <6udvjh$lvl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>
>different (isn't it?). Sadists and Masochists have probably always existed,
>although many sadists would be able to find non-consensual victims. And
>that's only one dimension of what goes on.
Exactly in my opinion. Abuse is probably as old as one person
figuring out they could say or do something to get what they wanted and to
hurt another person. Slavery and inequality seem to have developed as the
concept of personal property developed.
None of these are what I do even though I may borrow the language
and rituals of some of them.
kajira hill
:>
:>
:>>I was just wondering when BDSM actually began. [....]
:>>I'd love to hear what everyone thinks :)
[....]
:>foggy wrote:
:>
:>Actually I do take the Bible as literally as I can. [1] And I believe
:>that D/s started *before* the creation of man. Heaven contained happy
:>subbies, willingly serving God (their Dom) when Lucifer decided he
:>would make a better Dom than a submissive. So, deliberately moving
:>out from under God's (Domly) authority, he recruited like-minded
:>subbies, proclaimed himself a deserving Dom . . . and the rest is
:>history. [2]
:>
:>As to where SM started, you really don't want to know what I think.
:>;-))*
:
:Arrow Blue wrote:
:
:In other words, I'm hearing you say that since you are a submissive
:female hetersexual nonSM oriented person, everybody else is supposed
:to be just like you and Jack are or they are immoral or tainted by the
:devil or whatever it is that you are trying to imply there.
*gasp* "HUH?" <re-read foggy's answer>
:Gee foggy, it must be wonderful to be so special in God's eyes that he
:decided you are one of the few get the kink that contains his truth,
:but forgo to give so many others that 'special feeling'.
:
:Why do you think he did that? Do you think you deserve the 'special
:approved' kink more than someone else?
i don't understand... i even re-read what foggy said.. and i saw no
bias one way or another... i mean, no offense meant to anyone's
beliefs or anything, but it could just have well meant she's on the
side of Lucifer, could it not?
<not saying it did, just saying i saw no confession of OTWism here at
all!>
Here, Arrow, i'll upload you a Xanax or three...
-----> As to *my* opinion on "the matter at hand"??? Well, i was
there with the "it's been in the animal kingdom forever" people, until
the "SM" part was pointed out. Now, maybe the cheetah stalking,
chasing and chewing on the gazelle is a form of SM... i dunno.
<Wonder if the anthropologists have studied THAT?? i smell a grant in
the future...> <Would a pack of lions sharing prey be a "play
party"?> But there has been at least the Ds side as far back on the
evolutionary track as i care to think.
--
kajira hill - blissful
SSB-B Dip Corps - So. Los Angeles County, Ca.
--------------------------------------------------
September 25, 1998 - : - : - 4:36:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------
Homosexuality is *not* a sickness. Bigotry is.
Binder
> : > his_love wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : >>I was just wondering when BDSM actually began.
>
> a consciousness that one is engaged in personal (ie,
> not done for political or legal purposes) exploration
> of power, pain, and pleasure because one enjoys
> (whatever the type of enjoyment may be) the
> exploration of power, pain, and pleasure as ends and
> not solely as means. I suspect that this awareness
> is of relatively recent vintage, and so I believe that
> a case can be made that "BDSM" began after modern life
> ceased to contain as a norm the elements of personal
> power (with the explorations of pain and restraint
> they often involved) that had long been commonplace
> (note: power and torture continue to be employed by
> the powers that be in different societies, of course,
> but in an impersonal and bureacratic manner that leaves
> the participants in the process alienated from it).
Relatively recent? IIRC, Cicero, Ovid, and Aristotle all had written
about consensual, erotic power exchange... I assume that we can all
agree that c.e.r.e (fingers acting up, sorry...) qualifies as a form of
BDSM. At least I hope so. If I ever recover my book list, I'll be happy
to post references.
> But that's just one opinion, and it depends very much
> on that one person's definition of BDSM.
**nod**
Binder
-------
SSB-B Diplomatic Corps: Marin County, CA
to reply, remove the idjit
Kevin Muñoz
email.ix.netcom.com (Arrow Blue) wrote:
> Since the Bible was rewritten so many times by so many men
And a woman! Don't forget, the Song of Moses was most likely originally
sung by women...centuries before J ever put "pen to paper".
--
Kevin Munoz
Phoenix Rising
SSB Diplomatic Corps: Alameda County, CA
gwg...@iname.com
> My opinion is this: BDSM is related to consent and thus requires
> that all parties both give consent and be able to consent.
>
> This situation has not existed for long in the USA (where I live)
> and does not currently exist in all places on this planet perhaps not even
> in my own country for everyone.
>
> Therefore I believe it is a new relationship that takes on the
> language, symbolism, and some of the equipment of some of the oldest forms
> of social death and power.
>
> I believe that only people who believe they have choices can make
> the choice to be in a BDSM relationship. The belief in choice is based on
> one's economic, social, political, and religious environment and I see no
> evidence that before this century institutions and conditions have given
> people a more fairly balanced possiblity to those around them. In short,
> believing one has a choice comes from believing one is and can be treated
> equal to the person one is thinking of engaging in a relationship with.
>
> Just my personal philosophy and opinions here.
>
> --
> --I suggest that civilized, modern society has written law (and rightly so!)
to criminalize BDSM that is not consensual. I think there are many examples,
even within the last couple of thousand years, of emporers, kings, despots or
others in position of power who gained sexual and or other pleasure from
practicing bdsm on non-consenting victims, It was still BDSM - just one of
the parties to it wasn't enjoying thier role. One doesn't even need to go
back as far as Nazi Germany to think of instances where non-consensual bdsm
was in theory against the law but practiced by many in the "security forces"
et al.
For what it's worth, anyway.
Bob .... Edmonton, AB.
TacitR
>I was just wondering when BDSM actually began. Where do the roots
>of wiitwd lie?
Oh, geez. Lessee...recorded history goes back--what? Thirty thousand years or
so? The nature of the beast being what it is, I'd have to say for so long as
we've been recognizably human.
---
Onyx, the Mac game of sexual exploration; Xero, the industrial magazine
of art, fiction and photography; and online photo gallery--all at
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
out to email.ix.netcom.com
wrote:
>Arrow Blue (arro...@takeouttoemail.ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 18:53:41 GMT, fo...@unforgettable.com (foggy)
>: wrote:
>
>: >Actually I do take the Bible as literally as I can. [1] And I believe
>: >that D/s started *before* the creation of man. Heaven contained happy
>: >subbies, willingly serving God (their Dom) when Lucifer decided he
>: >would make a better Dom than a submissive. So, deliberately moving
>: >out from under God's (Domly) authority, he recruited like-minded
>: >subbies, proclaimed himself a deserving Dom . . . and the rest is
>: >history. [2]
>
>: In other words, I'm hearing you say that since you are a submissive
>: female hetersexual nonSM oriented person, everybody else is supposed
>: to be just like you and Jack are or they are immoral or tainted by the
>: devil or whatever it is that you are trying to imply there.
>
>I see no such implication. All I see her saying is that all angels
>should be submissives; since few of us are angels (even those of
>us that are submissives or subs (but not "subbies" harrumph !)),
>that doesn't apply to us, and the fall of Lucifer had, as best I can
>recollect, no bearing on the creation of humans or the nature of
>humanity.
You snipped the sentence that pricked my ears.
>
>As to where SM started, you really don't want to know what I think.
>;-))*
Now replace SM with gayness or negros and see if you find the insult.
Nicely and sweetly said, of course, but still there, especially if
taken in context with other things Jack has stated.
>
>: Gee foggy, it must be wonderful to be so special in God's eyes that he
>: decided you are one of the few get the kink that contains his truth,
>: but forgo to give so many others that 'special feeling'.
>
>
>Arrow, she may perhaps believe that, but she was not so graceless
>as to say it, so why make an issue of it ?
Why not? I'm interested in how she justifies her feelings to herself.
Are religous beliefs to be sacred cows that no one may challenge?
And isn't this the forum to do so when those beliefs have to do with
WIITWD?
>
>FWIW, if there is a god, I'm rather glad that my kinks don't
>meet with his approval, as he doesn't meet with mine.
>
>If I may say so, you do seem to have a bit of an issue with religion.
>Now, for the record, so do I. And not just with the Christian
>superstition, but with all them (may as well be nondiscriminatory
>and irk everyone equally).
I don't have an issue with religion, many people use religion to
explore and help define ethical issues and use it for support. Others
use it to justify self importance and bigotry. I have no issues with
the former, I do with the latter.
FWIW, my own father used to travel and speak at churches occasionally
and both of my parents are highly active in their religion. I very
much approve and frequently discussed the subject with both of them. I
have one sister and her spouse that do this too (albeit a different
religion).
I tend to view people who endevor to follow a written religous text to
the letter with alarm. So many horrors have been committed through
history for the sake of people insisting on following words blindly .
If I am rude to make an issue of this subject, so be it.
>
>But I manage not to say that on a regular basis. As long as no
>one wants to conduct a jihad to convert the infidels by force
>(anyone who allows themselves to be converted by persuasion,
>that's their misfortune), I won't conduct an unholy-war against
>the religious (not that there aren't a few pagan prietesses
>here that I wouldn't mind seeing as POWs and subjecting to
>a long process of interrogation - though, of course, I wouldn't
>really mind working for the religious types if it meant a chance
>to work on a captured Arrow <evil leer>)). Nothing good would
>come from my antagonizing people whose supersitions are different
>from mine.
Even if those superstitions are used as justification to brand some of
us as immoral because of how we feel? (no matter how politely
expressed)
Arrow
out to email.ix.netcom.com
wrote:
>Arrow Blue responded to my post, saying:
>
><snippage>
>
>
>>
>>In other words, I'm hearing you say that since you are a submissive
>>female hetersexual nonSM oriented person, everybody else is supposed
>>to be just like you and Jack are or they are immoral or tainted by the
>>devil or whatever it is that you are trying to imply there.
>>
>>Gee foggy, it must be wonderful to be so special in God's eyes that he
>>decided you are one of the few get the kink that contains his truth,
>>but forgo to give so many others that 'special feeling'.
>>
>>Why do you think he did that? Do you think you deserve the 'special
>>approved' kink more than someone else?
>>
>>>
><snippage>
>
>
>>So why don't you ask your pastor to help interpret it for you? Isn't
>>that what he's there for?
>>
>
>Whoa! Earth to Broken Arrow .... come in, Arrow. Get a grip. You on
>drugs or was that just a hormone surge? Come on, lighten up. I
>*deliberately* said what I said in a pleasant, cheerful manner.
How nice - you implied I was imoral or something in a pleasant
cheerful manner.
Now why didn't that make me think that was OK?
> It's
>unfortunate you haven't been able to work out certain issues of guilt,
>but that's not my fault. You had no reason (other than being
>deliberately nasty) to be sarcastic with me. Instead of laying in
>wait for posts to attack, why don't you take several deep breaths and
>start dealing with some of those unresolved issues your manifestation
>reveals?
What on earth do you think I should be feeling guilty about?
By the way, I've asked you several polite direct questions earlier
about your beliefs and you ignored it, so evidently you don't respond
to politeness.
Arrow
Dryada
wrote:
>Arrow Blue responded to my post, saying:
>
><snippage>
>>
>>In other words, I'm hearing you say that since you are a submissive
>>female hetersexual nonSM oriented person, everybody else is supposed
>>to be just like you and Jack are or they are immoral or tainted by the
>>devil or whatever it is that you are trying to imply there.
>>
>>Gee foggy, it must be wonderful to be so special in God's eyes that he
>>decided you are one of the few get the kink that contains his truth,
>>but forgo to give so many others that 'special feeling'.
>>
>>Why do you think he did that? Do you think you deserve the 'special
>>approved' kink more than someone else?
>>
>>>
><snippage>
>
>
>>So why don't you ask your pastor to help interpret it for you? Isn't
>>that what he's there for?
>>
>
>Whoa! Earth to Broken Arrow .... come in, Arrow. Get a grip. You on
>drugs or was that just a hormone surge? Come on, lighten up. I
>*deliberately* said what I said in a pleasant, cheerful manner. It's
>unfortunate you haven't been able to work out certain issues of guilt,
>but that's not my fault. You had no reason (other than being
>deliberately nasty) to be sarcastic with me. Instead of laying in
>wait for posts to attack, why don't you take several deep breaths and
>start dealing with some of those unresolved issues your manifestation
>reveals?
>
>foggy
Ya know, I'm a sick, twisted pagan bisexual switch female, who would
certainly drive a bunch of "bible study" oriented d/s types to try to
"save" me (and get a punch in the nose for their trouble). I even
"beat up" (on the NG, anyway) on doms I think are full of shit, and I
have never felt that anything foggy has ever said was an attack on
me. In fact, I have never felt that anything foggy has ever said was
an attack on anyone, for that matter.
A few pages back in the newsgroup, um, Arrow apparently responded
to a question I had about her earlier desire to purify bdsm of
non-sexual influences, suggesting she may have an issue with religion.
She claimed not to have one. Steven Davis has stepped up and
promised he does have an issue, and also suggested Arrow might
want to fess up. Does Arrow want to fess up yet? Hmm?
Sorry I can't join you all, I was raised Congregationalist, and they
are just barely not Unitarians. It's horrible to not have some evil
Christian upbringing to rebel against, when everyone around you
is raving about their Catholic, or Baptist, or whatever, upbringing.
Fortunately, at least there were usually the Jewish kids to talk to in
college. I tried my best to rebel against my Christian upbringing
when I was a teenager, and make it all evil, but when I asked my
minister, hostily, "What's wrong with goats and your left hand!?", all
he had to say was that that was a very interesting opinion. Its very
frustrating to try rebelling against people who don't rant back.
Ya know, there are some "Christians" who walk their talk. And don't
try to convert you. I've met several.
I recommend people with unresolved anger to really let it out at the
original source of the real anger. If you do it well enough, it stops
bleeding out all over the place, and all over people who don't
deserve that shit. I realize, from my own experience, that sometimes
this takes a while, even years, to get properly rid of, if we are
talking about childhood issues especially.
But that first step's a doozy.
Love, and Balance,
Dryada
T. Eckhart
>et al.
>
> For what it's worth, anyway.
Then you and I have quite different viewpoints of what is BDSM. A
Roman master may have his slave beaten at a dinner party for his guest to
wank off to but I I can't call that BDSM.
T. Eckhart
>teck...@sherrill.kiva.net (T. Eckhart) writes:
>
>> My opinion is this: BDSM is related to consent and thus requires
>> that all parties both give consent and be able to consent.
>
>agree and say that many of our current ideas and identification of
>what BDSM is comes from the latter half of the 20th Century.
Oh, no! ;-) You can't possible disagree with me, boy. ;-)
>The primary disagreement I have with this is what do we call the use
>of sensation play or bondage for erotic or psychological reasons
>before the changes in gender politics of the 20th century. In
>particular, the people with economic, social and political power who
>were bottoms prior to the 20th century.
And the people who topped were who? Did they consent to top or
were they merely following the other person's demands because of
political, social or economic reasons? You know that it isn't merely the
bottom whose consent matters.
T. Eckhart
>Relatively recent? IIRC, Cicero, Ovid, and Aristotle all had written
>about consensual, erotic power exchange... I assume that we can all
>agree that c.e.r.e (fingers acting up, sorry...) qualifies as a form of
>BDSM. At least I hope so. If I ever recover my book list, I'll be happy
>to post references.
Please do cite references. Having read Cicero, Ovid and Aristotle
I can't think of a bdsm passage though I can think of people overcome by
eros (not consensual in any sense) or dealing with necessity.
Binder
>
> On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 17:01:58 -0700, Binder <bin...@idjit.jps.net> wrote:
> >Relatively recent? IIRC, Cicero, Ovid, and Aristotle all had written
> >about consensual, erotic power exchange... I assume that we can all
> >agree that c.e.r.e (fingers acting up, sorry...) qualifies as a form of
> >BDSM. At least I hope so. If I ever recover my book list, I'll be happy
> >to post references.
>
> Please do cite references. Having read Cicero, Ovid and Aristotle
> I can't think of a bdsm passage though I can think of people overcome by
> eros (not consensual in any sense) or dealing with necessity.
I will do what I can asap... unfortunately for me, it will require a low
level rebuild of a currently defunct hard drive.
Now, in absence of direct citations; to my way of thinking, athletic
competition in early Greece qualified as having a BDSM context. Best as
I know, however, I wasn't there. If I find "play" wrestling erotic
(which I do,) I think I can get away with assuming that isn't a societal
influence that creates that *perk*; for me, it's the physical contact
combined with physical dominance over another.
I do have two images from 1st century Pompeii that appear to have a BDSM
context; one of a flagellation, and one depicting a golden shower. Those
may be subject to interpretation, however, and perhaps wishful thinking
on my part. ("Erotica Universalis" Taschen Verlag Gmbh, 1994)
In the absense of ready evidence for my previous statement, The best
that I can offer right now is: to the best of my admittedly feeble
ability to recall, my understanding is that those references exist.
My opinion, in more general terms, is that some people are wired for
WIITWD, and always have been. Those people that are wired to find
flagellation erotic did not get that way as a result of societal
influences. Likewise, there are those that find submission erotic, and
those that dominate toward erotic ends. Put the two together, they spell
WIITWD.
It's a fairly simple and direct combination of two core drives, the need
for leadership (either the need to lead or the need to follow) and the
erotic; IMO, a perfectly natural conclusion.
Binder
--------
Steven S. Davis
: On 25 Sep 1998 17:09:26 GMT, s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis)
: wrote:
: You snipped the sentence that pricked my ears.
:
[Quoting Foggy]
: >As to where SM started, you really don't want to know what I think.
: >;-))*
I think your ears are somewhat overly sensitive. Of course, that
may be because, for me, the above was completely accurate, ie
I don't want to know what Foggy thinks. But as it happens, I do
already know that she and Jack are anti-painplay (though I didn't
regard that remark as a stab at painplay, perhaps because IO didn't
have any idea what she did mean).
So ? There's a kink they don't like (that I do). What of it ?
: Now replace SM with gayness or negros and see if you find the insult.
Replace it with "negroes" and you'd have a completely different
statement, as then you'd be talking about a race of people rather
than a kink or practice. "Gayness" is almost the same, though since
there are still some who argue that "gayness" is a choice that can
be "cured" (so far as I know, not even Pat Robertson is claiming
that with enough prayer people can be "cured" of being black).
IMO, it's quite alright to *not* like painplay or painplayers.
If Foggy and Jack don't like painplay, that's OK. It's impolitic
to mention it, as no good comes from display of YKINOKism, but it's
not a "sin" to dislike painplay, or, for that matter, to feel that
painplay is fine and fun but d&s is evidence of mental illness.
It's just rude and impolitic to say so too loudly in public, because
it accomplishes nothing except to cause a big mess on SSB. Neither
painplayers nor D&Sers require each other's approval for what they
do, nor will they alter what they do because of any disapproval may
come from elements in the other camp (the same, of course, is true
of every other kink; while it's fine to discuss the hazards of such
things as breath control and scat play (and whenever possible to
point out how to make risky activities not safe, but safer), people
with serious BC and scat kinks aren't going to stop simply because
other people dislike their kinks and say so publicly, so the most
- and the worst - that will result from such proclaimations is that
people with such kinks will stay out of SSB, and whatever benefit
that the safety discussions might produce will be lost.
And it's OK to believe that one's choice of kinks is sanctioned
by God (what I think of that opinion, the people who hold that
opinion don't want to hear). And to hold as a matter of religious
faith - or for any other reason - that some kinks are wrong.
Just don't say so here. It makes a big mess for everyone as the
flamewars spring up about such statements, and it doesn't accomplish
anything. Feel free to have any opinion about any kink for any reason,
no one here wants to force any kink on anyone else (well, OK, there's
some submissive women that I'd *like* to convert to femdom's, but as
that's not going to happen I don't make an issue of it). Just please
don't bring those arguments into this forum, and don't interfer with
people's practice of their consensual kinks (providing safety
information (other than "Don't do that !"), IMO, is not interfering).
: Nicely and sweetly said, of course, but still there, especially if
: taken in context with other things Jack has stated.
IMO, only someone perusing that statement with a microscope would
find that insult, and microscopic dissing of other kinks (and
I still don't see that as the inevitable conclusion in this case)
does not, IMO, rise to the level requiring outrage.
: >: Gee foggy, it must be wonderful to be so special in God's eyes that he
: >: decided you are one of the few get the kink that contains his truth,
: >: but forgo to give so many others that 'special feeling'.
: >
: >
: >Arrow, she may perhaps believe that, but she was not so graceless
: >as to say it, so why make an issue of it ?
:
: Why not? I'm interested in how she justifies her feelings to herself.
1) Why ? It's OK to be interested, of course. But what difference
does it make to you how someone who has very different beliefs
and practices from you justifies these to herself ?
How somone with similar beliefs deals with accepting hir feelings
and desires might be a profitable discussion, but asking an
antagonist the same question will lead nowhere.
2) If she wants to discuss this with you, that is of course her
privilege. But how any of us justify what we do and what we believe
(feelings, BTW, do not require justifications, they simply are)
is our own business, and none of us have to justify our beliefs
and practices to any other of us (defend our assertions and justify
our demands, yes, as that's stepping into public matters, but not
defend/justify private beliefs and practices).
: Are religous beliefs to be sacred cows that no one may challenge?
Largely, yes. Assertions and demands based upon those religious
beliefs - on on anything else - are subject to objection and challenge,
but matters of faith (like, for example, that "Bill Clinton is terrible
and must be guilty of an impeachaable offense and damned to hell or
there's clearly no reason for either impeachment or hell") it's
pointless to argue, as no rational discourse is possible on points
that are fundamentally nonrational, and it's especially pointless
to argue them here.
Discuss the matter with people of similar views to seek enhanced
mutual understanding, yes, that's fine. But challenging people
with different views to defend them, that's pointless.
: And isn't this the forum to do so when those beliefs have to do
: with WIITWD?
No. When actions or assertions steming from those beliefs bear
on wiitwd, yes, debate/challenge the actions or assertions that
impact upon wiitwd. The mere existence of beliefs that we don't
share or don't like doesn't requires challenge, nor are such
challenges constructive. Suppose the reason someone doesn't like
painplay is religious as opposed to some secular reason. So what ?
No one has to like anyone else's kink, and no one has to, in hir
secret heart, respect anyone else's kink. What we need to do
is to respect each person's right to have and to practice hir
consensual kinks, which includes not being harrassed or denounced
in a public "pansexual, pan-kink" forum such as SSB. It's in
all our interests that we extend this respect to other people,
both because we want the same respect for ourselves, and because
we want to keep this forum viable and the kinds of unrestrained
combat that would result with the tradition of anti-YKINOKism
would reduce that viability - and *without* making anyone alter
the beliefs or give up the practices that people attack (after
all, if we were the sort of people who didn't do thing just
because others disapprove, none of us would do wiitwd).
: >FWIW, if there is a god, I'm rather glad that my kinks don't
: >meet with his approval, as he doesn't meet with mine.
: >
: >If I may say so, you do seem to have a bit of an issue with religion.
: >Now, for the record, so do I. And not just with the Christian
: >superstition, but with all them (may as well be nondiscriminatory
: >and irk everyone equally).
As a bit of clarification, I have no "issue" with religion in terms
of any religious background to rebel against, or anger/guilt as a
result of my religious upbring (FWIW, baptised as a Methodist,
when last attending church it was a Baptist church (but one with
a very kind and tolerant minister, the late David MacQueen, who
preached a good sermon but did his best teaching by example), and
educated by the Salesians (a Catholic order)). I merely believe
- but rather rarely ever say, as it's both rude and pointless to do
so (and this will be my last such statement, for a while a least) -
that it's a crock. And that people have used it - as people have
used whatever idea is available - to justify their criminal acts
and criminal inaction.
: I don't have an issue with religion, many people use religion to
: explore and help define ethical issues and use it for support. Others
: use it to justify self importance and bigotry. I have no issues with
: the former, I do with the latter.
So deal with the bigotry, if such it be. The "reason" is generally
immaterial. You expect a bigot to "see the light" and reform
because of close scriptural analysis ? And if someone is acting
in a bigoted manner, you'll need do more to show that than showing
that they hold some religious views others don't share; show what
they are doing that's wrong and harmful, and show why it's wrong
harmful for them to do what they are doing. And if they aren't
acting in a bigoted manner, but merely hold views that one finds
objectionable - so what ?
: FWIW, my own father used to travel and speak at churches occasionally
: and both of my parents are highly active in their religion. I very
: much approve and frequently discussed the subject with both of them.
: I have one sister and her spouse that do this too (albeit a different
: religion).
:
: I tend to view people who endevor to follow a written religous text
: to the letter with alarm. So many horrors have been committed through
: history for the sake of people insisting on following words blindly .
Or because people opted to follow other dogmas to their logical
conclusion, however mad that conclusion. It's not unique to
religion. And not a problem that SSB is here to address.
: If I am rude to make an issue of this subject, so be it.
:
: >
: >But I manage not to say that on a regular basis. As long as no
: >one wants to conduct a jihad to convert the infidels by force
: >(anyone who allows themselves to be converted by persuasion,
: >that's their misfortune), I won't conduct an unholy-war against
: >the religious (not that there aren't a few pagan prietesses
: >here that I wouldn't mind seeing as POWs and subjecting to
: >a long process of interrogation - though, of course, I wouldn't
: >really mind working for the religious types if it meant a chance
: >to work on a captured Arrow <evil leer>)). Nothing good would
: >come from my antagonizing people whose supersitions are different
: >from mine.
:
:
: Even if those superstitions are used as justification to brand some
: of us as immoral because of how we feel? (no matter how politely
: expressed)
If someone wants to attack people as immoral - something that I
don't see as happening, even if the worst interpretation is made
of Foggy's statement - then the attacks should be be answered.
If someone with a different set of moral beliefs than I wants to
regard me as immoral - which, according to hir beliefs, I may
well be - that's hir business, and not something that will concern
me. If our beliefs differ so, then I probably won't want any private
interactions with hir, or hir with me, but as long as neither of
us interferes with the other's use of public forums, our private
differences aren't an issue.
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
The SSB Homepage: http://ssbb.home.ml.org/
Katharine Hawks
On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:26:24 -0700, "Jack Peacock"
<pea...@simconv.com> wrote:
<snip>
>There seems to be a recurring thread here that some people
>are extremely uncomfortable discussing a religious basis for
>D/s.
I am not uncomfortable discussing it -- in fact, during the past week
or so, I've been trying to figure out what exactly I think about it.
While discussing it doesn't make me uncomfortable, the notion of a
right-wing/fundamentalist segment of D/S folks does make me
uncomfortable, and I'll try to explain why.
(I am concerned that what I'm gonna write may offend some folks who
view DS as an expression of fundamentalist religious belief -- which
is not my intent. I simply want to do my best to explain to Jack why
I find the intersection of his politics, religion and sexuality
difficult to stomach. Of course, I recognize what I think for what it
is -- one of many possible positions -- and I am not naive enough to
assume that any of these positions will have a greater hold on 'truth'
or 'rightness' than any other position. How's that for a disclaimer?)
> Ignoring the transparent attempt to flame for One True
>Wayism, it's obvious all foggy did was state her beliefs,
>foggy and I both wonder at why a few on the ng seem to react
>so negatively. Is there some kind of underlying guilt at
>work here? Really Arrow, it's ok if you can't fit in.
While I admit that a busy schedule has prevented me from reading each
and every post that I'd like to -- I haven't (recently) seen you or
foggy express any OTWisms. So I'm not approaching your position from
that angle.
>The
>relationship foggy and I have isn't for everyone and we
>aren't missionaries out to convert anyone. But her beliefs
>are central to foggy's submission to me, they are a valid
>topic for discussion in this newsgroup, so I suggest you
>work out your feelings on religion in some other venue.
Yes, I agree they are valid. And I find them fascinating.
<snip>
>The topic of this thread was a question on where BDSM
>originated. Does anyone seriously think that the religious
>principle of submission of the wife to the husband has no
>place in a discussion about the origins of D/s?
As others have stated before, what separates "BDSM" from other
formations of power-exchange (including church structures, implicit
and explicit cultural structures of power, gender structures of power,
class structures of power, etc.) is that, ideally, each individual
enters into the power exchange with complete freedom of will and
choice.
For example, most of us are born into a complex power structure called
"gender" <grin>. Generally, we do not enter into the power-structure
called "gender" with complete freedom of will and choice. We're born
with a biological gender, and generally socialized to meet our
culture's expectations of "correctness" in our gender.
As a biological woman (and also, someone who is relatively in synch
with cultural norms of "femaleness"), I engage in a series of complex
power exchanges revolving around my gender. To a certain degree, I am
able to affect and nuance these power exchanges in some cases, and in
other cases, I kinda have to live with the way things are. In some
ways, because of my gender, I will get the "upper hand", and in other
cases, I won't. In other words, my gender positions me in relatively
specific places in a multitude of power-exchanges.
The bottom line, however, is that I didn't enter in my gender (either
biological or cultural) by choice. Which is cool -- I don't have any
bitch about that (what would be the point?) Therefore, any power
exchange that I enter into, that is specifically defined by the
construct of "gender", could not be compared to BDSM because of the
loss of "total agency".
I would also hold a simiilar position regarding religion -- that most
of us (*historically*) have not entered into the values of a
religious system by choice, free-will and with informed consent.
Historically, religion has functioned in similar ways that gender has
-- to regulate behaviors in systematic ways which work to concentrate
power among specific groups of people.
That's my association with religion. Of course, after getting a bit
of a better sense of what you and foggy are "about", I have to face
the fact that people can, actually, enter into religious systems with
free will and informed consent. (I remain skeptical, but I admit that
it's a possibility.)
What makes me skeptical is this: I don't understand why foggy doesn't
choose submissiveness just because she likes it (with the added bonus
that submission to you is in synch with her religious values.) In
other words, there is a difference between choosing to submit because
it's fulfilling and choosing to submit because the bible says so.
In other words -- what's the underlying drive? To submit or to live
according to one's interpretation of the bible? If the underlying
drive is to submit, then I'd call it BDSM. If the underlying drive is
to uphold an interpretation of the bible, then it's a religious
perspective. (Lots of people submit willingly to others in a
multitude of contexts -- I don't call my power exchange with people
who work under me BDSM. While their submission to my authority is
integral to "getting shit done" around the office, it's incidental to
the primary goal.)
What I see, and what makes me uncomfortable, is the sense that DS is
being appropriated to validate a submission that is actually
incidental to another belief system. I don't hear you and foggy
talking about the pleasure you take in the fact that your personal DS
orientation happens to mirror the values you take from Christianity.
Rather, I sense that you two view your DS exchange as an outspring of
your religious faith.
If it really is BDSM (and I know I'm getting into hot water with that
phrase) -- how would things be different for you two if, let's say, if
you two had reverse wiring? (ie, you were submissively oriented and
foggy was oriented toward dominance.)
Many of us fight hard to disentangle our BDSM drives cultural
formations of power that either disempower or empower us in ways that
are external to BDSM. For example, alot of het male submissives find
themselves on difficult journey in terms of reconciling their
submissiveness with the cultural norms of masculinity (generally seen
as non-submissive). Similar journeys are taken by het femdoms. Alot
of male doms struggle to dismantle the sense of entitlement that comes
with maleness + power, and so on.
When so many people undertake the project to sever their BDSM from
other power structures (which they are typically born into), it can be
unsettling to run across someone who seeks to strengthen the bond
between personal DS and an institutional power structure.
I'll be interested to hear what you and foggy think of these
ramblings.
--Katharine
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Chicago, Illinois
ICQ # 2404133
T. Eckhart
>T. Eckhart wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 17:01:58 -0700, Binder <bin...@idjit.jps.net> wrote:
>> >Relatively recent? IIRC, Cicero, Ovid, and Aristotle all had written
>> >about consensual, erotic power exchange... I assume that we can all
>> >agree that c.e.r.e (fingers acting up, sorry...) qualifies as a form of
>> >BDSM. At least I hope so. If I ever recover my book list, I'll be happy
>> >to post references.
>>
>> Please do cite references. Having read Cicero, Ovid and Aristotle
>> I can't think of a bdsm passage though I can think of people overcome by
>> eros (not consensual in any sense) or dealing with necessity.
>
>competition in early Greece qualified as having a BDSM context. Best as
>I know, however, I wasn't there. If I find "play" wrestling erotic
>(which I do,) I think I can get away with assuming that isn't a societal
>influence that creates that *perk*; for me, it's the physical contact
>combined with physical dominance over another.
I do not agree that wrestling was an erotic pursuit for the
ancient greeks when it was in terms of an athelic competion. Most, if not
all, of those competions were for religious and (nationalist isn't the
correct term) city pride not the individual's turn on. If there were
erotic wrestling, quite possible I'm sure, I don't recall it being
mentioned.
>I do have two images from 1st century Pompeii that appear to have a BDSM
>context; one of a flagellation, and one depicting a golden shower. Those
>may be subject to interpretation, however, and perhaps wishful thinking
>on my part. ("Erotica Universalis" Taschen Verlag Gmbh, 1994)
The first image I know of -- I'm actually seen it in Pompeii. It
is a religious ritual and therefore I wouldn't personally qualify it as
bdsm though I understand the reasoning for seeing it thus. Likewise I
don't consider the Lupercalia to be bdsm because the ritual flagellation
was for fertility reasons and was a momentary thing not connected as far
as I can tell with sexual arousal. I'm not familar with the second image
you mentioned.
>In the absense of ready evidence for my previous statement, The best
>that I can offer right now is: to the best of my admittedly feeble
>ability to recall, my understanding is that those references exist.
>
>My opinion, in more general terms, is that some people are wired for
>WIITWD, and always have been. Those people that are wired to find
>flagellation erotic did not get that way as a result of societal
>influences. Likewise, there are those that find submission erotic, and
>those that dominate toward erotic ends. Put the two together, they spell
>WIITWD.
>
>It's a fairly simple and direct combination of two core drives, the need
>for leadership (either the need to lead or the need to follow) and the
>erotic; IMO, a perfectly natural conclusion.
I have no problem with an interest in DS or SM being hardwired
since I myself feel that way. However I have a big problem with
describing actions based on religion and on social inequalities as BDSM
like I practice it.
If I'd lived in the ancient world, and had the power and money to
buy a slave and the ability to be very private about it (big ifs since I'm
female) I would have enjoyed owning him I'm sure and done some SM. But it
would not be BDSM because I would be raised and he would be either raised
or broken into seeing our roles as just the way it was, no concern needed
for the other beyond the necessary roles, consent would be a non-issue for
both of us.
Jack Peacock
<360fce83...@news.enteract.com>...
>While discussing it doesn't make me uncomfortable, the notion
of a
>right-wing/fundamentalist segment of D/S folks does make me
>uncomfortable, and I'll try to explain why.
>
opposite..libertarian. Foggy does have some fundamentalist
beliefs but is not in what I would call the militant intolerant
league. We are both conservative but we don't agree on
everything.
>
>What makes me skeptical is this: I don't understand why foggy
doesn't
>choose submissiveness just because she likes it (with the added
bonus
>that submission to you is in synch with her religious values.)
In
>other words, there is a difference between choosing to submit
because
>it's fulfilling and choosing to submit because the bible says
so.
>
me to respond now, although she wants to answer herself in more
detail after she feels a bit better.
The short answer is that she does choose to submit freely,
because it is her own personal desire. The fact that her
beliefs coincide with her desires just makes it all the more
easier to accept. It is exactly what you called it, an added
bonus.
>
>In other words -- what's the underlying drive? To submit or to
live
>according to one's interpretation of the bible?
>
The two are not mutually exclusive. This is not an either/or
question. Foggy uses the Bible as a spiritual guide, and that
includes submission to her husband, but she also submits to me
because it fulfills her needs. Whatever you may think of the
Bible, the Torah, the Koran, or any religious doctrine, they all
exist in part as a textbook, to explain to future generations
what has worked in the past to maintain a stable prosperous
society. In this particular case the principle of submission of
wife to husband was deemed beneficial to society as a whole,
both men and women. Times may have changed in the last 2000
years, but I don't think anyone on this ng can deny there is a
large group of men and women who still prefer to live this way,
Bible or no.
>
>What I see, and what makes me uncomfortable, is the sense that
DS is
>being appropriated to validate a submission that is actually
>incidental to another belief system. I don't hear you and
foggy
>talking about the pleasure you take in the fact that your
personal DS
>orientation happens to mirror the values you take from
Christianity.
>Rather, I sense that you two view your DS exchange as an
outspring of
>your religious faith.
>
No, the D/s relationship does not come from faith alone. For
one thing, foggy is a Christian, I am not. I do admit that as a
moral code I'm pretty much in agreement with the Bible, which
probably helped foggy and I form a relationship, but I
personally do not have any religious beliefs. Yes we are both
pleased that there are no conflicts between our D/s orientation
and our personal beliefs.
Foggy and I are on this newsgroup not to convert anyone but to
demonstrate there are other options within the BDSM or D/s
lifestyle. When I first discovered the BDSM websites the
orientation was overwhelmingly on pain play, very little on
submission. We think there are others like us out there on the
Net, looking for information not about caning or floggers, but
on how to make a D/s relationship work.
>
>If it really is BDSM (and I know I'm getting into hot water
with that
>phrase) -- how would things be different for you two if, let's
say, if
>you two had reverse wiring? (ie, you were submissively oriented
and
>foggy was oriented toward dominance.)
>
I read this to foggy, her answer is that she can't imagine what
it would be like for her to be dominant and me submissive.
Given the way I am, I couldn't be anything but dominant either.
However, I'll try to answer your question.
It would probably look something like the traditional
femdom/malesub I see described here in SSBB. Would either of us
be happy? No, not as we are now. How would it be reconciled to
foggy's beliefs? It wouldn't. If we were reversed, we would
both be totally different people. Chances are we wouldn't even
be married.
>
>Many of us fight hard to disentangle our BDSM drives cultural
>formations of power that either disempower or empower us in
ways that
>are external to BDSM
>
True, I've had some internal struggles to overcome in being
dominant enough for foggy. I think foggy has had an easier time
of it because she had a cultural reinforcement to validate her
beliefs. If I were a Christian, I think I'd find it easier to
accept being dominant too.
>
>When so many people undertake the project to sever their BDSM
from
>other power structures (which they are typically born into), it
can be
>unsettling to run across someone who seeks to strengthen the
bond
>between personal DS and an institutional power structure.
>
This brings to mind the cliche about throwing out the baby with
the bathwater. Why sever the power structures beneficial to
your own personal beliefs?
>
>I'll be interested to hear what you and foggy think of these
>ramblings.
>
Again, foggy wants to post her own answer as soon as she's
better. Feel free to ask more questions in the meantime, I'll
try to answer or I'll read them to foggy and send along her
answers.
Addendum for certain members of SSBB: Is it _really_ necessary
that I add in a disclaimer that this post represent the personal
opinions of myself and foggy and is not an attempt to convert
all the heathens to the One True Way?
Addendum added at foggy's request: The opinions of the
management do not necessarily represent hers.
Jack "the clueless cavedom" Peacock
Joe Zeff
> Please do cite references. Having read Cicero, Ovid and Aristotle
>I can't think of a bdsm passage though I can think of people overcome by
>eros (not consensual in any sense) or dealing with necessity.
There's a case of necrophilia in Homer. As I have both books in
electronic form, I can probably find and post it if anybody cares.
---
Joe Zeff
The Guy With the Sideburns
If you can't play with words, what good are they?
http://www.lasfs.org
Joe Zeff
Lawless
> The short answer is that she does choose to submit freely,
> because it is her own personal desire. The fact that her
> beliefs coincide with her desires just makes it all the more
> easier to accept. It is exactly what you called it, an added
> bonus.
*nod* Lots of different people find something about D/s or BDSM [1]
that dovetails nicely with something else in their lives. Atheist
that I am, I don't see any reason why religion so clicking wouldn't
be a similar, and acceptable [2], bonus.
> _+_A_D_4_-_
> _+_A_D_4_-_In other words -- [...]
> live
> _+_A_D_4_-_according to one's [...]
(Leaving in just a sample of why I say your software is domming you -
take the underscores out and you'll see the codes the rest of us have
the joy of wading through. *g*)
> No, the D/s relationship does not come from faith alone. For
> one thing, foggy is a Christian, I am not. [...] Yes we are both
> pleased that there are no conflicts between our D/s orientation
> and our personal beliefs.
> Foggy and I are on this newsgroup not to convert anyone but to
> demonstrate there are other options within the BDSM or D/s
> lifestyle. When I first discovered the BDSM websites the
> orientation was overwhelmingly on pain play, very little on
> submission. We think there are others like us out there on the
> Net, looking for information not about caning or floggers, but
> on how to make a D/s relationship work.
*nod* And as far as I can tell, you and foggy no longer write that
you see D/s-only, or maledom/subfem, as being better and superior to
other styles - even if you privately think so. *g*
> Addendum for certain members of SSBB: Is it +AF8-really+AF8- necessary
> that I add in a disclaimer that this post represent the personal
> opinions of myself and foggy and is not an attempt to convert
> all the heathens to the One True Way?
(axegrinding on)
I don't think so, no : most of us realize that you're not writing and
espousing OTWisms without the disclaimer, and Arrow Blue (and possibly
others) will go off the deep end with or without one. Seeing her quoted
in this thread reminds me of why I killfiled her : she's threatened when
others aren't just like her in terms of -why- they do WIITWD, imagining
slights and slurs when none seemingly exist. Sure, she can feel free
to prod foggy to get her to "justify" herself, but people can feel
free to ignore her as well. Ain't freedom grand?
(axegrinding off)
--
-- \_awless is : Chase Vogelsberg | SSBB Undiplomatic Corps, Tampa
-- A wolf by any other flame.... | ICQ #19100721
Binder
[snippish]
> >It's a fairly simple and direct combination of two core drives, the need
> >for leadership (either the need to lead or the need to follow) and the
> >erotic; IMO, a perfectly natural conclusion.
>
> I have no problem with an interest in DS or SM being hardwired
> since I myself feel that way. However I have a big problem with
> describing actions based on religion and on social inequalities as BDSM
> like I practice it.
Here's where we part company; regardless of cites.
I hear you saying that if it originates in religious ceremony, it
*isn't* bdsm. Likewise, if money is exchanged, it couldn't possibly be
enjoyable.
> If I'd lived in the ancient world, and had the power and money to
> buy a slave and the ability to be very private about it (big ifs since I'm
> female) I would have enjoyed owning him I'm sure and done some SM. But it
> would not be BDSM because I would be raised and he would be either raised
> or broken into seeing our roles as just the way it was, no concern needed
> for the other beyond the necessary roles, consent would be a non-issue for
> both of us.
Interesting. If one were born into the ruling class, one is born without
a conscience? Likewise, especially considering the we agree on the
hardwired predisposition toward WITTWD, that all slaves would require
conditioning to participate.
Binder
Waxing Platonic
Lawless
> Jack Peacock :
> > The short answer is that she does choose to submit freely,
> > because it is her own personal desire. The fact that her
> > beliefs coincide with her desires just makes it all the more
> > easier to accept. It is exactly what you called it, an added
> > bonus.
> *nod* Lots of different people find something about D/s or BDSM [1]
> that dovetails nicely with something else in their lives. Atheist
> that I am, I don't see any reason why religion so clicking wouldn't
> be a similar, and acceptable [2], bonus.
Much as I hate to imitate SheWhoFollowsHerselfUpAllTooOften, seems I
was too busy grinding axes to insert my references.
[1] D/s mentioned separately in light of Jack and foggy's emphasis
on dominance and submission, vice SM and such.
[2] "Acceptable" in the context that certain others seem to feel that
it isn't acceptable if someone's religion coincides happily with
one's BDSM, or if someone doesn't otherwise do what they do for
the exact same motivations and benefits as others, not because I'm
self-righteous enough to think my declaring that something is or
is not acceptable means much.
Someone's BDSM coincides nicely with their tennis game 'cause
flogging helps their backhand, great! Someone else's meshes real
nice with their personal beliefs, that's great too. Another's
works out well 'cause lots of people letting themselves be tied
up means never having to buy meat at the supermarket, er, well...
T. Eckhart
Followup-To:
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 04:28:25 GMT, Joe Zeff wrote:
>teck...@sherrill.kiva.net (T. Eckhart) wrote:
>
>> Please do cite references. Having read Cicero, Ovid and Aristotle
>>I can't think of a bdsm passage though I can think of people overcome by
>>eros (not consensual in any sense) or dealing with necessity.
>
>There's a case of necrophilia in Homer. As I have both books in
>electronic form, I can probably find and post it if anybody cares.
What does necrophilia have to do with BDSM? The one party is dead
so they can't give consent or even talk about whether they might want to
do it.
T. Eckhart
>T. Eckhart wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 09:29:49 -0700, Binder <bin...@idjit.jps.net> wrote:
>> >It's a fairly simple and direct combination of two core drives, the need
>> >for leadership (either the need to lead or the need to follow) and the
>> >erotic; IMO, a perfectly natural conclusion.
>>
>> I have no problem with an interest in DS or SM being hardwired
>> since I myself feel that way. However I have a big problem with
>> describing actions based on religion and on social inequalities as BDSM
>> like I practice it.
>
>Here's where we part company; regardless of cites.
>
>I hear you saying that if it originates in religious ceremony, it
>*isn't* bdsm. Likewise, if money is exchanged, it couldn't possibly be
>enjoyable.
I didn't say anything about enjoyable. My defining term for BDSM
is consent by all parties involved. The second defining concept is the
individual identification as doing BDSM. I don't see evidence that every
person who does something that looks like BDSM or parts of it would define
it as BDSM.
There are dozens of things that look like parts of BDSM but I
cannot define them as BDSM because consent isn't an issue.
>> If I'd lived in the ancient world, and had the power and money to
>> buy a slave and the ability to be very private about it (big ifs since I'm
>> female) I would have enjoyed owning him I'm sure and done some SM. But it
>> would not be BDSM because I would be raised and he would be either raised
>> or broken into seeing our roles as just the way it was, no concern needed
>> for the other beyond the necessary roles, consent would be a non-issue for
>> both of us.
>
>Interesting. If one were born into the ruling class, one is born without
>a conscience? Likewise, especially considering the we agree on the
>hardwired predisposition toward WITTWD, that all slaves would require
>conditioning to participate.
Whatever type of culture one is born into plays a big role in how
that person develops. I do not think that a Roman would ever consider
getting consent from a slave or an antebellum master consent form a slave
because it is not how they view those relationships. In other words the
individual may have a conscience but that is strongly shaped by the
society they were raised under/in.
I'm not certain I understand your second sentence directly above.
The slave being beaten for the Romans amusement requires no conditioning
to participate because they aren't participating, they are an object being
used.
Could someone who has no real choice try to learn to enjoy it, to
transfer it into something positive, could they even want that type of
relationship? I think it is possible but because of the social dynamics I
don't think it is probable.
For me the key is consent. Now if you want to be very picky about
it one could argue that by not chosing death, starvation, harsh labor the
slave gives consent. That does not sound like consent to me however and
therefore I can't call it BDSM.
Question for everyone: Why is it that we get so concerned about
BDSM verses abuse but try so hard to find anything BDSM like in the past
among relationships where the lines of consent and abuse were quite
different?
bab...@nospamvisi.com
"Jack Peacock" <pea...@simconv.com> sez:
>Katharine Hawks wrote in message
>+ADw-360fce83.14823064+AEA-news.enteract.com+AD4-...
>+AD4-While discussing it doesn't make me uncomfortable, the notion
>of a
>+AD4-right-wing/fundamentalist segment of D/S folks does make me
>+AD4-uncomfortable, and I'll try to explain why.
>+AD4-
>I should clarify that I am not a fundamentalist, quite the
>opposite..libertarian. Foggy does have some fundamentalist
>beliefs but is not in what I would call the militant intolerant
>league. We are both conservative but we don't agree on
>everything.
>+AD4-
>+AD4-What makes me skeptical is this: I don't understand why foggy
>doesn't
>+AD4-choose submissiveness just because she likes it (with the added
>bonus
>+AD4-that submission to you is in synch with her religious values.)
>In
>+AD4-other words, there is a difference between choosing to submit
>because
>+AD4-it's fulfilling and choosing to submit because the bible says
>so.
>+AD4-
>Foggy has been under the weather for the past few days and asked
>me to respond now, although she wants to answer herself in more
>detail after she feels a bit better.
>
>The short answer is that she does choose to submit freely,
>because it is her own personal desire. The fact that her
>beliefs coincide with her desires just makes it all the more
>easier to accept. It is exactly what you called it, an added
>bonus.
>+AD4-
>+AD4-In other words -- what's the underlying drive? To submit or to
>live
>+AD4-according to one's interpretation of the bible?
>+AD4-
>The two are not mutually exclusive. This is not an either/or
>question. Foggy uses the Bible as a spiritual guide, and that
>includes submission to her husband, but she also submits to me
>because it fulfills her needs.
thank you for taking the time to explain this. i'd suggest that foggy
keep in mind when she posts that she may wish to mention the "fulfills
my needs" part once in a while rather than only mentioning the
"because the bible sez so" part (my impression in the past is that she
mostly referred to that second "reason". i may be wrong.)
>Addendum for certain members of SSBB: Is it +AF8-really+AF8- necessary
>that I add in a disclaimer that this post represent the personal
>opinions of myself and foggy and is not an attempt to convert
>all the heathens to the One True Way?
as one of the heathens <g>, i haven't gotten the impression from this
or other recent posts that you're trying to convert anyone...
*babalon*
SSBB Diplomatic Corps - Twin Cities, MN
---
"I'm out of bed and dressed, What more do you want?"
----------------------
Binder
> >I hear you saying that if it originates in religious ceremony, it
> >*isn't* bdsm. Likewise, if money is exchanged, it couldn't possibly be
> >enjoyable.
>
> I didn't say anything about enjoyable. My defining term for BDSM
> is consent by all parties involved. The second defining concept is the
> individual identification as doing BDSM. I don't see evidence that every
> person who does something that looks like BDSM or parts of it would define
> it as BDSM.
I gladly agree to consent as a defining term... my point is that
ownership and consent are not mutually exclusive. A slave may consent in
the form of indentured servitude, or may just be plain happy to be a
slave. Certainly there are those among us who feel happiest and most
comfortable when they are enslaved; the exchange of money has no effect
on the quality of the relationship.
I find it thoroughly conceivable that a common slave or the Greek or
Roman era *might* consent to BDSM activity, regardless of ownership of
freedom.
> There are dozens of things that look like parts of BDSM but I
> cannot define them as BDSM because consent isn't an issue.
[soft snip]
> >Interesting. If one were born into the ruling class, one is born without
> >a conscience?
> Whatever type of culture one is born into plays a big role in how
> that person develops. I do not think that a Roman would ever consider
> getting consent from a slave or an antebellum master consent form a slave
> because it is not how they view those relationships. In other words the
> individual may have a conscience but that is strongly shaped by the
> society they were raised under/in.
I agree, societal forces tend to mold the attitudes of the people born
into them... note the word tend? Us modern kinksters would not exist if
societal forces *always* had predictable results; we would be plain jane
vanilla normal folk. I *might* agree with your view regarding slave
owners as a broad generality, but as an acceptable generality about the
personalities of all slaveowners? Nut unh. For every rule, there are
exceptions, especially where people are concerned.
> Likewise, especially considering the we agree on the
> >hardwired predisposition toward WITTWD, that all slaves would require
> >conditioning to participate.
>
> The slave being beaten for the Romans amusement requires no conditioning
> to participate because they aren't participating, they are an object being
> used.
Generally, perhaps. If one were to purchase a slave that was already
wired for WITTWD, then issues of consent, conditioning, and ownership
really don't apply, do they?
> Could someone who has no real choice try to learn to enjoy it, to
> transfer it into something positive, could they even want that type of
> relationship? I think it is possible but because of the social dynamics I
> don't think it is probable.
I take the opposite view. Man is the most adaptable animal, capable of
finding joy in the darkest situations, peace in the midst of atrocity,
serenity in the most disturbing circumstances.
> Question for everyone: Why is it that we get so concerned about
> BDSM verses abuse but try so hard to find anything BDSM like in the past
> among relationships where the lines of consent and abuse were quite
> different?
I don't see the difference. That's IMO, of course. Perhaps because I
look at the exceptions instead of the generalities, we have differing
viewpoints regarding the past?
A "Massah" beating a slave is not BDSM, unless the slave specifically
consents; just like the slave beating hir "Master" under consensual
conditions *is* BDSM.
Binder
Kevin Muñoz
<kha...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
> I suspect that just about *anyone* could make BDSM,as they understand
> it, dove-tail with their other value systems (both political and
> cultural).
Oh, I don't know about that. I think it's probably a goodly number, but I
know a LOT of people who could not in any way, shape or form manage a BDSM
context within their other values.
Back in college (as if that were so long ago), there was a tension between
the BDSM community and, well, pretty much everyone else. Now, Oberlin
College has been called many things: Queer Mecca, Left of Swarthmore, and
so on. So we were a bunch of raving liberals, presumably tolerant and
whatnot. But you bring up BDSM and people just *squirmed*.
The one BDSM group on campus actually got threats a number of times from
various communities on campus that were less than appreciative of what we
apparently "represented," whatever the hell that meant.
I find it highly unlikely that a person in one of these other communities,
discovering his or her...proclivities..., would be able to easily
integrate one influence with the other.
(I had a friend in college who had this very problem, and sadly she never
really worked it out while I knew her. There has been speculation and
research into the idea that there is a high incidence of gay men in the
Catholic clergy precisely because it is a way to become closer to God and
discard the sin of homosexuality, and it affords the individual a chance
to be celibate in a way other than sheer force of will. Anyway, my friend
ended up by the time I last saw her completely discarding all of her toys
and trying desperately to be "normal" so that her politics wouldn't chafe
so hard. She had some nice toys.)
>
> I don't consider myself a religious person at all -- but I do consider
> both D/s and S/m to be intensely spiritual experiences. I typically
> use words like "sacred" to describe great play, "profane" to describe
> people/players whom I don't respect, and so on.
>
> If anything, BDSM is my substitute for religion.
That hits the nail on the head for me, succintly and in a much better way
than I could say it, I think.
>
> >Foggy and I are on this newsgroup not to convert anyone but to
> >demonstrate there are other options within the BDSM or D/s
> >lifestyle. When I first discovered the BDSM websites the
> >orientation was overwhelmingly on pain play, very little on
> >submission. We think there are others like us out there on the
> >Net, looking for information not about caning or floggers, but
> >on how to make a D/s relationship work.
(We're harder to spot, 'cause we don't wear butt-naked chaps - ObFolsom)
> >True, I've had some internal struggles to overcome in being
> >dominant enough for foggy. I think foggy has had an easier time
> >of it because she had a cultural reinforcement to validate her
> >beliefs. If I were a Christian, I think I'd find it easier to
> >accept being dominant too.
>
> I think I would have had an easier time being a dominant if I were a
> man <g>
>
> Seriously though, I think this is true for alot of dominants in
> general -- for whatever reason, it seems like submissives, often, have
> a greater capacity for submission than dominants do for dominance.
>
> So, when you faced these internal struggles to heighten your
> dominance, how did you do that? I know that I had to work very hard
> (and continue to work very hard) on disentangling my dominance from my
> ego. ('Cause I think humility is a really important thing in a top,
> and big egos tend to lack humility.)
Again, this is spot on for me. Confidence is one of those things you just
can't do without here. If you're submissive, you can *pretend* you've got
confidence in yourself and, frankly, it can still work (although it *can*
get ugly)[1]. But from the topside, I see it being much, much harder. I've
gone vanilla[2] for long stretches of time (well, long in my perspective)
including now because of the confidence thing.
Plus, I don't want to "break" anyone because I'm feeling sloppy these
days. I have this horrible nightmare of permanent emotional
scarring...don't want to go there, thank you very much.
[1] I realize that this could be construed...badly. I'm not saying that a
submissive person can do without self-esteem, etc. No, hardly that. What I
*am* saying is that a person who is unsure of himself (the "will I please"
fear) can be *reassured* more easily from the top than the bottom (IMO).
Thus, the domly fellow who isn't feeling all that capable or competent for
a time won't be easily comforted by a submissive partner. There is always
an extra amount of carefulness and worry that goes on in the head. It
seems to me that we are each our own worst critic - and the other person
saying "It's okay, everything is peachy" works much better for the sub
than the dom.
[2] And chocolate-free
--
Kevin Munoz
Phoenix Rising
thinking to
"Nashville Skyline"
Katharine Hawks
On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 22:45:34 -0700, "Jack Peacock"
<pea...@simconv.com> wrote:
(my quotes snipped to try and get rid of the nasty As, Ds, 4s and
whatnot)
>I should clarify that I am not a fundamentalist, quite the
>opposite..libertarian. Foggy does have some fundamentalist
>beliefs but is not in what I would call the militant intolerant
>league. We are both conservative but we don't agree on
>everything.
Thanks for clarifying. Out of curiosity, do you have the same
dove-tail effect that foggy does? (i.e., between your libertarianism
and D/s, as foggy does between christianity and D/s.) Personally,
both D/s and S/m dove-tail with lots of personal beliefs that I have
-- most of them about the importance and value of subversiveness.
<snip>
>The two are not mutually exclusive. This is not an either/or
>question. Foggy uses the Bible as a spiritual guide, and that
>includes submission to her husband, but she also submits to me
>because it fulfills her needs. Whatever you may think of the
>Bible, the Torah, the Koran, or any religious doctrine, they all
>exist in part as a textbook, to explain to future generations
>what has worked in the past to maintain a stable prosperous
>society. In this particular case the principle of submission of
>wife to husband was deemed beneficial to society as a whole,
>both men and women. Times may have changed in the last 2000
>years, but I don't think anyone on this ng can deny there is a
>large group of men and women who still prefer to live this way,
>Bible or no.
I don't know if there are a large group of men and women who *prefer*
to live this way, but I certainly agree that most do. To know whether
they prefer it or not, they'd have to (IMO) have access to all other
options.
But yes, there are people who prefer it and do make the choice
consciously who are outside of this sexual subculture.
You're probably right that the two choices (i.e., submitting because
you like it and submitting because the bible says so) aren't mutually
exclusive --- but they certainly do exist in a weird tension when you
put this sexual subculture in juxtaposition with
religious/fundamentalist subcultures. I do consider my BDSM (and I
feel this way more about my S/m than my D/s) as a kind of "radical"
thing, and I also (without really considering this as I probably
should) also consider it a "leftist" thing.
I suspect that just about *anyone* could make BDSM,as they understand
it, dove-tail with their other value systems (both political and
cultural).
<snip>
>No, the D/s relationship does not come from faith alone. For
>one thing, foggy is a Christian, I am not. I do admit that as a
>moral code I'm pretty much in agreement with the Bible, which
>probably helped foggy and I form a relationship, but I
>personally do not have any religious beliefs. Yes we are both
>pleased that there are no conflicts between our D/s orientation
>and our personal beliefs.
I don't consider myself a religious person at all -- but I do consider
both D/s and S/m to be intensely spiritual experiences. I typically
use words like "sacred" to describe great play, "profane" to describe
people/players whom I don't respect, and so on.
If anything, BDSM is my substitute for religion.
>Foggy and I are on this newsgroup not to convert anyone but to
>demonstrate there are other options within the BDSM or D/s
>lifestyle. When I first discovered the BDSM websites the
>orientation was overwhelmingly on pain play, very little on
>submission. We think there are others like us out there on the
>Net, looking for information not about caning or floggers, but
>on how to make a D/s relationship work.
I think there's a simple reason for this -- in the realm of D/s, we
all have to find our own paths. I can describe my own mistakes and
successes; but they aren't going to necessarily apply to anyone else,
much less resonate with them.
I think there's a connection between this and what I said earlier --
about the ease with which anyone could overlay their personal value
systems over their thoughts about D/s. How I describe a D/s
experience or relationship is so deeply colored by who I am outside of
these dynamics -- my choice of language, the emotions that I focus on,
the goals that I set, and so on -- sometimes seem to speak more of
these external values than they do of D/s.
It also strikes me that you seem to underestimating the amount of
discussion that happens here regarding D/s relationships -- among
folks like SilverOz, Karl K., Midnight Writer & bablon, and lots
others I'm failing to mention. I also think you'd do a lot better
raising the amount of discussion re: D/s-only relationships if you
just talked about it, instead of talking about talking about it <g>
<snip about internal struggles and stuff>
>True, I've had some internal struggles to overcome in being
>dominant enough for foggy. I think foggy has had an easier time
>of it because she had a cultural reinforcement to validate her
>beliefs. If I were a Christian, I think I'd find it easier to
>accept being dominant too.
I think I would have had an easier time being a dominant if I were a
man <g>
Seriously though, I think this is true for alot of dominants in
general -- for whatever reason, it seems like submissives, often, have
a greater capacity for submission than dominants do for dominance.
So, when you faced these internal struggles to heighten your
dominance, how did you do that? I know that I had to work very hard
(and continue to work very hard) on disentangling my dominance from my
ego. ('Cause I think humility is a really important thing in a top,
and big egos tend to lack humility.)
>Again, foggy wants to post her own answer as soon as she's
>better. Feel free to ask more questions in the meantime, I'll
>try to answer or I'll read them to foggy and send along her
>answers.
Thanks for your responses -- I look forward to hearing from foggy when
she's feeling better.
>Addendum for certain members of SSBB: Is it +AF8-really+AF8- necessary
>that I add in a disclaimer that this post represent the personal
>opinions of myself and foggy and is not an attempt to convert
>all the heathens to the One True Way?
My way is still best.
Joe Zeff
>>
>Followup-To:
>
>On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 04:28:25 GMT, Joe Zeff wrote:
>>teck...@sherrill.kiva.net (T. Eckhart) wrote:
>>
>>> Please do cite references. Having read Cicero, Ovid and Aristotle
>>>I can't think of a bdsm passage though I can think of people overcome by
>>>eros (not consensual in any sense) or dealing with necessity.
>>
>>There's a case of necrophilia in Homer. As I have both books in
>>electronic form, I can probably find and post it if anybody cares.
>
> What does necrophilia have to do with BDSM? The one party is dead
>so they can't give consent or even talk about whether they might want to
>do it.
>
Necrophilia is the ultimate non-consensual scene. Not only does the
"sub" not consent, it can't.
KaLoMW
>Necrophilia is the ultimate non-consensual scene. Not only does the
>"sub" not consent, it can't.
>---
>Joe Zeff
> The Guy With the Sideburns
True enough, but for most people who have a serious kink for nonconsensuality
in some form, there is an actual psychological requirement for cognition on the
submissive's part. It is the ability of the submissive to respond cognitively
and sensitively to the action that is the turn on for both the dominant and
submissive partners. The same dominant who enjoys consensual nonconsensuality
in a relationship would derive little or no pleasure from torturing an animal
for example, because the intelligent perception and understanding of what is
happening is not there. The anticipation isn't there. That's just my opinion,
based on my experience as one of those nonconsensuality freaks myself and
knowing a number of dominant members of the same type.
Karen
Submissive, Not Stupid!
kajira hill
wrote:
>Again, this is spot on for me. Confidence is one of those things you just
>can't do without here. If you're submissive, you can *pretend* you've got
>confidence in yourself and, frankly, it can still work (although it *can*
>get ugly)[1]. But from the topside, I see it being much, much harder. I've
>gone vanilla[2] for long stretches of time (well, long in my perspective)
>including now because of the confidence thing.
[snip]
>[1] I realize that this could be construed...badly. I'm not saying that a
>submissive person can do without self-esteem, etc. No, hardly that. What I
>*am* saying is that a person who is unsure of himself (the "will I please"
>fear) can be *reassured* more easily from the top than the bottom (IMO).
>Thus, the domly fellow who isn't feeling all that capable or competent for
>a time won't be easily comforted by a submissive partner. There is always
>an extra amount of carefulness and worry that goes on in the head. It
>seems to me that we are each our own worst critic - and the other person
>saying "It's okay, everything is peachy" works much better for the sub
>than the dom.
>
>[2] And chocolate-free
Well Kevin, dern ya... i found something i felt <LOL> confident to
debate here.. and with great sincerity.. and ya went and footnoted
your way out of it....
There's still a bit of debate in me.. but never having topped, i don't
have any frame of reference, only speculation...
--
kajira hill - blissful
SSB-B Dip Corps - So. Los Angeles County, Ca.
--------------------------------------------------
September 30, 1998 - : - : - 6:45:52 AM
--------------------------------------------------
When putting cheese in a mousetrap, always leave room for the mouse.
Joe Zeff
>
>>Necrophilia is the ultimate non-consensual scene. Not only does the
>>"sub" not consent, it can't.
>>---
>>Joe Zeff
>> The Guy With the Sideburns
>
>True enough, but for most people who have a serious kink for nonconsensuality
>in some form, there is an actual psychological requirement for cognition on the
>submissive's part.
[snip]
Would you like your leg back?
---
Joe Zeff
The Guy With the Sideburns
If you can't play with words, what good are they?
http://www.lasfs.org
bab...@nospamvisi.com
Binder <bin...@idjit.jps.net> sez:
>T. Eckhart wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:54:11 -0700, Binder <bin...@idjit.jps.net> wrote:
>
>> >I hear you saying that if it originates in religious ceremony, it
>> >*isn't* bdsm. Likewise, if money is exchanged, it couldn't possibly be
>> >enjoyable.
>>
>> I didn't say anything about enjoyable. My defining term for BDSM
>> is consent by all parties involved. The second defining concept is the
>> individual identification as doing BDSM. I don't see evidence that every
>> person who does something that looks like BDSM or parts of it would define
>> it as BDSM.
>
>I gladly agree to consent as a defining term... my point is that
>ownership and consent are not mutually exclusive. A slave may consent in
>the form of indentured servitude, or may just be plain happy to be a
>slave. Certainly there are those among us who feel happiest and most
>comfortable when they are enslaved; the exchange of money has no effect
>on the quality of the relationship.
i am reminded of my favorite part of the (admittedly fictional) book,
_Count of Monte Cristo_, in which the slave he bought in Turkey is
being freed by the Count and expresses her dismay. They end up sailing
off into the sunset together...
and on the thread in general, my take is that modern BDSM fulfills
many needs that were structured parts of earlier societies.
Kevin Muñoz
(kajira hill) wrote:
>
> Well Kevin, dern ya... i found something i felt <LOL> confident to
> debate here.. and with great sincerity.. and ya went and footnoted
> your way out of it....
>
> There's still a bit of debate in me.. but never having topped, i don't
> have any frame of reference, only speculation...
Well, debate away! What's on your mind?
I've had both perspectives despite my eventual topheaviness, but obviously
I could still be wrong.
--
Kevin Munoz
Phoenix Rising
SSB Diplomatic Corps: Alameda County, CA
anon...@nameless.com
dejanews.com says...
> I was just wondering when BDSM actually began. Where do the roots of wiitwd
> lie? In the little reading I've done about it, I've seen so many opinions,
> and I'm not sure what to make of any of them. Actually, one could reason (if
> you take the Bible literally) that BDSM began with the creation of man,
> essentially. Does anyone have opinions on this, or maybe resources for me to
> take a look at? I'd love to hear what everyone thinks :)
>
Timothy Taylor, in his book, The Prehistory of Sex (Putnam,
1996) notes that some of the Paleolithic figurines ("Venus
figurines") from the southern Russian site at Kostiensk show
what could be interpreted as bondage. One shows strapping
around the breasts. The arms appear to held down firmly
behind the back, although since the author is working from a
published picture of figurine, not the figurine itself, he
can't describe all of what is going on. A second
'Venus' shows bound wrists. No one, of course, can really
know the context into which these figures fit. Sexual?
Given the exaggerated physical details, very probably yes.
Consentual or non-consentual? After 10,000+ years, who
knows?
Now back to lurk mode...
Binder
> As I said before, I do think it is possible to enjoy and even want
> that type of relationship but if it is all one has ever known, can one be
> said to be giving consent? Most slaves throughout history never had
> someone say "would you like to be a slave?" There was no or only more
> negative choices. Without choice can there be consent?
If the choice is related to the consent, no. But the question is a
loaded one. I hear: if a person is a slave, can there be consent in
*any* area? My answer in the simplest of terms: consent *may* exist even
to a person that is owned. Just because the societal form does not
*require* consent, does not imply that consent is absent. Unless we're
talking about jk and its ilk.
It has always been true that the worst of any group gets the most
notice. "White Slavers", Greek and Roman slaveholders, you pick it; more
has been written about the atrocities than about the all the rest.
Just as in the here and now, the abusers of privilege are the most
visible, while the nice, ethical, and honorable people generally don't
attract a lot of attention.
Kevin Muñoz
(kajira hill) wrote:
>
> This whole deal is (well, setting aside <at least for some of us>
> sexuality) centered around communication. So why would communicating
> about something perhaps gone "awry" during play be so difficult?
> Discuss, tweak, refine, try again, discuss, tweak, refine, try
> again... i mean.. that's been *my* experience (save for one). i'm not
> saying that the sub should say "that's okay, everything is peachy"
> when it's not. We gotta be honest with each other here (refer to
> "pretending to have confidence," above), or nothing's going to work,
> right??
This is true, but I don't know if communication is enough. In fact, I
think that communication may be part of the problem - or, rather, the
perception of a lack of it.
There is a kind of hypersensitivity that shows up when confidence fails.
At least I become hypersensitive to making sure that everything is 150%
okay, and that can tend to drag a bit. It also results in a kind of mental
seizure - no amount of communication is going to get me past the
confidence block until I can move past it myself. It's a catch-22 in the
end, though, because it's hard to build confidence without action.
>
> i should say, too, that i'm not someone that can play casually, so
> this may make a difference between your outlook and mine. i don't
> know if you're a casual player - i get the impression you are not.
Quite correct.
> If
> that is the case, i would *hope* you'd have enough of a solid
> relationship with your partner that you would feel comfortable in the
> post play evaluation/negotiation/refinement stages. And it doesn't
> even have to be play related. Any aspect of the relationship.
It's funny - my confidence problem doesn't extend that far. It's just in
regard with wiitwd (or, as one should have it, twwd). Hm.
>
> eh?? (Of course, i'm a talkaholic.. once ya get me started.)
>
> Also.. i agree we each *are* our own worst critic. <with certain
> blatant exceptions> It ain't all that easy to be reassured as a sub.
Although it seems to me that the mechanism is built-in to the nature of
the beast. It doesn't seem to me that reassurance is de facto built in to
the dom position. Then again, that may be just the way I view the two
positions, and so YMMV. (I don't even know if I'm being clear here or
not.)
> :Plus, I don't want to "break" anyone because I'm feeling sloppy these
> :days. I have this horrible nightmare of permanent emotional
> :scarring...don't want to go there, thank you very much.
>
> i can understand this. my 1997 "blip" was horrible. i didn't want to
> try again cuz who the hell wants to keep failing. i gave up. DON'T
> GIVE UP!! .. things happen when you least expect them, Kevin.
Well, that's clear enough. It would be nice for *good* things to happen
when I least expect them, though, wouldn't it? ;)
Seriously, though, that is the key factor: not letting such things get in
the way of life and living. I have no real chance of letting it all push
me down, because I've got mechanisms in place to deal with it based on
prior experiences and conditions.
>
> :[2] And chocolate-free
>
> Ya did it eh? Proud of ya!
Yeah, well, it looks like there are at least two people out there (you
know who you are) who are intent on deflowering me chocolate-wise. What
happens after that will be their own fault, so don't blame me!
T. Eckhart
>teck...@sherrill.kiva.net (T. Eckhart) wrote:
>>Followup-To:
>>
>>On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 04:28:25 GMT, Joe Zeff wrote:
>>>teck...@sherrill.kiva.net (T. Eckhart) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please do cite references. Having read Cicero, Ovid and Aristotle
>>>>I can't think of a bdsm passage though I can think of people overcome by
>>>>eros (not consensual in any sense) or dealing with necessity.
>>>
>>>There's a case of necrophilia in Homer. As I have both books in
>>>electronic form, I can probably find and post it if anybody cares.
>>
>> What does necrophilia have to do with BDSM? The one party is dead
>>so they can't give consent or even talk about whether they might want to
>>do it.
>>
>
>"sub" not consent, it can't.
I cannot classify it as BDSM for that very reason. And I won't
apologize for having this definition of what I do and what I label what I
do.
T. Eckhart
>
>>Necrophilia is the ultimate non-consensual scene. Not only does the
>>"sub" not consent, it can't.
>>Joe Zeff
>> The Guy With the Sideburns
>
>True enough, but for most people who have a serious kink for nonconsensuality
>in some form, there is an actual psychological requirement for cognition on the
>and sensitively to the action that is the turn on for both the dominant and
>submissive partners. The same dominant who enjoys consensual nonconsensuality
>in a relationship would derive little or no pleasure from torturing an animal
>for example, because the intelligent perception and understanding of what is
>happening is not there. The anticipation isn't there. That's just my opinion,
>based on my experience as one of those nonconsensuality freaks myself and
>knowing a number of dominant members of the same type.
I love to do con-noncon scenes -- but it is the fact that we
agreed to do such a scene that makes it BDSM in my mind. Otherwise I
could just go out and kidnap someone and torture tham and break their will
and mind but I would not call that BDSM.
T. Eckhart
The biggest difference which I think we are all forgetting is that
for us in this world of BDSM slavery is very difference from the
historical kind we've been talking about in this thread.
Treasure can break his contract whenever he wishes -- depending on
the reasons the worst that can happen is that he'll get a bad reputation
in our little community, maybe separate our friends.
A slave in the Greek, Roman, even the _Count of Monte Cristo_
world leaves the master and they will be hunted down, punished and
returned because that hierarchy is supported by the society.
As I said before, I do think it is possible to enjoy and even want
that type of relationship but if it is all one has ever known, can one be
said to be giving consent? Most slaves throughout history never had
someone say "would you like to be a slave?" There was no or only more
negative choices. Without choice can there be consent?
--
kajira hill
>
>> Well Kevin, dern ya... i found something i felt <LOL> confident to
>> debate here.. and with great sincerity.. and ya went and footnoted
>> your way out of it....
>>
>> There's still a bit of debate in me.. but never having topped, i don't
>> have any frame of reference, only speculation...
Kevin Muñoz wrote:
>
>Well, debate away! What's on your mind?
>
>I've had both perspectives despite my eventual topheaviness, but obviously
>I could still be wrong.
Well i went and got the text... let's see if my mind's still working
at this point - and in the same way. <grin>
:Kevin said:
:Again, this is spot on for me. Confidence is one of those
:things you just can't do without here. If you're submissive,
:you can *pretend* you've got confidence in yourself and,
:frankly, it can still work (although it *can* get ugly)[1].
Being a submissive that has just undergone a MAJOR (er.. heh)
confidence shift (fro and to, in that order, thankfully), i was ready
to do battle on this comment (the one about pretending confidence -
about which, BTW, i have no insight as to the "how"). However, you
explained it more clearly in your footnote, below. And try as i may
to conjur up something to debate - since ya footnoted this, above, er
- below - i've got no argument.
:[1] I realize that this could be construed...badly. I'm not
:saying that a submissive person can do without self-esteem,
:etc. No, hardly that. What I *am* saying is that a person who
:is unsure of himself (the "will I please" fear) can be *reassured*
:more easily from the top than the bottom (IMO).
However! i still felt "not right" with this stuff so i've been
sitting here thinking on it. The balance of your footnote follows:
:Thus, the domly
:fellow who isn't feeling all that capable or competent for a time
:won't be easily comforted by a submissive partner. There is always
:an extra amount of carefulness and worry that goes on in the head.
:It seems to me that we are each our own worst critic - and the other
:person saying "It's okay, everything is peachy" works much better
:for the sub than the dom.
This whole deal is (well, setting aside <at least for some of us>
sexuality) centered around communication. So why would communicating
about something perhaps gone "awry" during play be so difficult?
Discuss, tweak, refine, try again, discuss, tweak, refine, try
again... i mean.. that's been *my* experience (save for one). i'm not
saying that the sub should say "that's okay, everything is peachy"
when it's not. We gotta be honest with each other here (refer to
"pretending to have confidence," above), or nothing's going to work,
right??
i should say, too, that i'm not someone that can play casually, so
this may make a difference between your outlook and mine. i don't
know if you're a casual player - i get the impression you are not. If
that is the case, i would *hope* you'd have enough of a solid
relationship with your partner that you would feel comfortable in the
post play evaluation/negotiation/refinement stages. And it doesn't
even have to be play related. Any aspect of the relationship.
eh?? (Of course, i'm a talkaholic.. once ya get me started.)
Also.. i agree we each *are* our own worst critic. <with certain
blatant exceptions> It ain't all that easy to be reassured as a sub.
i recall days full of doing good things and getting praise and for
some Goddammed reason screwing something up in the evening and no
matter how many times i was told everything was fine and told the
better way to do things, i would be upset with myself, spending an
admittedly inordinant amount of time deep in thought trying to figure
why i didn't know that already - no matter how minuscule the offense.
Got the journals here to prove it, SEE?? <holding up big red book
from Florida> Have to add, though, that i'm an unforgiving
perfectionist when it comes to stuff i do - so that could just be me.
Well, we're all different, actually - so i guess there's no "rule"
about this. Which would make this whole thing moot. <sigh> i sure
do that alot.
:Back to Kevin:
:But from the topside, I see it being much, much harder.
:I've gone vanilla[2] for long stretches of time (well, long
:in my perspective) including now because of the confidence
:thing.
Well i was gone from geesh! i left *here* right after i got to
California. i'd entered something foreign and i couldn't use my
friends here as a sounding board because well, "he" was here too and i
couldn't speak freely. So i left then, 8/94, for the most part, and
i've just come back four years later.
A not-so-much-comedy of errors brought me here with the intent of
posting once or twice and leaving. i was sure i didn't belong.
Circumstances have changed that drastically!! <grin>
:Back to Kevin:
:Plus, I don't want to "break" anyone because I'm feeling sloppy these
:days. I have this horrible nightmare of permanent emotional
:scarring...don't want to go there, thank you very much.
i can understand this. my 1997 "blip" was horrible. i didn't want to
try again cuz who the hell wants to keep failing. i gave up. DON'T
GIVE UP!! .. things happen when you least expect them, Kevin.
:[2] And chocolate-free
Ya did it eh? Proud of ya!
Sorry for the ramble. i got lost...
--
kajira hill - blissful
SSB-B Dip Corps - So. Los Angeles County, Ca.
--------------------------------------------------
September 30, 1998 - : - : - 10:14:13 PM
--------------------------------------------------
The way to love anything is to realize it might be lost.
out to email.ix.netcom.com
wrote:
>Arrow Blue (arro...@takeouttoemail.ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: On 25 Sep 1998 17:09:26 GMT, s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis)
>: wrote:
>
>: You snipped the sentence that pricked my ears.
>:
>
> [Quoting Foggy]
>
>: >As to where SM started, you really don't want to know what I think.
>: >;-))*
>
>
>I think your ears are somewhat overly sensitive. Of course, that
>may be because, for me, the above was completely accurate, ie
>I don't want to know what Foggy thinks. But as it happens, I do
>already know that she and Jack are anti-painplay (though I didn't
>regard that remark as a stab at painplay, perhaps because IO didn't
>have any idea what she did mean).
Well, if it wasn't a stab, then both you and me don't know what it
means, and I have yet to see a clarification from her that would not
make it a stab.
>
>So ? There's a kink they don't like (that I do). What of it ?
No, Jack held it up as a point of honor that they don't do it. Not
specifically said, but strongly implied and as far as I know, never
reputiated.
>
>: Now replace SM with gayness or negros and see if you find the insult.
>
>Replace it with "negroes" and you'd have a completely different
>statement, as then you'd be talking about a race of people rather
>than a kink or practice. "Gayness" is almost the same, though since
>there are still some who argue that "gayness" is a choice that can
>be "cured" (so far as I know, not even Pat Robertson is claiming
>that with enough prayer people can be "cured" of being black).
Steve, painplay and bondage are a part of me, as much as my
heterosexuality. This isn't what I do, this is what I am. If I stop
doing it, it doesn't stop being there.
Maybe it wasn't that kind of insult to you, but it was to me.
>
>IMO, it's quite alright to *not* like painplay or painplayers.
>If Foggy and Jack don't like painplay, that's OK. It's impolitic
>to mention it, as no good comes from display of YKINOKism, but it's
>not a "sin" to dislike painplay, or, for that matter, to feel that
>painplay is fine and fun but d&s is evidence of mental illness.
>It's just rude and impolitic to say so too loudly in public, because
>it accomplishes nothing except to cause a big mess on SSB. Neither
>painplayers nor D&Sers require each other's approval for what they
>do, nor will they alter what they do because of any disapproval may
>come from elements in the other camp (the same, of course, is true
>of every other kink; while it's fine to discuss the hazards of such
>things as breath control and scat play (and whenever possible to
>point out how to make risky activities not safe, but safer), people
>with serious BC and scat kinks aren't going to stop simply because
>other people dislike their kinks and say so publicly, so the most
> - and the worst - that will result from such proclaimations is that
>people with such kinks will stay out of SSB, and whatever benefit
>that the safety discussions might produce will be lost.
IMO, it's not OK to make snide little semi polite stabs at painplay
either, which is what I interpreted it as.
>
>And it's OK to believe that one's choice of kinks is sanctioned
>by God (what I think of that opinion, the people who hold that
>opinion don't want to hear).
I don't have a problem with that part of their thesis. I think
probably a lot of people in their religion would largely disagree with
them, but I sure don't have a problem with it.
>And to hold as a matter of religious
>faith - or for any other reason - that some kinks are wrong.
>
>Just don't say so here. It makes a big mess for everyone as the
>flamewars spring up about such statements, and it doesn't accomplish
>anything.
And if I felt this is what she was doing?
>Feel free to have any opinion about any kink for any reason,
>no one here wants to force any kink on anyone else (well, OK, there's
>some submissive women that I'd *like* to convert to femdom's, but as
>that's not going to happen I don't make an issue of it). Just please
>don't bring those arguments into this forum, and don't interfer with
>people's practice of their consensual kinks (providing safety
>information (other than "Don't do that !"), IMO, is not interfering).
>
>: Nicely and sweetly said, of course, but still there, especially if
>: taken in context with other things Jack has stated.
>
>IMO, only someone perusing that statement with a microscope would
>find that insult, and microscopic dissing of other kinks (and
>I still don't see that as the inevitable conclusion in this case)
>does not, IMO, rise to the level requiring outrage.
It came across to me like the proverbial toe in the door dissing SM so
eventually they would get the point and go away. I will freely admit I
don't know for sure what she meant, but based on what Jack had been
saying in prior posts, I saw no other way to interpret it.
>
>
>: >: Gee foggy, it must be wonderful to be so special in God's eyes that he
>: >: decided you are one of the few get the kink that contains his truth,
>: >: but forgo to give so many others that 'special feeling'.
>: >
>: >
>: >Arrow, she may perhaps believe that, but she was not so graceless
>: >as to say it, so why make an issue of it ?
>:
>: Why not? I'm interested in how she justifies her feelings to herself.
>
>1) Why ? It's OK to be interested, of course. But what difference
> does it make to you how someone who has very different beliefs
> and practices from you justifies these to herself ?
I find it interesting because the whole thesis sounds so illogical
from the broad hints Jack keeps pointedly laying here and there. I can
certainly see someone feeling that Ds and christianity are quite
compatible and I easily understand why and believe it or not approve,
but then one has the problem of relating to the rest of the religous
group and gaining their acceptance for what they surely must feel is,
if not outright sinful, a mental illness - how can you extract the
religion from the group that professes it? Unless one hides your Ds
desires from them and then how could you whole heartedly say you
embrace the religion if you can't completely discuss what it is that
motivates you with the other practioners?
There looks to be a lot of problems inherent that quite fly in the
face of Jack's presentation of foggy's lifestyle. Now that may be
caused by Jack's presentation and not by what foggy really is like or
thinks, but IMO, that's Jacks mistake and not mine. My assumption is
that his words are accurate unless foggy says otherwise, and if I
completely misinterpreted them, I'll have no problem apologizing.
That's kind of the problem with just hinting at stuff and not replying
to requests for clarification. If you don't come right out and say
what you mean, you may find people make assumptions that you don't
want them to and flame your shorts.
>
> How somone with similar beliefs deals with accepting hir feelings
> and desires might be a profitable discussion, but asking an
> antagonist the same question will lead nowhere.
I always try to ask questions when I am not absolutely sure of what
the other person is trying to say. If I'm angry, they may be hostile
questions, but it at least gives the other person a chance to let me
know if I've misinterpreted and to have a productive result. If the
other person doesn't care to answer, then there's nothing I can do but
assume that means I was accurate or they care so little about me that
they don't want to waste time letting me know where I was wrong, but
at least I've given them that opening.
>
>2) If she wants to discuss this with you, that is of course her
> privilege. But how any of us justify what we do and what we believe
> (feelings, BTW, do not require justifications, they simply are)
> is our own business, and none of us have to justify our beliefs
> and practices to any other of us (defend our assertions and justify
> our demands, yes, as that's stepping into public matters, but not
> defend/justify private beliefs and practices).
That I am interested does not imply that I think she has to justify.
>
>
>: Are religous beliefs to be sacred cows that no one may challenge?
>
>Largely, yes. Assertions and demands based upon those religious
>beliefs - on on anything else - are subject to objection and challenge,
>but matters of faith (like, for example, that "Bill Clinton is terrible
>and must be guilty of an impeachaable offense and damned to hell or
>there's clearly no reason for either impeachment or hell") it's
>pointless to argue, as no rational discourse is possible on points
>that are fundamentally nonrational, and it's especially pointless
>to argue them here.
>
>Discuss the matter with people of similar views to seek enhanced
>mutual understanding, yes, that's fine. But challenging people
>with different views to defend them, that's pointless.
I disagree. I certainly would explain myself if I earnestly believed
in my viewpoint. I'd be delighted to, if the other person is halfway
reasonable - Hell I've done it often enough here and so have you.
Ethics to me are no different than religion. It hard to argue with
'because my deity says so and kinda pointless, but theres a whole lot
of radically different ways to look at things that you totally miss if
you only argue with people that agree with most of your opinion.
I have as much to learn from foggy as she does from me in a discussion
of that type, I see the value of it. I'm sorry if other people don't.
>
>
>: And isn't this the forum to do so when those beliefs have to do
>: with WIITWD?
>
>No. When actions or assertions steming from those beliefs bear
>on wiitwd, yes, debate/challenge the actions or assertions that
>impact upon wiitwd. The mere existence of beliefs that we don't
>share or don't like doesn't requires challenge, nor are such
>challenges constructive. Suppose the reason someone doesn't like
>painplay is religious as opposed to some secular reason. So what ?
>No one has to like anyone else's kink, and no one has to, in hir
>secret heart, respect anyone else's kink. What we need to do
>is to respect each person's right to have and to practice hir
>consensual kinks, which includes not being harrassed or denounced
>in a public "pansexual, pan-kink" forum such as SSB. It's in
>all our interests that we extend this respect to other people,
>both because we want the same respect for ourselves, and because
>we want to keep this forum viable and the kinds of unrestrained
>combat that would result with the tradition of anti-YKINOKism
>would reduce that viability - and *without* making anyone alter
>the beliefs or give up the practices that people attack (after
>all, if we were the sort of people who didn't do thing just
>because others disapprove, none of us would do wiitwd).
In this case, I felt harrassed. To some extent, I'm hearing you say
that if the harrassment is vague enough and if the reason for the
harrassment is religous, I should not challenge it, because religion
is a subject that might cause a war.
If that is what you are saying - I don't agree.
>
>
>: >FWIW, if there is a god, I'm rather glad that my kinks don't
>: >meet with his approval, as he doesn't meet with mine.
>: >
>: >If I may say so, you do seem to have a bit of an issue with religion.
>: >Now, for the record, so do I. And not just with the Christian
>: >superstition, but with all them (may as well be nondiscriminatory
>: >and irk everyone equally).
>
>As a bit of clarification, I have no "issue" with religion in terms
>of any religious background to rebel against, or anger/guilt as a
>result of my religious upbring (FWIW, baptised as a Methodist,
>when last attending church it was a Baptist church (but one with
>a very kind and tolerant minister, the late David MacQueen, who
>preached a good sermon but did his best teaching by example), and
>educated by the Salesians (a Catholic order)). I merely believe
>- but rather rarely ever say, as it's both rude and pointless to do
>so (and this will be my last such statement, for a while a least) -
>that it's a crock. And that people have used it - as people have
>used whatever idea is available - to justify their criminal acts
>and criminal inaction.
I can do you one better. I was raised a Unitarian and I don't really
think it's possible to be a lasped Unitarian. I decided early and
never even bothered to announce it. I don't think there were ever any
expectations ever placed on what I believed from anyone other than the
moonies that used to show up scrubbed and shiny at the door from time
to time.
>
>: I don't have an issue with religion, many people use religion to
>: explore and help define ethical issues and use it for support. Others
>: use it to justify self importance and bigotry. I have no issues with
>: the former, I do with the latter.
>
>So deal with the bigotry, if such it be. The "reason" is generally
>immaterial. You expect a bigot to "see the light" and reform
>because of close scriptural analysis ? And if someone is acting
>in a bigoted manner, you'll need do more to show that than showing
>that they hold some religious views others don't share; show what
>they are doing that's wrong and harmful, and show why it's wrong
>harmful for them to do what they are doing. And if they aren't
>acting in a bigoted manner, but merely hold views that one finds
>objectionable - so what ?
I don't know for sure whether foggy is bigotted. I was asking
questions to find that out. If she is and she is basing her bigotry on
her religion, then necessarily those questions will have to do with
religion.
(shrug) perhaps she is misinformed about SM, perhaps if one asks
enough probing questions that can be discerned and the misinformation
corrected. I've asked those questions politely before and was ignored.
I don't stop giving that chance because I'm irritated.
>: FWIW, my own father used to travel and speak at churches occasionally
>: and both of my parents are highly active in their religion. I very
>: much approve and frequently discussed the subject with both of them.
>: I have one sister and her spouse that do this too (albeit a different
>: religion).
>:
>: I tend to view people who endevor to follow a written religous text
>: to the letter with alarm. So many horrors have been committed through
>: history for the sake of people insisting on following words blindly .
>
>Or because people opted to follow other dogmas to their logical
>conclusion, however mad that conclusion. It's not unique to
>religion. And not a problem that SSB is here to address.
No it's not, and I'm not trying to make it so.
>
>: If I am rude to make an issue of this subject, so be it.
>:
>: >
>: >But I manage not to say that on a regular basis. As long as no
>: >one wants to conduct a jihad to convert the infidels by force
>: >(anyone who allows themselves to be converted by persuasion,
>: >that's their misfortune), I won't conduct an unholy-war against
>: >the religious (not that there aren't a few pagan prietesses
>: >here that I wouldn't mind seeing as POWs and subjecting to
>: >a long process of interrogation - though, of course, I wouldn't
>: >really mind working for the religious types if it meant a chance
>: >to work on a captured Arrow <evil leer>)). Nothing good would
>: >come from my antagonizing people whose supersitions are different
>: >from mine.
>:
>:
>: Even if those superstitions are used as justification to brand some
>: of us as immoral because of how we feel? (no matter how politely
>: expressed)
>
>If someone wants to attack people as immoral - something that I
>don't see as happening, even if the worst interpretation is made
>of Foggy's statement - then the attacks should be be answered.
>If someone with a different set of moral beliefs than I wants to
>regard me as immoral - which, according to hir beliefs, I may
>well be - that's hir business, and not something that will concern
>me. If our beliefs differ so, then I probably won't want any private
>interactions with hir, or hir with me, but as long as neither of
>us interferes with the other's use of public forums, our private
>differences aren't an issue.
>
I saw it as a mocking of those who do SM because the person found the
practice immoral - not the issuance of the judgement of immorality.
That is why I flamed her.
I agree, if its just that she thinks SM is immoral and doesn't push it
in my face, that's not a particular concern of mine, but if I feel its
a hypocritical belief and I feel that she is trying to make fun of it
because of her beliefs - then I see the belief as just fodder for
flaming. Are you telling me you would react differently?
Arrow
out to email.ix.netcom.com
>On Fri, 25 Sep 1998 19:06:07 GMT, fo...@unforgettable.com (foggy)
>wrote:
>
>>Arrow Blue responded to my post, saying:
>>
>><snippage>
>>>
>>>In other words, I'm hearing you say that since you are a submissive
>>>female hetersexual nonSM oriented person, everybody else is supposed
>>>to be just like you and Jack are or they are immoral or tainted by the
>>>devil or whatever it is that you are trying to imply there.
>>>
>>>Gee foggy, it must be wonderful to be so special in God's eyes that he
>>>decided you are one of the few get the kink that contains his truth,
>>>but forgo to give so many others that 'special feeling'.
>>>
>>>Why do you think he did that? Do you think you deserve the 'special
>>>approved' kink more than someone else?
>>>
>>>>
>><snippage>
>>
>>
>>>So why don't you ask your pastor to help interpret it for you? Isn't
>>>that what he's there for?
>>>
>>
>>Whoa! Earth to Broken Arrow .... come in, Arrow. Get a grip. You on
>>drugs or was that just a hormone surge? Come on, lighten up. I
>>*deliberately* said what I said in a pleasant, cheerful manner. It's
>>unfortunate you haven't been able to work out certain issues of guilt,
>>but that's not my fault. You had no reason (other than being
>>deliberately nasty) to be sarcastic with me. Instead of laying in
>>wait for posts to attack, why don't you take several deep breaths and
>>start dealing with some of those unresolved issues your manifestation
>>reveals?
>>
>>foggy
>
>Ya know, I'm a sick, twisted pagan bisexual switch female, who would
>certainly drive a bunch of "bible study" oriented d/s types to try to
>"save" me (and get a punch in the nose for their trouble). I even
>"beat up" (on the NG, anyway) on doms I think are full of shit, and I
>have never felt that anything foggy has ever said was an attack on
>me. In fact, I have never felt that anything foggy has ever said was
>an attack on anyone, for that matter.
Hmmm, Jack boasts that he and foggy don't 'have to do SM or
humiliation', foggy says that Ds is invented by God in her opinion,
but you don't want to know where she thinks SM comes from
Sure sounded like a slam to me. Maestro had the same reaction,
well... er.... his was just a tad more offended than mine.
>
>A few pages back in the newsgroup, um, Arrow apparently responded
>to a question I had about her earlier desire to purify bdsm of
>non-sexual influences,
Now just a *&%#&^ minute - you want to specify just where you got that
from? Are you ~real~ sure that's what you saw me post that?
Crap, I have no desire to purify BDSM of non-sexual influences. I
never suggested anything remotely akin to that. If you want to know
what the point of that particular argument was, I suggest you slog
through dejanews and actually read my posts.
> suggesting she may have an issue with religion.
>She claimed not to have one. Steven Davis has stepped up and
>promised he does have an issue, and also suggested Arrow might
>want to fess up. Does Arrow want to fess up yet? Hmm?
>
>Sorry I can't join you all, I was raised Congregationalist, and they
>are just barely not Unitarians. It's horrible to not have some evil
>Christian upbringing to rebel against, when everyone around you
>is raving about their Catholic, or Baptist, or whatever, upbringing.
>Fortunately, at least there were usually the Jewish kids to talk to in
>college. I tried my best to rebel against my Christian upbringing
>when I was a teenager, and make it all evil, but when I asked my
>minister, hostily, "What's wrong with goats and your left hand!?", all
>he had to say was that that was a very interesting opinion. Its very
>frustrating to try rebelling against people who don't rant back.
Sorry to disapoint you Dy, but I was raised a Unitarian - a very loose
laid back Unitarian.
>
>Ya know, there are some "Christians" who walk their talk. And don't
>try to convert you. I've met several.
congratulations - I not only know more than a few, I have lifelong
close friendships with them.
>
>I recommend people with unresolved anger to really let it out at the
>original source of the real anger. If you do it well enough, it stops
>bleeding out all over the place, and all over people who don't
>deserve that shit. I realize, from my own experience, that sometimes
>this takes a while, even years, to get properly rid of, if we are
>talking about childhood issues especially.
>
>But that first step's a doozy.
>
Wow, now that was more than just a little presumptious.
Arrow
T. Eckhart
>> that type of relationship but if it is all one has ever known, can one be
>> said to be giving consent? Most slaves throughout history never had
>> someone say "would you like to be a slave?" There was no or only more
>> negative choices. Without choice can there be consent?
>
>loaded one. I hear: if a person is a slave, can there be consent in
>*any* area? My answer in the simplest of terms: consent *may* exist even
>to a person that is owned. Just because the societal form does not
>*require* consent, does not imply that consent is absent. Unless we're
>talking about jk and its ilk.
"may" "possible" and words such as this are not evidence of BDSM
in the past merely statement about the extent of human nature as we
understand it now.
What would I accept as evidence? A discussion of consent and the
desire of each party in a relationship that looks like part of BDSM from
the people involved in it. (my immediate thought goes to Biblical texts
but those conditions seem to apply to slaves who after seven years want to
continue in their station while the het sexual connection is explicitely
said to involve a transfer from slavery to married status)
>It has always been true that the worst of any group gets the most
>notice. "White Slavers", Greek and Roman slaveholders, you pick it; more
>has been written about the atrocities than about the all the rest.
>
>Just as in the here and now, the abusers of privilege are the most
>visible, while the nice, ethical, and honorable people generally don't
>attract a lot of attention.
Now we focus on the abuses on the chattel systems that is true.
And I can think off the top of my head of Cicero and Tiro as
lovers who had been owner/slave then patron/client -- I don't think I'd
call that BDSM though because the love developed as a seen exception to
the norm and the result was freedom for Tiro not continued slavery.
Binder
> "may" "possible" and words such as this are not evidence of BDSM
> in the past merely statement about the extent of human nature as we
> understand it now.
> What would I accept as evidence? A discussion of consent and the
> desire of each party in a relationship that looks like part of BDSM from
> the people involved in it. (my immediate thought goes to Biblical texts
> but those conditions seem to apply to slaves who after seven years want to
> continue in their station while the het sexual connection is explicitely
> said to involve a transfer from slavery to married status)
Ah. I understand. You require facts, cites, "hard evidence." I begin to
suspect that even if I had the cites I initially referred to, those
would be found wanting as well.
Crust! I can't even *prove* that *I* exist.
I don't read Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. Anything I might be able to read
is immediately suspect, therefore, IMO, invalid as evidentiary,
especially given your requirement that the religious be excluded; there
were very few agnostics in the era we were discussing.
One small quote:
"...Xeneophon of Corinth vowed ... to dedicate a contingent of
prostitutes to Aphrodite." -- Sex in History, pp 105
must certainly be contested, I suspect. Yet prostitutes of the era were
"Freewomen" or "Citizens" as a matter of course; their service to the
Temple of Aphrodite was completely and utterly voluntary.
Steven S. Davis
: On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:54:11 -0700, Binder <bin...@idjit.jps.net> wrote:
: >I hear you saying that if it originates in religious ceremony, it
: >*isn't* bdsm. Likewise, if money is exchanged, it couldn't possibly be
: >enjoyable.
:
: I didn't say anything about enjoyable. My defining term for BDSM
: is consent by all parties involved. The second defining concept is the
: individual identification as doing BDSM. I don't see evidence that every
: person who does something that looks like BDSM or parts of it would define
: it as BDSM.
:
: There are dozens of things that look like parts of BDSM but I
: cannot define them as BDSM because consent isn't an issue.
FWIW, I wouldn't frame it as "identification as doing BDSM", but I
would say that, in my definition of BDSM, one must be aware that
one is engaged in explorations of power and/or pain and/or pleasure
and that one is doing so for the purpose of the exploration, ie
that the pain/power/pleasure is the purpose, not a secondary result,
or to put it another way, that the experience of the power/pain/pleasure
is an end and not a only means to another end (it may in fact also
be a means to another end; if the person would not be doing the
exploration of p/p/p except for the fact that the person was seeking
that other end, then the person is not doing BDS, per my definition;
if hir p/p/p experiences *also* serve another purpose as an additional
benefit to what sie would do even w/o that benefit, then sie is doing
BDSM).
Which probably doesn't significantly differ from what Tammy Jo is
saying, except my framework doesn't require an awareness of a
phenomenom called "BDSM", only an awareness that one is engaged
in conscious and voluntary explorations of power/pain/pleasure
for the sake of the explorations into p/p/p.
Which means that, for me, the sterotype of the person who beats
his wife because it's his duty as head of the household
to discipline his family is not someone who is doing BDSM, even
if he (and she) gets sexually aroused by it, and even if everything
he is doing is identical to what his neighbors, who are BDSMers,
are doing (including coming up with reasons for her "punishment"),
because his neighbors are doing what they do in a self-aware state,
and this person and his wife are not self-aware about what they are
doing.
: >Interesting. If one were born into the ruling class, one is born without
: >a conscience? Likewise, especially considering the we agree on the
: >hardwired predisposition toward WITTWD, that all slaves would require
: >conditioning to participate.
:
: Whatever type of culture one is born into plays a big role in how
: that person develops. I do not think that a Roman would ever consider
: getting consent from a slave or an antebellum master consent form a
: slave because it is not how they view those relationships. In other
: words the individual may have a conscience but that is strongly shaped
: by the society they were raised under/in.
I'm reminded of the famous scene from "Huckleberry Finn", when
Huck substitues his own conscience for that of his society (but he
isn't yet sophisticated or aware enough to understand this, and
simply believes himself wicked for making this sinful choice in
defiance of God and society), and says: "All right then, I'll go
to hell".
Most of the good Christian people in his time and place never
managed to develop (and even fewer ever displayed) such a conscience,
nor such morality as to be able to choose to be damned out of
courage and righteousness.
:
: I'm not certain I understand your second sentence directly above.
: The slave being beaten for the Romans amusement requires no conditioning
: to participate because they aren't participating, they are an object being
: used.
:
: Could someone who has no real choice try to learn to enjoy it, to
: transfer it into something positive, could they even want that type of
: relationship? I think it is possible but because of the social dynamics
: I don't think it is probable.
Oh, I think it quite plausible that a person could enjoy that
circumstance. But I don't believe a slave with no choice in
the matter of hir being a slave or who hir owner was is/was
doing BDSM, and sie certainly wasn't doing wiitwd (aka consensual
BDSM).
:
: Question for everyone: Why is it that we get so concerned about
: BDSM verses abuse but try so hard to find anything BDSM like in the past
: among relationships where the lines of consent and abuse were quite
: different?
Because, IMO, for many - but by no means all - of those who do what it
is that we do, BDSM is a construct by which we attempt to replace the
sort of power relationships that were once a commonplace in life, and
as such it feels artificial and many people still crave more reality
and therefore identify with those relationships that existed in those
times when consent was a nonissue and abuse a very different one.
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
The SSB Homepage: http://ssbb.home.ml.org/
The ASB/SSB Welcome: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/wel.htm
My homepage: http://links.magenta.com/lmnop/users/sd/sd.html
T. Eckhart
>T. Eckhart wrote:
>> "may" "possible" and words such as this are not evidence of BDSM
>> in the past merely statement about the extent of human nature as we
>> understand it now.
>> What would I accept as evidence? A discussion of consent and the
>> desire of each party in a relationship that looks like part of BDSM from
>> the people involved in it. (my immediate thought goes to Biblical texts
>> but those conditions seem to apply to slaves who after seven years want to
>> continue in their station while the het sexual connection is explicitely
>> said to involve a transfer from slavery to married status)
>
>Ah. I understand. You require facts, cites, "hard evidence." I begin to
>suspect that even if I had the cites I initially referred to, those
>would be found wanting as well.
>
>Crust! I can't even *prove* that *I* exist.
>
>I don't read Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. Anything I might be able to read
>is immediately suspect, therefore, IMO, invalid as evidentiary,
>especially given your requirement that the religious be excluded; there
>were very few agnostics in the era we were discussing.
I never said that the religious had to be excluded, I'm just very
concerned about it because religion plays such a strong role in shaping
how people think and look at the world. And I know from at least one
person I knew in NYC that what is sometimes called Tantric Sex and a form
of BDSM was by her called "normal and not that BDSM you all do". Who am I
to tell her what to call what she does?
And I'm a historian, I deal in facts as best I can. If you want
to say that it is possible because of human nature that BDSM has existed
throughout the human history, then I can accept that. I cannot accept
scenes, quotes, and institutions taken out of the cultural context as
"proof of BDSM" however.
>One small quote:
>
>"...Xeneophon of Corinth vowed ... to dedicate a contingent of
>prostitutes to Aphrodite." -- Sex in History, pp 105
>
>must certainly be contested, I suspect. Yet prostitutes of the era were
>"Freewomen" or "Citizens" as a matter of course; their service to the
>Temple of Aphrodite was completely and utterly voluntary.
There is plenty of evidence that there we prostitutes, sacred or
not, in the ancient world. Suggestion: it is best to actually cite the
ancient source instead of a modern source when at all possible since
interpretation is half the game.
Prostitution is not the same as BDSM.
T. Eckhart
>T. Eckhart (teck...@sherrill.kiva.net) wrote:
>: On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:54:11 -0700, Binder <bin...@idjit.jps.net> wrote:
>FWIW, I wouldn't frame it as "identification as doing BDSM", but I
>would say that, in my definition of BDSM, one must be aware that
>one is engaged in explorations of power and/or pain and/or pleasure
>and that one is doing so for the purpose of the exploration, ie
>that the pain/power/pleasure is the purpose, not a secondary result,
>or to put it another way, that the experience of the power/pain/pleasure
>is an end and not a only means to another end (it may in fact also
>be a means to another end; if the person would not be doing the
>exploration of p/p/p except for the fact that the person was seeking
>that other end, then the person is not doing BDS, per my definition;
>if hir p/p/p experiences *also* serve another purpose as an additional
>benefit to what sie would do even w/o that benefit, then sie is doing
>BDSM).
>
>Which probably doesn't significantly differ from what Tammy Jo is
>saying, except my framework doesn't require an awareness of a
>phenomenom called "BDSM", only an awareness that one is engaged
>in conscious and voluntary explorations of power/pain/pleasure
>for the sake of the explorations into p/p/p.
Much better said than I did.
Yes this is what I was trying to say. Language just seems to get
in the way sometimes but I'm glad someone could understand what I was
attempting to say.
>Which means that, for me, the sterotype of the person who beats
>his wife because it's his duty as head of the household
>to discipline his family is not someone who is doing BDSM, even
>if he (and she) gets sexually aroused by it, and even if everything
>he is doing is identical to what his neighbors, who are BDSMers,
>are doing (including coming up with reasons for her "punishment"),
>because his neighbors are doing what they do in a self-aware state,
>and this person and his wife are not self-aware about what they are
>doing.
I must agree 100%
>: Question for everyone: Why is it that we get so concerned about
>: BDSM verses abuse but try so hard to find anything BDSM like in the past
>: among relationships where the lines of consent and abuse were quite
>: different?
>
>Because, IMO, for many - but by no means all - of those who do what it
>is that we do, BDSM is a construct by which we attempt to replace the
>sort of power relationships that were once a commonplace in life, and
>as such it feels artificial and many people still crave more reality
>and therefore identify with those relationships that existed in those
>times when consent was a nonissue and abuse a very different one.
Oh.
Thank you for explaining.
I just figure that I always have enjoyed the power and pain
dynamics, never really stopped to figure out if it was like something
in the past or not except at a fantasy level.
Binder
>
> Prostitution is not the same as BDSM.
Alas, my points were regarding consent.
I'm afraid that this particular conversation has passed the point of
frustration for me.
<sad wave>
s...@bob.eecs.berkeley.edu
T. Eckhart <teck...@sherrill.kiva.net> wrote:
> My opinion is this: BDSM is related to consent and thus requires
> that all parties both give consent and be able to consent.
> This situation has not existed for long in the USA (where I live)
> and does not currently exist in all places on this planet perhaps
> not even in my own country for everyone.
With respect to this definition, wherein BDSM is rooted in consent,
let me pose to the group a hypothetical question.
Suppose that in a purpouted BDSM relationship, the submissive
partner meets all of the criteria for being a clinical, diagnosable,
masochist -- that is to say, their drive to seek psychological
submission and/or physical pain in their relationship is so
compelling that (in the view of a trained health professional, let's
say) their ability to make decisions is impaired, their overall
functioning is compromised.
By many people's standards, this individual might not
meet your criterion of "able to consent". Does this mean that
the purpouted BDSM relationship, isn't? That only "subclinical"
sadomasochism is really BDSM as we know it? That seems almost
logical by the above definitions but, at the same time is pretty
paradoxical. (Or at least, it's not wholly consistent with my own
view that BDSM is characterized largely by the strength and type of
preferences on the part of the participants).
Or does it perhaps hinge upon how the dominant/sadistic partner
acts in the relationship -- if he is exploiting the submissive's
condition, then it's not a BDSM relationship, but if he's handling it
appropriately, it is?
Or do we sidestep this question entirely by asserting that
the psychiatric community is off base to begin with in its view that
masochism (or sadism, or any other sexual preference) can
rise to the level of a disorder that compromises one in this way?
Steve
KaLoMW
Steve wrote:
I'll give you another example, and it's not hypothetical. It's a situation I
know about personally. A dominant has two fulltime live-in slaves. One of
them has been with him for over 30 years, the other for over 20 years. The
second submissive is retarded, not profoundly, but her judgement and her
ability to provide fully informed consent is clearly questionable, but she is
submissive and she is a masochist. Now, was it abuse to enslave the second
submissive (because she lacked the ability to achieve informed consent), or was
it merciful because Lord knows she needed someone to take care of her and she
*is* a masochist (and therefore happier and more fulfilled in a d/s context
than outside of one), and would it be morally or ethically defensible to
prevent her from having that relationship due to her mental disability, or
would it be appropriate to even consider the moral and ethical considerations
given that the relationship already exists and has for over 20 years and she
seems quite content with it after all that time?
Karen
Submissive, Not Stupid!
KaLoMW
Oops. I snipped Steve's hypothetical example. Unintended, but my questions
stand anyway. Sorry about that.
Karen
Submissive, Not Stupid!
T. Eckhart
>(Entering a thread late, as usual.)
>
>T. Eckhart <teck...@sherrill.kiva.net> wrote:
>
>> My opinion is this: BDSM is related to consent and thus requires
>> that all parties both give consent and be able to consent.
>
>> This situation has not existed for long in the USA (where I live)
>> and does not currently exist in all places on this planet perhaps
>> not even in my own country for everyone.
>
>With respect to this definition, wherein BDSM is rooted in consent,
>let me pose to the group a hypothetical question.
>
>Suppose that in a purpouted BDSM relationship, the submissive
>partner meets all of the criteria for being a clinical, diagnosable,
>masochist -- that is to say, their drive to seek psychological
>submission and/or physical pain in their relationship is so
>compelling that (in the view of a trained health professional, let's
>say) their ability to make decisions is impaired, their overall
>functioning is compromised.
I'd say if anyone's functioning and decision making is impaired I
wouldn't trust their ability to give consent as I mean it.
>By many people's standards, this individual might not
>meet your criterion of "able to consent". Does this mean that
>the purpouted BDSM relationship, isn't? That only "subclinical"
>sadomasochism is really BDSM as we know it? That seems almost
>logical by the above definitions but, at the same time is pretty
>paradoxical. (Or at least, it's not wholly consistent with my own
>view that BDSM is characterized largely by the strength and type of
>preferences on the part of the participants).
>
>Or does it perhaps hinge upon how the dominant/sadistic partner
>acts in the relationship -- if he is exploiting the submissive's
>condition, then it's not a BDSM relationship, but if he's handling it
>appropriately, it is?
>
>Or do we sidestep this question entirely by asserting that
>the psychiatric community is off base to begin with in its view that
>masochism (or sadism, or any other sexual preference) can
>rise to the level of a disorder that compromises one in this way?
From my non-professional understanding of clinical masochism it is
harms to the person and they will seek out harm or do harm to themselves
-- in other words they would harm themselves if they can't find someone
else to do it. I believe suicide is the final goal for most clinical
masochists. (correct me, pyschologists, if I'm interupting this wrongly)
And it also has to be causing problems in your life before you'd
be in therapy where you'd get diagnoised -- ie from the hospital or from a
person who knew you and urged/forced you into therapy.
So if someone is diagnoised with clinical masochism I would not be
comfortable scening with them and I strongly suspect that BDSM would be
off limits for them for quite a while they figured out what was going on
and were attempting to heal (if they chose that).
At the risk of opening the MPD gates again, I'll state my own
personal standards. I would not consider myself safe if I were not in
therapy or had not be "healed" but were still actively splitting or
sending off experiences and emotions into other alters. In other words, I
would have to demonstrate that I was safe by becoming safer to myself.
(before someone starts in again, let me restate that I negotiate time with
my alters and do not allow them access to my BDSM world because I have
enough control over my mental state to do so)
I'd expect that same level of self-awareness from anyone I'd scene
with. Not perfection, mind you, but actively working toward as much
wholeness as can be mustered. So for a person with clinical masochism I'd
had to be fairly sure they had moved beyond wanting to harm themselves,
were still in or had been in a good deal of theraphy and understood the
concept of their self-worth and value.
Of course this is beside the fact that pure masochists don't
interest me so I'd probably not be approached by a clinical masochist who
wouldn't focus on Ds but on harming themselves.
T. Eckhart
Oh, Goddess, it sounds like Aristotle's view of slavery.
Yuck, ick, yuck.
Short answer is that mental disabilities can be different from
mental disorders (bio-chemical verses learned/experienced or bio-chemical)
and is different from social conditioning. I'd had to know more about the
mental disability and about the individual myself before I'd be
comfortable with the idea of using words like "bdsm", "slave", "owner",
"masochist" for a person with a mental disability.
Back to the earlier part of this thread, likewise I'd want to know
more about the enslaved person before I could use the term "bdsm" to
describe the relationship. Consent, as always for me, being the
over-arching concern.
KaLoMW
TammyJo wrote:
>Consent, as always for me, being the
>over-arching concern.
As it is for all of us, however we may define it, and that is not always quite
the same in each case. I think the use of this illustration though is the best
one I can think of for a situation in which the lines are so obscured that the
question of consent is rendered largely incapable of solution. I can think of
others too.
In the example of a "clinical masochist," for example, someone who wants to be
hurt for pathological reasons, could it not be *possible* for a dominant
partner to accept responsibility for her as a slave because he knows that he
will hurt her but not damage her, whereas if he leaves her to her own devices
she will almost certainly find a partner who would destroy her?
I don't have answers for the questions. I'm not sure that anybody has answers
for the questions. I am suggesting that there is a very seriously grey area
when it comes to consensuality. In most cases the issues are very clear cut
and easily decided, but not always. Sometimes we find ourselves on the horns
of a very tricky moral dilemma.
And then we have the situation with absolute relationships and whether or not a
submissive is capable of committing herself to a livetime in which her consent
is no longer an issue. Some argue it's immoral to even consider it. Others,
like myself, argue that for some that is an entirely appropriate life choice if
the submissive in question actually knows what she's doing and understands all
of the ramifications.
I don't think there *are* general answers that apply equally to everybody. I
think the whole issue is really very highly personal and individual. What may
be entirely proper for one individual in the context of a particular
relationship with another specific individual may not be proper for someone
else in the same situation with the same person, or for themselves in a
different situation with the same person, or for themselves in the same
situation but with a different partner.
I'm making an anti-essentialist argument that says that almost nothing is truly
essential for everyone or anyone in general terms, but can be essential to
everyone or anyone in specific terms.
Karen
Submissive, Not Stupid!
Trystilarn
kal...@aol.com (KaLoMW) writes:
>I'm making an anti-essentialist argument that
>says that almost nothing is truly essential for
>everyone or anyone in general terms, but
>can be essential to everyone or anyone in
>specific terms.
Except for safewords? You don't think they might be essential for *someone* in
BDSM?
Not essential for everyone, but there might
be an "anyone" out there they are essential
for?
Kira Moore
I wrote a statement of what SM is for me personally, and my partner
suggested I post it here, but I'm not going to until I edit it
considerably to make it non-preachy.
In article <6ups6t$htf$1...@supernews.com>,
Jack Peacock <pea...@simconv.com> wrote:
>I should clarify that I am not a fundamentalist, quite the
>opposite..libertarian.
Aha. I am a lapsed Libertarian, and a lapsed Unitarian!
Just had to say that to freak you all out, but it is true.
(I'm currently a sort of liberal-libertarian hybrid, and a very
unorthodox mystical Christian, so I haven't drifted that far.)
>Foggy and I are on this newsgroup not to convert anyone but to
>demonstrate there are other options within the BDSM or D/s
>lifestyle. When I first discovered the BDSM websites the
>orientation was overwhelmingly on pain play, very little on
>submission. We think there are others like us out there on the
>Net, looking for information not about caning or floggers, but
>on how to make a D/s relationship work.
Fair enough. I guess we each see different things depending on what we're
looking for - I keep being disappointed that there is less about pain
play on this newsgroup, and so much about D/s and M/s - which don't
interest me at all - but I figure if I want to read about it I ought to
contribute to the discussion.
So perhaps when I get my courage up I will post something about my
mystical-ecstatic orientation to pain play and edgeplay. I'm glad this
group exists as a forum where so many diverse opinions can be expressed,
even if we do annoy each other sometimes.
Kira
"crazier than a box of snakes"
kbm...@indiana.edu http://php.indiana.edu/~kbmoore/
Kira Moore
KaLoMW <kal...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Necrophilia is the ultimate non-consensual scene. Not only does the
>>"sub" not consent, it can't.
>>---
>>Joe Zeff
>> The Guy With the Sideburns
>
>True enough, but for most people who have a serious kink for nonconsensuality
>in some form, there is an actual psychological requirement for cognition on the
>submissive's part.
True enough! I think necrophilia is more to do with either a fascination
with death or a kink that has to do with breaking taboos. It falls under
the heading of paraphilias and kinks in general but doesn't seem to be
BDSM.
This from the woman for whom "everything runs together"... ah well. If I
have to make a distinction, I'd put necrophilia outside the realm of BDSM
- certainly outside the realm of safe, sane, and consensual.
Kira
who's generally kinky but hasn't made it with the dead!
yet
oops, I didn't say that.
T. Eckhart
>
>TammyJo wrote:
>
>>Consent, as always for me, being the
>>over-arching concern.
>
>As it is for all of us, however we may define it, and that is not always quite
>the same in each case. I think the use of this illustration though is the best
>one I can think of for a situation in which the lines are so obscured that the
>question of consent is rendered largely incapable of solution. I can think of
>others too.
I guess I've heard too many people (being even one for me) say
that consent wasn't important or to imply that consent isn't important to
believe it is an over-arching concern for anyone else other than me. When
I type or speak, I do so for myself and if for others I'd say that
directly -- I try not to speak in "divine mode".
>In the example of a "clinical masochist," for example, someone who wants to be
>hurt for pathological reasons, could it not be *possible* for a dominant
>partner to accept responsibility for her as a slave because he knows that he
>will hurt her but not damage her, whereas if he leaves her to her own devices
>she will almost certainly find a partner who would destroy her?
I couldn't, nor would I entrust my friends with such a top, but I
supect there are indeed people who feel they are capable of taking on such
responsiblities.
s...@bob.eecs.berkeley.edu
>On 2 Oct 1998 20:26:57 GMT, KaLoMW <kal...@aol.com> wrote:
>>TammyJo wrote:
>>>Consent, as always for me, being the
>>>over-arching concern.
>>As it is for all of us, however we may define it [..]
> I guess I've heard too many people (being even one for me) say
> that consent wasn't important or to imply that consent isn't
> important to believe it is an over-arching concern for anyone
> else other than me.
Hmm. I think there are a lot of people for whom consent is
an over-arching concern, but who don't share your view that
consent is central to, or defining, of BDSM.
One could argue that consent is part of the definition of
anything that two (or more) people mutually decide to do.
Say, playing tennis. Surely, when two people play tennis,
they are consenting to play tennis. But does this make
consent a central part of the definition of "tennis"? I
don't think so. Yes, they are consenting, but that's just
a trivial side effect of the fact that tennis, being a
two-person activity, implicitly requires the consent of those
two people. Consent does not figure into why an activity
meets the definition of "tennis" except in a very trivial sense.
By its nature, consent issues tend to arise in practicing BDSM much
more prominently than they do in playing tennis. But it's
still a leap of logic to go from recognizing this (and, as a result,
being over-archingly concerned about consent) to believing
that consent is a central part of what BDSM *is*. In my
own thinking on the subject, I don't find the right foundation to
make that particular conclusion.
But this doesn't mean I'm not overarchingly concerned about
consent; I am.
Steve
bab...@nospamvisi.com
arrowblu@take out to email.ix.netcom.com (Arrow Blue) sez:
a lot of bullshit justifying her flaming Jack Peacock and foggy for
stuph they never said.
reminds me why i killfiled her before.
<plonk>
i love AGENT!
*babalon*
----
You need professional help. I recommend Dr. Kevorkian.
louise
>Posted and emailed.
> arrowblu@take out to email.ix.netcom.com (Arrow Blue) sez:
>
>a lot of bullshit justifying her flaming Jack Peacock and foggy for
>stuph they never said.
>
>reminds me why i killfiled her before.
>
><plonk>
>
>i love AGENT!
Me too, AGENT is great! i have used it for almost two years now. My
favorite feature is not the killfile, believe it or not, but the
watchfile capacity. i never need to worry about missing posts from
those in my watchfile. Then there's the 'global search' capability,
where you can search the bodies of all the messages for whatever you
wish.... i could go on and on. There's very little that AGENT *won't*
do. i can't think of anything right offhand.
It was the best $29.95 that i have ever spent on software. Those who
are interested can get it over the net, at http://www.forteinc.com .
There is a free version that one can try out, but it doesn't have the
killfiles, watchfiles and many other features.
i'm not an employee of theirs but simply a newsgroup participant who
thinks that AGENT is really super.
--
louise http://www.magenta.com/lmnop/users/louise/
Da Judge's Official Sycophant, ASB/SSBB WorldCourt
Provisional Member, Original Cabal (if there were a Cabal)
Charter Member, APM Cabal (if there were a Cabal)
louise's list of BDSM organizations in the US & Canada:
http://www.magenta.com/lmnop/users/louise/BDSMorgs.html
Already we are boldly launched upon the deep; but soon we shall
be lost in its unshored, harborless immensities.
-- H. Melville, 1851
T. Eckhart
Tennis is one thing while BDSM, for many people, is a matter of
profound trust and even sexuality or sensuality. In other words, the
stakes may tend to be much higher for the person so I would expect a much
higher degree of ethics to be involved.
As such, if consent isn't there then it is assualt or rape, in my
not humble opinion on this matter.
People do things in BDSM which unless there is consent I would
consider to be rape and abuse. Example is slapping: if my slave consents
to be slapped or that is part of our contract it is part of our BDSM BUT
if I just go and slap my partner then I have committed abuse and violence.
Does this make my thinking more clear?
Katharine Hawks
On 4 Oct 1998 15:10:38 GMT, teck...@sherrill.kiva.net (T. Eckhart)
wrote:
<snip>
> People do things in BDSM which unless there is consent I would
>consider to be rape and abuse. Example is slapping: if my slave consents
>to be slapped or that is part of our contract it is part of our BDSM BUT
>if I just go and slap my partner then I have committed abuse and violence.
>
> Does this make my thinking more clear?
The problem is, Tammy Jo, is that people consent to abuse. I don't
think the presence of consent gives any assurance that the activities
are not abusive.
I agree with Steve on this one -- Consent is not a universal, or
over-arching presence in all of my play. And yes, I do consider the
play which does not have 100% consent to be high-risk.
(I don't really think of this kind of play as "consensual non-consent"
anymore, that phrase doesn't really resonate to me. I tend, instead,
to think of this kind of play as having consent to the dynamic, but
not having consent to specific acts. For example, a bottom may
consent to bottom to me, but may withdraw consent to specific acts.)
FWIW, I have been given consent *many* times to do an act which, if I
had done it, I believe would have had a higher risk than I was willing
to accept for being abusive.
For *me*, personally, the over-arching concern of bdsm is
*self-awareness*. Typically, when I have been given consent to do an
act which I believe would have been abusive, that consent was given
because the other individual didn't really "get it" about what sie was
asking for.
For example, I get asked pretty frequently to do "take down" scenes.
(I have no idea why I get asked to do this rather specific kind of
play so often -- but that's beside the point.) Very often, the bottom
is a novice who doesn't really have a clue what they're asking for,
what the risks are, and what the consequences are. If I were to enter
into such a high-risk kind of scene with a person who doesn't really
"get it" about this type of scene, it's not going to matter whether I
have consent or not. If I enter into the scene, I've exercised
piss-poor judgement.
It's very difficult to slap a label on what it is that defines my play
as "BDSM" -- but I know it's not consent. Shared
judgements/perceptions, self-awareness, agency -- those are concepts
that resonate more with me. I know what I look for in partners -- an
individual who shares my understanding of the risks and rewards of
play, who is able to take responsibility for hirself and the choices
sie makes, and so on.
Perhaps it's best described as this: It's BDSM when two (or more)
folks come together with a *shared* perception and understanding of
what they're doing, and make these choices not only of *free will*,
but sometimes *in spite* of the external pressures which challenge the
ability to make that choice. (And yes, I think a certain level of
"difficulty" is an important quality in BDSM.)
--Katharine
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Chicago, Illinois
ICQ # 2404133
Kevin Muñoz
wrote:
> Me too, AGENT is great! i have used it for almost two years now. My
> favorite feature is not the killfile, believe it or not, but the
> watchfile capacity. i never need to worry about missing posts from
> those in my watchfile. Then there's the 'global search' capability,
> where you can search the bodies of all the messages for whatever you
> wish.... i could go on and on. There's very little that AGENT *won't*
> do. i can't think of anything right offhand.
>
> It was the best $29.95 that i have ever spent on software.
You had to pay for your newsreader? Huh. I didn't know there were
commercial ones. Must be a PC thing.
--
Kevin Munoz
Phoenix Rising
SSB Diplomatic Corps: Alameda County, CA
Malcolm McMahon
wrote:
>>that is to say, their drive to seek psychological
>>submission and/or physical pain in their relationship is so
>>compelling that (in the view of a trained health professional, let's
>>say) their ability to make decisions is impaired, their overall
>>functioning is compromised.
>
> I'd say if anyone's functioning and decision making is impaired I
>wouldn't trust their ability to give consent as I mean it.
>
But then, in many minds, being a masochist _at all_ is a pathology and
therefore impairs the ability to make "rational" decisions. In other
words the very fact that you consent to a slave lifestyle, or even to a
flogging, means that your consent isn't valid.
Where is the line to be drawn?
Joe Zeff
>There's very little that AGENT *won't*
>do. i can't think of anything right offhand.
One small thing. A newsgroup I follow from work[1] doesn't want its
posts to show up in alt.best.of.usenet, and says so in the faq. The
people running the group have agreed to ignore posts with a special
header.[2] Alas, AGENT won't let me add arbitrary headers and I doubt
it ever will.
[1]I'm not following it while I'm laid up. It's for recovering from
the stress of system admin and luser support and I have no need for it
at the moment.
[2]Similar to the one for Deja News.
---
Joe Zeff
The Guy With the Sideburns
If you can't play with words, what good are they?
http://www.lasfs.org
Joe Zeff
>(I don't really think of this kind of play as "consensual non-consent"
>anymore, that phrase doesn't really resonate to me. I tend, instead,
>to think of this kind of play as having consent to the dynamic, but
>not having consent to specific acts. For example, a bottom may
>consent to bottom to me, but may withdraw consent to specific acts.)
That phrase has an entirely different meaning for me. To me, it means
that we've negotiated out of scene what is and isn't permitted, but my
partner will act in scene as though she is unwilling and won't consent
unless "forced." A captive being enslaved is unlikely to consent
unless the alternative is worse, but the person *playing* the captive
must consent or the scene doesn't happen. I find the appearance of
unwillingness and fearful compliance erotic, but I do want my partner
to enjoy it as much as I do, if not more.
Rick
> But then, in many minds, being a masochist _at all_ is a pathology and
> therefore impairs the ability to make "rational" decisions. In other
> words the very fact that you consent to a slave lifestyle, or even to a
> flogging, means that your consent isn't valid.
> Where is the line to be drawn?
Pathology begins where functionality is impaired, normal living
fucntionality. If a person can not function in life without a Master's
directions, in other words, if they starve to death because no one told
them to eat, then there's a problem.
If a person is happier, more secure, more satisfied, etc. living under
the direction of another, yet functional without, there's no
pathological problem.
As for consenting to a flogging, spanking, etc. these can be viewed as
enhancements or fetishes. Technically a true fetish is something someone
*must* have to function sexually. In other words, arousal doesn't occur
without the fetish. The present psychological community tends to view
true fetishs as a problem, usually associated with early childhood abuse
and relationship development.
The psychological community tends to view sexual enhancements, for
people who become sexually aroused with or without the fetish activity,
as healthy, as long as it's physcially safe and concensual.
I don't agree 100% with these distinctions, but that's what they're
teaching at city college these days.
--
Rick
T. Eckhart
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> People do things in BDSM which unless there is consent I would
>>consider to be rape and abuse. Example is slapping: if my slave consents
>>to be slapped or that is part of our contract it is part of our BDSM BUT
>>if I just go and slap my partner then I have committed abuse and violence.
>>
>> Does this make my thinking more clear?
>
>The problem is, Tammy Jo, is that people consent to abuse. I don't
>think the presence of consent gives any assurance that the activities
>are not abusive.
Our definitions of consent and abuse must be very different then.
Plus I don't recall ever saying that for the entire planet
"consent" is the their key. I said that for me to define something as
bdsm it required two things: consent and the self-identification of the
people involved.
When I argue it is because I feel the need to represent another
side, perhaps a better informed side either by education or experience,
perhaps just a different side so that everyone reading can see other ways
of looking at things which can help them make up their own minds (if not
already made up).
[snip]
>For example, I get asked pretty frequently to do "take down" scenes.
>(I have no idea why I get asked to do this rather specific kind of
>play so often -- but that's beside the point.) Very often, the bottom
>is a novice who doesn't really have a clue what they're asking for,
>what the risks are, and what the consequences are. If I were to enter
>into such a high-risk kind of scene with a person who doesn't really
>"get it" about this type of scene, it's not going to matter whether I
>have consent or not. If I enter into the scene, I've exercised
>piss-poor judgement.
Consent isn't a one-way street -- the top has to consent as well.
If you don't think your partner understand what is being asked for or
consented to, then you have the right to say "No" and not give your
consent.
I, myself, would be very wary of calling it "consent" if my
partner doesn't understand what the are getting into, especially if
"clueless" fits the description.
>Perhaps it's best described as this: It's BDSM when two (or more)
>folks come together with a *shared* perception and understanding of
>what they're doing, and make these choices not only of *free will*,
>but sometimes *in spite* of the external pressures which challenge the
>ability to make that choice. (And yes, I think a certain level of
>"difficulty" is an important quality in BDSM.)
That sounds like a decent description of what I consider to be
necessary for consent. Anything that didn't have understanding and was
given from free will would not be consent to me.
T. Eckhart
>On 2 Oct 1998 20:00:17 GMT, teck...@sherrill.kiva.net (T. Eckhart)
>wrote:
(TammyJo didn't write this first quoted section)
>>>that is to say, their drive to seek psychological
>>>submission and/or physical pain in their relationship is so
>>>compelling that (in the view of a trained health professional, let's
>>>say) their ability to make decisions is impaired, their overall
>>>functioning is compromised.
>>
>> I'd say if anyone's functioning and decision making is impaired I
>>wouldn't trust their ability to give consent as I mean it.
>
>therefore impairs the ability to make "rational" decisions. In other
>words the very fact that you consent to a slave lifestyle, or even to a
>flogging, means that your consent isn't valid.
>
>Where is the line to be drawn?
By each person him/herself. Like I said "I wouldn't trust their
ability to give consent as I mean it". I did not say that person couldn't
give consent by someone else's definition.
Lawless
> Arrow Blue sez:
> a lot of bullshit justifying her flaming Jack Peacock and foggy for
> stuph they never said.
> reminds me why i killfiled her before.
(AOL)
Me Too!
(/AOL)
> i love AGENT!
I prefer Gravity myself. :)
--
-- \_awless is : Chase Vogelsberg | SSBB Undiplomatic Corps, Tampa
-- A wolf by any other flame.... | ICQ #19100721
s...@bob.eecs.berkeley.edu
>> One could argue that consent is part of the definition of
>> anything that two (or more) people mutually decide to do. Say,
>> playing tennis. [..] By its nature, consent issues tend to arise
>> in practicing BDSM much more prominently than they do in playing
>> tennis. But it's still a leap of logic to go from recognizing
>> this [..] to believing that consent is a central part of what
>> BDSM *is*. In my own thinking on the subject, I don't find the
>> right foundation to make that particular conclusion.
> Tennis is one thing while BDSM, for many people, is a matter of
> profound trust and even sexuality or sensuality. In other words,
> the stakes may tend to be much higher for the person so I would
> expect a much higher degree of ethics to be involved.
>
> As such, if consent isn't there then it is assualt or rape, in my
> not humble opinion on this matter.
>
> People do things in BDSM which unless there is consent I would
> consider to be rape and abuse. Example is slapping: if my slave
> consents to be slapped or that is part of our contract it is part
> of our BDSM BUT if I just go and slap my partner then I have
> committed abuse and violence.
>
> Does this make my thinking more clear?
It does, but what I am seeing here is the following: first,
you identify those things that mechanically look like BDSM (say,
hitting someone); then, you use consent as the test for
whether these things are, or aren't BDSM.
To me, this definition is flawed precisely because it doesn't
make any reference to the underlying psychology of the actions.
At least three counterexamples have been presented in which this
definition does not seem very accurate: (1) As Katharine
points out, a person can consent to abuse; (2) as Steven Davis
pointed out in an earlier thread, two non-sadomasochists can
consent to something that mechanically looks like BDSM, but
has none of the psychology associated with BDSM; (3) my
observation that masochism itself might sometimes constitute a
clinical condition that makes valid consent nonexistent.
Why am I going to all this trouble to point this out? Maybe it isn't
a big deal, but what I desire in a definition of BDSM is a
good starting point for understanding what BDSM is and why people
do it. I think a good starting point is Karen's basic observation:
the two participants have "compatible kinks". Psychologists call
these kinks, or preferencs, sadism and masochism -- these are intended
as broad terms that include all manner of sensory sadomasochism,
psychological d/s, humiliation, bondage, etc. Given two individuals
with compatible sadistic/masochistic preferences, the expression of
those preferences within an encounter or a relationship is what
I consider BDSM.
I think if we apply my definition to the three examples
above, we now get the right answers: abuse isn't BDSM, nor are
actions between non-sadomasochists BDSM -- because these situations
are not manifestations of underlying preferences for sadism/masochism;
but the expression of masochism in a compatible relationship surely
*is* BDSM.
That is my take on it anyway.
Thanks,
Steve
T. Eckhart
>T. Eckhart <teck...@sherrill.kiva.net> replies to my post,
>> profound trust and even sexuality or sensuality. In other words,
>> the stakes may tend to be much higher for the person so I would
>> expect a much higher degree of ethics to be involved.
>>
>> As such, if consent isn't there then it is assualt or rape, in my
>> not humble opinion on this matter.
>>
>> People do things in BDSM which unless there is consent I would
>> consider to be rape and abuse. Example is slapping: if my slave
>> consents to be slapped or that is part of our contract it is part
>> of our BDSM BUT if I just go and slap my partner then I have
>> committed abuse and violence.
>>
>> Does this make my thinking more clear?
>
>It does, but what I am seeing here is the following: first,
>you identify those things that mechanically look like BDSM (say,
>hitting someone); then, you use consent as the test for
>whether these things are, or aren't BDSM.
No, I don't just use consent, I also use the self-identification
of the people involved. (I've said this at least three times in this
one thread and I know I've said it before this)
>To me, this definition is flawed precisely because it doesn't
>make any reference to the underlying psychology of the actions.
Self-identifiction of the people involved is the psychology of the
interaction. I'm not comfortable with telling folks what they are really
thinking and feeling though -- let the professionals do that at $75 an
hour.
So for me to say something is BDSM it requires two things:
1)consent of all parties and 2)self-identification by those parties that
they are doing BDSM.
In other words, I'm not going to tell someone they are doing BDSM
when they say that's just the way things are (or say it isn't BDSM flat
out) NOR will I accept that something is BDSM if someone cannot give
their consent.
Why is it so difficult for me to get across what I define as BDSM
and the criteria I use to define it? I've been trying to be very careful
in my wording where am I lossing folks?
Steven S. Davis
: Why am I going to all this trouble to point this out? Maybe it isn't
: a big deal, but what I desire in a definition of BDSM is a
: good starting point for understanding what BDSM is and why people
: do it. I think a good starting point is Karen's basic observation:
: the two participants have "compatible kinks". Psychologists call
: these kinks, or preferencs, sadism and masochism -- these are intended
: as broad terms that include all manner of sensory sadomasochism,
: psychological d/s, humiliation, bondage, etc. Given two individuals
: with compatible sadistic/masochistic preferences, the expression of
: those preferences within an encounter or a relationship is what
: I consider BDSM.
:
: I think if we apply my definition to the three examples
: above, we now get the right answers: abuse isn't BDSM, nor are
: actions between non-sadomasochists BDSM -- because these situations
: are not manifestations of underlying preferences for sadism/masochism;
: but the expression of masochism in a compatible relationship surely
: *is* BDSM.
:
: That is my take on it anyway.
This works for people who do what they do because of a kink (so it
works for me), but for many people the issue will be "what is a kink".
Depending upon that answer this definition risks reopening the issue
of whether the "kinks" involved are sexual. People with complementary
paraphilia - compatible ones will do but it's nicer when they are
complementary ones - regarding power and /or pain fit nicely within
the definition, but does it include people whose interest in
power/pain doesn't have a sexual origin ?
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
The SSB Homepage: http://ssbb.home.ml.org/
The ASB/SSB Welcome: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/wel.htm
My homepage: http://links.magenta.com/lmnop/users/sd/sd.html
s...@bob.eecs.berkeley.edu
> <s...@bob.eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>T. Eckhart <teck...@sherrill.kiva.net> replies to my post,
>>> People do things in BDSM which unless there is consent I would
>>> consider to be rape and abuse. Example is slapping: if my slave
>>> consents to be slapped or that is part of our contract it is part
>>> of our BDSM BUT if I just go and slap my partner then I have
>>> committed abuse and violence.
>>> Does this make my thinking more clear?
>>It does, but what I am seeing here is the following: first,
>>you identify those things that mechanically look like BDSM (say,
>>hitting someone); then, you use consent as the test for
>>whether these things are, or aren't BDSM.
>No, I don't just use consent, I also use the self-identification
>of the people involved. (I've said this at least three times in this
>one thread and I know I've said it before this)
Okay. So in the case above of you defining what BDSM is for you and
your partner, you identify those things that are BDSM-like, and
apply the test of consent to them. Since it's your own BDSM
you are talking about in your example, "identifying" and
"self-identifying" are the same thing.
>>To me, this definition is flawed precisely because it doesn't
>>make any reference to the underlying psychology of the actions.
>Self-identifiction of the people involved is the psychology of the
>interaction.
I agree with that. At least, ideally, people self-identify on
the basis of their self-awareness of their own psychology.
(Although some people don't bother to "self-identify" as anything,
and others "self-identify" all over the map....)
So I retract my statement that your definition makes no reference
to any psychology of the actions.
> I'm not comfortable with telling folks what they are really
> thinking and feeling though -- let the professionals do that at $75 an
> hour.
I also agree that one should, within broad parameters, respect
people's right of self-description. (The only problem being that,
if you go too far down this road, and try to subsume all observed
usages of a term or concept, your statements and definitions
can become so broad as to lose their meaning.)
> Why is it so difficult for me to get across what I define as
> BDSM and the criteria I use to define it? I've been trying to be
> very careful in my wording where am I losing folks?
In the above, I was responding to your immediate statements
and not the previous posts where you clearly laid out the
"self-identification" criterion. My apologies.
Steve
s...@bob.eecs.berkeley.edu
>s...@bob.eecs.berkeley.edu wrote:
>: Why am I going to all this trouble to point this out? Maybe it isn't
>: a big deal, but what I desire in a definition of BDSM is a
>: good starting point for understanding what BDSM is and why people
>: do it. I think a good starting point is Karen's basic observation:
>: the two participants have "compatible kinks". Psychologists call
>: these kinks, or preferencs, sadism and masochism -- these are intended
>: as broad terms that include all manner of sensory sadomasochism,
>: psychological d/s, humiliation, bondage, etc. Given two individuals
>: with compatible sadistic/masochistic preferences, the expression of
>: those preferences within an encounter or a relationship is what
>: I consider BDSM.
>:
>: I think if we apply my definition to the three examples
>: above, we now get the right answers: abuse isn't BDSM, nor are
>: actions between non-sadomasochists BDSM -- because these situations
>: are not manifestations of underlying preferences for sadism/masochism;
>: but the expression of masochism in a compatible relationship surely
>: *is* BDSM.
>:
>: That is my take on it anyway.
>
>This works for people who do what they do because of a kink (so it
>works for me), but for many people the issue will be "what is a kink".
Right. But, at least, it's a definition that sets a framework
for discussion. It says that BDSM is preference-based, and to
me that's pretty basic.
>Depending upon that answer this definition risks reopening the issue
>of whether the "kinks" involved are sexual. People with complementary
>paraphilia - compatible ones will do but it's nicer when they are
>complementary ones
(I am now thinking I mis-paraphrased Karen in the above and
her actual phrase was indeed "complimentary kinks")
>- regarding power and /or pain fit nicely within
>the definition, but does it include people whose interest in
>power/pain doesn't have a sexual origin ?
Well, I will come clean and say that, while I carefully choose
words like "sexual or other strong psychological preference"
when discussing what I think a BDSM preference is, my experience
(with myself and my partners) is that the preferences are indeed
rooted in sexuality, in every case with which I have enough familiarity
to make that sort of determination. So... I guess I can't
claim any firsthand understanding of what a totally non-sexual
BDSM preference would be like; so it wouldn't surprise me if my
definitions do not look quite right to those practicioners in
that category.
Steve
Binder
> So for me to say something is BDSM it requires two things:
> 1)consent of all parties and 2)self-identification by those parties that
> they are doing BDSM.
Well, *I* like that. It's short, clean, inclusive, *and* non exclusive.
Given my recent track record for understanding and being understood,
however, my opinion may not be worth much.
> In other words, I'm not going to tell someone they are doing BDSM
> when they say that's just the way things are (or say it isn't BDSM flat
> out) NOR will I accept that something is BDSM if someone cannot give
> their consent.
>
> Why is it so difficult for me to get across what I define as BDSM
> and the criteria I use to define it? I've been trying to be very careful
> in my wording where am I lossing folks?
I dunno, TammyJo, but it seems to be going around a good bit lately. Lard
knows I've offended some people recently with what I *thought* was
perfectly clear... Maybe it's a commie plot? (darn... taint none of
*those* anymore.) SAD? (Seasonal Attitudinal Disorder)
Binder
"...putting the "X" in Xmas..."
--
SSB-B Diplomatic Corps: Marin County, CA
to reply, remove the idjit
s...@bob.eecs.berkeley.edu
>T. Eckhart wrote:
>> So for me to say something is BDSM it requires two things:
>> 1)consent of all parties and 2)self-identification by those
>> parties that they are doing BDSM.
> Well, *I* like that. It's short, clean, inclusive, *and* non
> exclusive.
It's exclusive if the person using the definition has a different
notion of "consent" than the person practicing the BDSM.
>> In other words, I'm not going to tell someone they are doing BDSM
>> when they say that's just the way things are (or say it isn't
>> BDSM flat out)
For my own part, my reluctance against telling someone what they
think is BDSM, isn't, stems from my desire to be polite, not
make waves, etc., as opposed to anny definition of BDSM I
might believe.
Steve
Katharine Hawks
Katharine Hawks <kha...@enteract.com> wrote:
>>(I don't really think of this kind of play as "consensual non-consent"
>>anymore, that phrase doesn't really resonate to me. I tend, instead,
>>to think of this kind of play as having consent to the dynamic, but
>>not having consent to specific acts. For example, a bottom may
>>consent to bottom to me, but may withdraw consent to specific acts.)
On Sun, 04 Oct 1998 19:40:07 GMT, the.guy.with....@lasfs.org
(Joe Zeff) wrote:
>That phrase has an entirely different meaning for me. To me, it means
>that we've negotiated out of scene what is and isn't permitted, but my
>partner will act in scene as though she is unwilling and won't consent
>unless "forced." A captive being enslaved is unlikely to consent
>unless the alternative is worse, but the person *playing* the captive
>must consent or the scene doesn't happen. I find the appearance of
>unwillingness and fearful compliance erotic, but I do want my partner
>to enjoy it as much as I do, if not more.
This is definately not what I'm thinking about when I hear the phrase
"consensual nonconsent." What you're describing sounds more like
*roleplaying* nonconsent, rather than entering a scene in which
non-consent isn't going to get a bottom out of hir predicament.
CNC typically means, IMX, that consent is given to have a scene; but
it's understood that consent is not needed to continue the scene.
I've certainly seen and participated in no-out scenes which involved
no resistance, "taking", or forcing; though of course, hopefully there
is going to be some of that :)
To me, a no-out scene can happen with a very obedient bottom. The
bottom may submit to acts which are painful - psychological and/or
physically - past the point of immediate "fun." Sometimes this can be
what some folks call a "breaking scene." Let's say a bottom wants to
be whipped past the point of hir mental endurance, until sie is
stripped of self-protection, barriers, and control. Sie knows that
sie will beg hir top to stop, to release hir, and so on. There may be
no forcing or resistance/fighting -- but there will be verbal
withdrawals of consent. But since the goal of a scene like this is to
get *past* that point (i.e., to enter the realm of experience that a
person cannot consent to expose themselves to; the experience can only
be had if another takes them past that boundary.)
Of course, the no-out scenes that involve lots of resistance and
taking-down are delicious and fun <g>. But typically the goals are
similar to what I describe above -- a person who wants to be taken
past their own internal boundares -- way beyond the edge of
*immediate* fun -- for other pleasures and rewards that may not be
felt until well after the scene is over. So the bottom may have the
freedom to fight, to resist, to get the adrenalin going, etc., but
because the goal of the scene is "beyond fun", it'll eventually enter
a point where the resistance and the unwillingness is very real.
--Katharine
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Chicago, IL
ICQ #: 2404133
Joe Zeff
>This is definately not what I'm thinking about when I hear the phrase
>"consensual nonconsent." What you're describing sounds more like
>*roleplaying* nonconsent, rather than entering a scene in which
>non-consent isn't going to get a bottom out of hir predicament.
Well, yes. But then, I am mostly into D/S and roll playing so I tend
to look at it from that perspective. I'll keep your meaning in mind.