s so I am vanilla after all.
Although, back when I was a dancer, a customer/friend asked me to perform some “act” on him. He was into submission.
I thought about it, but had to decline.
Just didn’t feel like being a “guy” sexually, if you know what I mean.
No, I don’t know what you mean.
Vanilla, if I understand correctly you think that dominance is strictly a male role. Most sources I’ve seen say that there are more subs than doms in general and that male submissives may be largest group. It wouldn’t have made you a “guy” if you had done this thing he requested but it was your right to make that choice. Consent goes both ways and doms have limits too. You are absolutely correct to decline something you were not comfortable with. It would be no different than me refusing a request that I thought was unsafe or beyond my limits of comfort.
Unless I miss my guess, vanilla’s customer/friend was asking her to perform a specific sex act not uncommonly associated with BDSM but not necessarily part and parcel of it which would, indeed, have required her to “be the male” from her point of view.
Ahem.
[sup]He wanted her to strap one one[/sup]
Unner-stand?
Perhaps this has nothing to do with sex at all, but thrill seeking.
Thrill seeking is linked to how sensitive certain points in the brain are, some people need to do more to hit those points.
What do you reckon to this ?
Do people who engage in these kinky times also engage in other thrilling areas or is this there release ?
Er, was that quoted out of context?
I don’t doubt that moderation is possible, and I certainly don’t doubt that it is practiced. But people can certainly pass judgement on it, and do all the time, and probably will continue to all the time. People pass judgement on all sorts of things.
Consider a porn shop that sells BDSM gear… could you picture one popping up in a “vanilla” town (if I am using the word correctly–you know, “white bread” lol)? Probably not, because the majority of folks wouldn’t want such an establishment in their area. And they will, wonder of wonders, lobby the local zoning commission and everyone else in the area and get laws passed which prohibit such establishments from being built.
Granted, this is a far cry from banning it even in the privacy of your own home, but it is clear that people are passing judgement on the behavior at any rate.
As well, legally shutting down McDonalds is not a succesful mapping of my proposal on sadism and masochism. I suggest that a line be drawn as to what is detrimental legally, not outlaw all behavior. I personally don’t, as it stands, condone sadism, though, but if the law were left up to me I would state something along the lines that a person cannot consent to immediate, direct harm to themselves without allowing for adequate safeguards. Not that the consent would be illegal, mind you, but the acceptance of such consent.
Note that boxing and sadism would be legal, but case law would have to determine what “adequate safeguards” meant in those cases.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by aynrandlover *
**
And here we stumble upon the fundamental difference between you and me. Or perhaps between most people and me.
I agree with you: we do pass judment. And it is within my right to determine what I consider to be my own personal values and to treat other people with disdain should they not adhere to them. However, it is also my belief that we have no business legislating what each persons values should be.
For example, I do not do drugs. My own personal values involve the idea that it’s wrong, dangerous, and unnecessary. However, I would argue strongly for repeal of any laws that outlaw use of substances, which don’t have to do with the harming of a third party. For example: Drinking and driving laws = good. Laws regarding drug use in your own home by adult participants = bad.
**
No, they will prohibit such things from being built in their neighborhood. They will not prevent them from being built at all. Laws that prevent the building of a sex toy store next door to you are not analogous to outlawing SEX. The argument from the perspective of those protesting such a construction is likely, “We don’t care if you have anal sex in your home, but we don’t want to be confronted with the sale of lube, the crime that such stores may bring in, the chance that our kids could be exposed to it.”
Thanks goodness you can pretty much get any BDSM toy you need at a hardware store, and therefore are not forced into such seedy places. 
**
Yes, but I think the distinction here matters greatly. No?
**
We already have this law in here Massachusetts. In an effort to clamp down on domestic violence, a law was passed indicating that you can NOT consent to “assault.” This means that when the police show up at your home for a domestic violence call, no one has to press charges in order for an arrest to be made.
However, that law, originally intended to protect (mostly) women from being abused by (mostly) their violent lovers, was recently put into effect against people consensually engaging in BDSM activity. As in your suggestion, the person GIVING the consent was not considered at fault, but the person who accepted that consent was arrested and charged with “assault with a deadly weapon.” The crime in question? One woman was caught smacking another on the ass with a wooden spoon at a public event. Wooden spoon = dealy weapon in this case.
This is, in my opinion, ludicrous. I’m not certain what you intend to mean by “adequate safeguards.” I only know that laws that are intended to “save us from ourselves” are often abused, often used more heavily against one group of people than the other (racial, gender-based discrimination, etc.) and rarely make any difference in actaully saving anyone from anything.
**
Boxing? What about other contact sports? Football? Wrestling? The thing that scares me about this is that as with the MA law, I’m certain there are other things that would fall into this category that may or may not be detrimental to anyone. Piercing and tattooing, for instance.
-L
Actually, I agree with this for the most part. People seek roller coasters, horror movies, and sky diving as avenues for getting their adrenaline up and feeling the subsequent rush. I hold that in certain contexts there’s no difference between these endorphin seeking avenues and sex that involves power exchange.
-L
Why Thank you Manny.
You seem to be quite knowledgeable about these things.
Vanilla, I suspect your reluctance had less to do with D&S than with gender role reversal. Consent is involved just these same.
Dude, I still contend that it’s about much more than an endophin rush though that is part of it. The trust that’s required and the intimacy that results aren’t something you do in a casual relationship. Go bungee jumping if you just want the thrill without the committment.
Oh, no, we both live in MA? 
That’s masochistic in itself if you drive into Boston. 
I digress.
Hardly so in America. What you propose is an anarchist state; in America we have plainly set out a value system: the Bill of Rights. This is the beginning: it lays out the limits we impose on the government.
We then proceed to the rest of the constitution which again lays out what politicians and government agencies can and cannot do. Some people here may be able to seperate this as “illegal” and not “wrong,” but were a government agent attempt to stop someone from freely speaking, I can hardly imagine that “illegal” is the word we would use to describe that action, eh?
When we pass into criminal law a similar situation occurs. Though a moral system can be conceived in which murder is “right” or good, that has not stopped us from drawing that line. You cannot consent to your death (though mercy-killings are still a matter of debate).
At any rate, our laws are largely based on morality, though our laws are probably not based on a consistent moral system. I don’t feel that a set of laws can, in practice, be based on a consistent moral system, either, because of the point you’ve raised: we all think differently (short of some Orwellian nightmare or a Brave New World ;)).
I do not feel, as well, that laws disappear in the privacy of your home. I doubt you would want to make such a claim, either. The debate is which laws you want to apply in your home, no?
Mass itself has, IIRC, recently had a little problem with a bondage issue where some dom had been involved in a guys death (that is, he died during the act; IIRC she was never found guilty of being the cause which is IMO true).
I agree that private S&M does not involve third parties like drinking and driving does.
You may be getting your wish. I believe tattooing was just recently legalized in Massachusetts.
On this, we are in complete agreement. I’m a fairly recent transplant from Chicago…you know…where blocks are SQUARE?
**
I’m not arguing for an anarchist state at all. Of course, it’s true, we legislate morality. But note that we tend toward morality that will affect OTHERS. We don’t have legislation that makes it a crime to steal from YOURSELF. Only from others.
**
Given. However, I don’t think our laws regarding the morality of murder translate well into an analogy of whether it’s acceptable for me to be spanked if I ask for it. The point is that within certain limits, I have the right to do with my body as I so choose. By “within certain limits” I mean that I can’t use it to scream fire in a croweded theater, and I generally can’t choose death without someone intervening on my behalf.
MY slippery slope fear is that anything that lets government into my bedroom (unless they’ve got condoms and rope) is very dangerous. It gives them an opening (pun intended) to get away with a whole lot 'o saving me from myself.
**
True, but again, isn’t it also true that most of those “morality based laws” are generally concerned with how our morality affects OTHERS. I can’t decide that it’s okay for me to inflict MY kinky sex on an unwitting partner, but I can decide if I want to engage in it MYSELF. And when we do make laws indicating what a person has a right to do with their own body, they’re heartily protested.
**
She was found guilty of (get this) improperly disposing of a body. But as you point out, this was not an issue of her doing him any harm, but rather he died of natural causes and she feared potential repercussions.
**
Well…then why should we legislate it anymore than we do alcohol? It’s acceptable to drink after a certain age and under certain circumstances. No one can come into your home and tell you how much you can have to drink, even if you’ve got cirrhosis of the liver. Why is kinky sex any different?
-L
It occurred to me after I thought about it for awhile…
Wasn’t Roe V. Wade decided on the basis of an implied first ammendment right to privacy? Or was it a different ammendment that came into play?
Because using that as a benchmark, I could say yes, it’s true…the constitution lays out what politicians and government agencies can and cannot do. And the supreme court has determined that we have a right to physical freedom. Surely if I can terminate a pregnancy based on the fact that I have a right to decide what to do with my own body, I can be whipped under the same logic.
-L
As I said, the legal system, if translated into morality, is not consistent.
However, I would like to state that between comments here and this article I am withdrawing my comments.
BDSM = AOK.
Regards,
arl
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by aynrandlover *
**
Wait, don’t go!
Are we really to assume that you comletely changed your mind about the psychological health of those involved in BDSM simply because Psychology Today says it’s okay?
Who am I supposed to argue with now? And does this mean I’ve won the argument? Even if it doesn’t, can I say it does?
-L
You win. I’m long left in the dust trying to remember which 80s rock band member said:
I missed your meaning here…must be that late afternoon drowsiness.
-L
Hey, what do you want? lol
My problems were involving the ability to consent and the possible psychological damage that might occur to those that do consent. Both you and the psychologists in the article agreed that it is possible for consent to be present and a lack of psychological damage to occur, in some cases it might even be beneficial.
Hence, my points were largely incorrect or unsupported.
Sheesh, never seen anyone upset that they were proven right by their opposition, lol.
Watch out, I think jmull is a Bostonian, too… love that Big Dig.
We can keep arguing, however, about where we should draw the lines to keep it reasonable if you want.
Sexywriter,
When you say you don’t like safewords because of the fact that you shouldn’t be participating in those sort of activities with someone you don’t trust (Loose paraphrase, please correct me if I got the gist wrong) seems to be overlooking who the safe word is there for.
Safewords are not there to make the sub feel more secure. Safewords are there so the Dom knows there is a failsafe if they happen to miss something in their loving care of their sub.
I don’t play without 'em.
I like knowing when I’m double checking your cuffs for circulation or trying out a new thumpy toy that you are absolutely free to use whatever words, noises, and gestures feel right to you as part to the scene. I’m still likely to bring a halt to a scene if I’m feeling the least bit uncomfortable with what words/noises/expressions I see, but that doesn’t mean I appreciate the safety net a safeword is any less.
I do consider them less important further into a relationship, but for the first few months, they are absolutely critical.
It’s the same way I am with vanilla time. In that context the safe words are “No” or “Stop” Don’t leave home without em.
-Doug