Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 12:29:11 PM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline 		(I had been thinking up this topic/thread for some time and ran into a tangent discussion on a thread that finally prompted me to put this out for discussion.)

While many would agree that the basest level of foundation that WIITWD is built upon is "consent", the concept (in terms of community interaction) is really just a disguise for the underlying status: sanity.

Numerous threads here have shown that there can be great disparity in the individual mindsets of what constitutes a "sane" set of desires, actions, feelings or even merely thoughts. It has, to me, cast an interesting spotlight onto the irony (and perhaps hypocrisy) that can be present within a group subset that, one would think, is more apt to be liberal in tolerance and objective in terms of understanding.

Person X looking down morally upon the actions of person Y, who in turn looks down morally upon the actions of person Z.

I've reached the point of letting go of the idealism that I may have had to presume that folks (by simple virtue of being in what would popularly be considered a minority and deviant 'lifestlye') will unilaterally be more prone to display an anthropological worldview that echoes the empathy of being on the outside of someone else's ethical bubble.

So, let us be rid of the veils and get to the point as directly as we can:

Where does the line of "sanity" and the intellectual competence that qualifies one to make their own decisions (without outside derision) lie?
What specifications do you personally expect an individual to possess before you'd consider them competent rather than 'disturbed' (or needing psychological help...or just needing to be 'saved from themselves')?

To help visualize the question, I'm offering up an example that has followed me for years in message board infamy: apotemnophiles. Folks who, for reasons of their own, wish to amputate a healthy limb because they feel/think they're "meant" to be amputees.

Now, the easier question related to this example is whether we would permit the individual to do as they wished with their own body (I'd like to think we would nearly all agree that they may, but if you have a dissenting opinion and wish to explain why, please feel free).

But the secondary layer is how you, in the privacy of your own mind, would look upon this person for having that desire...and upon what logic that mentality is based.

So, from this initial example, let's see if we can't work our way through from the most extreme to the most benign 'kinks' we all have to see if we can't (at least via an argumentum ad populum) figure out where this ethereal line lies.

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 10/3/2008 12:30:57 PM >

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 12:41:49 PM   
Ialdabaoth


Posts: 1073
Joined: 5/4/2008
From: Tempe, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
Where does the line of "sanity" and the intellectual competence that qualifies one to make their own decisions (without outside derision) lie?
What specifications do you personally expect an individual to possess before you'd consider them competent rather than 'disturbed' (or needing psychological help...or just needing to be 'saved from themselves')?


Simple. Someone is "okay" if the power-base decides to allow them to express and fulfill their desires. Someone is "insane" if the power-base decides to suppress their expression and fulfillment, and decides that that "insane" is a useful label to accomplish such suppression. Anyone who is not "insane" is "sane". Likewise, someone is a "criminal" if the power-base decides to suppress their expression and fulfillment, and decides that "criminal" is a useful label to accomplish such suppression. Anyone who is not a "criminal" is a "citizen". Likewise, someone is "evil" if the power-base decides to suppress their expression and fulfillment, and decides that "evil" is a useful label to accomplish such suppression. Anyone who is not "evil" is "good".

Note that "power base" can mean many things. If group consensus is powerful enough to accomplish suppression, then that group is a power-base. If a single theocratic council is powerful enough to accomplish suppression, then that group is a power-base. If a distributed network of judges, police, and lawmakers is powerful enough to accomplish suppression, then that group is a power-base.

If there is any other definition, it doesn't matter, because this is the definition as it is used. Lots of people will argue that this definition is horrible, because it doesn't specify what that power-base should or shouldn't suppress. So what? In some places, the power-base thinks it is just and good to kill homosexuals. In some places, the power-base thinks it is just and good to kill Jews. In some places, the power-base thinks it is just and good to kill retarded people. In some places, the power-base thinks it is just and good to kill women that don't conform to a dress code. In some places, the power-base thinks it is just and good to kill retarded people, but only when they make us uncomfortable and someone gets murdered and we can't find anyone else to blame for it. In some places, the power-base thinks it is just and good to kill people over the age of 18 years, 0 days, 0 hours and 0 seconds who want to have sex with people under the age of 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours and 59 seconds, even if they don't actually do it. In some places, the power-base thinks it is just and good to kill people who are brown. In some places, the power-base thinks it is just and good to kill people who are brown, but only if we catch them in places where someone might have had something to do with someone who might have had something to do with someone who might have had something to do with someone who might have blown something up. Or if they're trying to sneak across the wrong border. Or if they look at us funny.

Do you want to sort out which of them is right and which of them is wrong? If so, build yourself a goddamn power-base.

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 12:48:52 PM   
subtee


Posts: 5133
Joined: 7/26/2007
Status: offline 		I don't think we could all agree that it's the year 2008, or that the sun rises in the east...

It seems to me the root of judgment in most cases is fear. I cannot fathom why another would want to amputate a limb unnecessarily. Because I can't understand/empathize his or her motive to any degree, I'm rattled, scared. Because I'm scared, I'm uncomfortable, Because I'm uncomfortable, I need to do something about it. Because it's most difficult to look within and change myself, I'll try to change the other. Because I'm limited in the control I can exert over another, I "make" lines beyond which acceptable lies. Because my line is subjective and mutable, it will never match anyone else's.

Like that.

_____________________________

Don't believe everything you think...

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 12:51:01 PM   
Ialdabaoth


Posts: 1073
Joined: 5/4/2008
From: Tempe, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee
Because my line is subjective and mutable, it will never match anyone else's.


BUT, if you can convince enough people whose own lines also happen to cross a given circumstance to work with you, it doesn't matter that you all have different standards - you can still rally the villagers.

(in reply to subtee)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 12:59:31 PM   
subtee


Posts: 5133
Joined: 7/26/2007
Status: offline 		Yes, if I were the villager-rallyist type.

But that's why CM isn't a bucolic meadow of Doms and subs exchanging warm, welcoming smiles and hugs of absolute acceptance. Some of us are, some of us aren't; we've got our lines going all over the place informed by the singular experiences, people and books that brought me to be sitting here, my bottom on my brown office chair in my red office, simultaneously building a media list and posting here, while you are somewhere else, sitting on something else, doing something else and posting here. The last of each of our lists is the only thing known that we have in common.

_____________________________

Don't believe everything you think...

(in reply to Ialdabaoth)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 1:03:28 PM   
CallaFirestormBW


Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline 		For a person to be 'sane', to me, xhe would have to exhibit that xhe is aware of her surroundings (ex., I am at work, in Texas), whether or nto xhe also accepts or believes in other aspects of space/surroundings that I may or may not be able to perceive; that xhe is aware of the generally accepted passage of time (here, it is October 3, 2008, and it is in the afternoon), regardless of whether xhe also ascribes to additional interpretations of time that I may or may not accept; and that xhe has considered the implications of whatever decision xhe is making (yes, I know that doing x can cause y, and -will- affect p,q, and r, without a doubt, and I am willing to accept the risks and outcomes). If xhe is capable of that, xhe is sane enough to determine hir willingness to participate in an activity. For legal reasons, xhe must be of the locally recognized age of majority, but it is apparent, over time, that age does not always correspond to "capable"... nor does lack of age necessarily mean "incapable".

What people of legal majority and capable of understanding the consequences of their actions choose to do with their own bodies is something I feel no compulsion to regulate, unless said person has offered that right to me. I'm not into apotemnophilia, so I wouldn't select an individual with that fetish to consider a relationship with, unless there were some other attraction involved... and if I did, while I wouldn't participate in hir fetish expression, I certainly would not keep hir from the safe expression of hir fetish with someone else... and yes, if that meant that xhe found someone who shared hir fetish and who could safely help her to experience it -- it is, after all, hir body.

Another place that this comes up quite frequently is in an area that I -do- have an interest in, and that is in the area of body modification. There are any number of individuals who believe that they have the right to decide -at what point- someone else's body modifications are a sign of 'insanity', and that they should be allowed to decide that this person shouldn't be able to get any more modifications done. It has reached the point where consenting, fully aware adults have to obtain legal counsel in order to be allowed to complete planned modifications, and to me, this is absolutely ridiculous. It is even more of a concern when a typically 'fringe' population like body modifiers (tattoists, piercers, cutters, branders, etc.) start denying modifications to certain individuals over concerns about the government's capacity to shut down their place of business for doing "excessive" or "extreme" modifications. What one chooses to do with one's own body -- what one chooses to put inside ones' body, or how one chooses to express one's life or beliefs (or lack thereof) are, in my mind, sacrosanct, and out of the realm of someone else's right to interfere, unless an individual welcomes or asks for one's involvement.

Calla Firestorm

< Message edited by CallaFirestormBW -- 10/3/2008 1:07:00 PM >

_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

(in reply to Ialdabaoth)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 1:05:31 PM   
subtee


Posts: 5133
Joined: 7/26/2007
Status: offline 		Okay but we can all agree someone should have said "no" to MJ about 4 noses and 6 pigments ago, right?

_____________________________

Don't believe everything you think...

(in reply to CallaFirestormBW)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 1:07:55 PM   
Ialdabaoth


Posts: 1073
Joined: 5/4/2008
From: Tempe, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

For a person to be 'sane', to me, xhe would have to exhibit that xhe is aware of her surroundings (ex., I am at work, in Texas); that xhe is aware of the generally accepted passage of time (here, it is October 3, 2008, and it is in the afternoon); and that xhe has considered the implications of whatever decision xhe is making (yes, I know that doing x can cause y, and -will- affect p,q, and r, without a doubt, and I am willing to accept the risks and outcomes). If xhe is capable of that, xhe is sane enough to determine hir willingness to participate in an activity. For legal reasons, xhe must be of the locally recognized age of majority, but it is apparent, over time, that age does not always correspond to "capable"... nor does lack of age necessarily mean "incapable".


A question on nuances:

1. When someone wakes up in the morning in a hotel room, and forgets for a moment that they're on vacation, in those moments of panic when they think they need to get to work... are they insane?

2. If someone's watch is broken, and they've been inside studying all day, and they think it's still 10 in the morning when it's actually 4 in the afternoon, are they insane?

3. If someone is deciding to go to the store, and has not considered the possibility that they could get in a traffic accident on the way, or that the store might get robbed while they're there, or that they might have a heart attack walking up the stairs to the second floor, are they insane?

3a. Hypochondria, OCD and various other neuroses are often considered "insanity"; these neuroses in particular involve being hyper-aware of your surroundings, the time, or the implications of your decisions. So what level of awareness is "sane", and at what point does it wrap back around to "insane" again?

(in reply to CallaFirestormBW)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 1:09:57 PM   
CallaFirestormBW


Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

Okay but we can all agree someone should have said "no" to MJ about 4 noses and 6 pigments ago, right?


I -still- say he's trying to find a shortcut to becoming a zombie vampire version of Liza Manelli crossed with Elizabeth Taylor -- and if that's true, he's not quite there yet (especially because he hasn't gotten the breast implants!). *grins* But what is important is what -he- thinks he is becoming... so as long as he's not trying to dry hump the bookshelves at my house... it's his money, right?

*winks*
Calla


_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

(in reply to subtee)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 1:10:59 PM   
Ialdabaoth


Posts: 1073
Joined: 5/4/2008
From: Tempe, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

Okay but we can all agree someone should have said "no" to MJ about 4 noses and 6 pigments ago, right?


I -still- say he's trying to find a shortcut to becoming a zombie vampire version of Liza Manelli crossed with Elizabeth Taylor -- and if that's true, he's not quite there yet (especially because he hasn't gotten the breast implants!). *grins* But what is important is what -he- thinks he is becoming... so as long as he's not trying to dry hump the bookshelves at my house... it's his money, right?

*winks*
Calla



It would be kinda awesome if after another 60 or so years of biomedical advances in cosmetic surgery and life extension, Michael Jackson finally gets to be a grey alien.

(in reply to CallaFirestormBW)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 1:12:24 PM   
LaTigresse


Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

Okay but we can all agree someone should have said "no" to MJ about 4 noses and 6 pigments ago, right?


Maybe yes and maybe no. If someone wants to wander around the world looking like a freak.......it is his face. I just thank god I don't have to look at it.


_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to subtee)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 1:20:23 PM   
subtee


Posts: 5133
Joined: 7/26/2007
Status: offline 		Exactly. That's why I posted it as an absolute. There will likely be many, many more opinions about poor MJ's face.

_____________________________

Don't believe everything you think...

(in reply to LaTigresse)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 1:27:09 PM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

Do you want to sort out which of them is right and which of them is wrong? If so, build yourself a goddamn power-base.

From a simple non-hypocritical foundation of human ethics; not from geocultural norms or from an argumentum ad populum (both of which explain the way it is perceived, but don't address where it should lie [which, admittedly, was an mistaken omission in my original post]).


_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to Ialdabaoth)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 1:37:33 PM   
Ialdabaoth


Posts: 1073
Joined: 5/4/2008
From: Tempe, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

Do you want to sort out which of them is right and which of them is wrong? If so, build yourself a goddamn power-base.

From a simple non-hypocritical foundation of human ethics; not from geocultural norms or from an argumentum ad populum (both of which explain the way it is perceived, but don't address where it should lie [which, admittedly, was an mistaken omission in my original post]).



AHA!! Now we're talkin'!

So, then, here's how I decide what "should" be:

Aesthetics. "Is this pretty? Is this neat? Would this make a good story? Does this make the world a more interesting, fascinating, terrifying, amazing, scary-cool-sexy-wow place to be?" If so, then I throw myself into it with wild abandon. If not, then why would I bother?

How that relates to consent: If I see someone who is striving to make the world a more interesting place, or someone who by their base nature is making the world a better place, then I am content to interact within the pattern of their behavior. If I see someone who is adding nothing I find interesting to the universe, then I'm going to try to shake things up a little bit. I never use the word "sanity", because I believe the very concept of "sanity" reeks of hypocrisy and hidden agendas. But consent is a pretty straightforward process: First I attempt to communicate. If I connect with something in a way that causes true, empathic communication, then I have found something that I choose to illicit consent from before acting. If not, then I've got an object to do with as I please, unless something else connects with me in a way that causes true, empathic communication and requests that I not use the object - in which case I illicit consent from whatever is communicating. Does this make sense?

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 1:43:34 PM   
CallaFirestormBW


Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth

A question on nuances:

1. When someone wakes up in the morning in a hotel room, and forgets for a moment that they're on vacation, in those moments of panic when they think they need to get to work... are they insane?


Too insane (for that moment) to make a decision that I could accept about whether or not he wanted me to inscribe a branded ring around his cock just above his balls...

quote:

2. If someone's watch is broken, and they've been inside studying all day, and they think it's still 10 in the morning when it's actually 4 in the afternoon, are they insane?


No... because they're going by the only information they have, which is their watch -- so they're still hooked into the local conceptualization of how time works... they'll definitely have a rude awakening when they see another clock, though... which -may- drive them into temporary insanity, especially if they missed a midterm because they thought it was still 10AM when the 1:00pm class rolled around.

quote:

3. If someone is deciding to go to the store, and has not considered the possibility that they could get in a traffic accident on the way, or that the store might get robbed while they're there, or that they might have a heart attack walking up the stairs to the second floor, are they insane?


It depends. I think most people think about -some- of those things at some point. I think that most people think about "what if I got in an accident", or at least realize the potential of that, when they get in the car...but someone who has been driving for 30 years and has never had an accident is probably not going to dwell on it (with good reason, since it is a nearly non-existent risk in hir world) beyond the wearing of a seatbelt and the purchase of insurance.

The risk of having the store robbed may be so far below the threshold that it is a virtual non-risk to the person who goes to store A that hasn't been robbed in 67 years, and may not be considered, just like the risk of dying of sepsis from getting a haircut exists, but most people wouldn't think about sepsis every time they go to the beauty shop... but the person who goes to Store B, where the crime rate is substantially higher and the store gets hit a couple of times a week probably considers carefully the timing of hir trips. If xhe doesn't then yes, this may very well constitute a form of insanity, in that xhe is unaware enough of hir surroundings, or disconnected enough from hir own sense of self-preservation that xhe is oblivious to the elevated risk of the activity.

quote:

3a. Hypochondria, OCD and various other neuroses are often considered "insanity"; these neuroses in particular involve being hyper-aware of your surroundings, the time, or the implications of your decisions. So what level of awareness is "sane", and at what point does it wrap back around to "insane" again?


I like the Hahnamanian approach to evaluating risk as a measure of mental health. At the point at which an individual's dwelling on -anything-, including risks, inhibits hir capacity to function normally and make reasonable daily decisions effectively, that mental state becomes one of 'un-health'. I'll be honest, though, for me, I would allow someone suffering from hypochondria to consent to play with me-- if xhe were able and willing to accept the stipulations of the play, and were comfortable enough, despite extreme scrutiny, to be able to allow participation with me, I think I'd consider that a complement.

Of course, it is possible to 'nuance' a position to virtual death. *smiles*

Calla Firestorm


_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

(in reply to Ialdabaoth)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 3:04:40 PM   
OttersSwim


Posts: 2860
Joined: 9/1/2008
Status: offline 		Social Compact - a set of agreements under which the people of a society agree to abide and live under.

We humans build societies, and societies need Compacts.  We do this from large groups, to small groups of two people in relationship to each other.

Our larger society (differing slightly by country) has a set of rules defining and setting the limits of causing "harm" to ourselves or another.  But we want more, us BDSM people - we want to submit and dominate and strike and be struck...tickle and be the ticklee...ahem...we want to experience the "edge of harm" and we want society to recognize our right to do so.

In my opinion, BDSM pushes at the borders of that definition of "harm" in most societal structures.  We say we do it "consensually" and as has been stated before, that loosely translates into a plea for acceptance in the larger society.  It also makes most of us feel better about stepping into a potentially dangerous situation with another person where we are engaging in power exchange.  The "edge" we are pushing is different for everyone and it gets us in trouble sometimes with our societies...and how much "harm" do we each of us want to endure?  That will vary too...and widely I suspect.

Part of that social compact is the agreement of legal consent - a status where a person of a certain age and mental competence is allowed to enter into legal agreements with others, and have general control of their lives.  But society still imposes their own strictures of "harm" inherant in the social compact upon them. 

For me, someone who wanted to amputate their limb...or my limb...I would want to get them help as I see that as causing "harm" to them or me that far exceeds the limits of harm imposed by our social compact.

So from here, I can only speak as a submissive, not having any other perspective on it, and what perspective I have being still quite new and maleable, so bear with me please. 

I have read many times here from sub folk say that they approach submission from a position of strength, and give consent to a special someone to dominate them.  That is to my mind a necessary baseline of how someone can approach submission in today's world.  Today's world demands strength of all of us and most are not allowed to "be" a single thing all of the time.  So we approach it (hopefully) as strong and fully realized clear eyed people capable of handling ourselves in the world just fine, thank you very much.  Out in the world, we are one thing - strong, confident, even aggressive...and in relationship, we are submissive (many would say their "true state"...I would).  That wearing of "two faces" can cause a sort of strange separation in a person. 

Consent...as a fully realized and clear eyed person, I can give my consent for someone to dominate me.  If things don't go well, in most circumstances, I can withdraw my consent and walk away.  But because there are potentially people out there who might want to exceed the threshold of "harm" that I am willing to accept, and because I have a mortgage, job, loved ones to care for, responsibilities in the world...I cannot just be in my "true state".  I must approach submission from a position of strength and evaluation - and evaluate before I give my consent because yes, it does make me feel better - and it honors the social compact that I am hoping will recognize my authority to push the boundary of "harm" for myself - it hopefully shows that I am being responsible.

Okay..so that is a rant...make -any- sense to anyone? 




_____________________________

I am on a journey of authenticity and self.

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 3:43:23 PM   
Ialdabaoth


Posts: 1073
Joined: 5/4/2008
From: Tempe, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OttersSwim

Social Compact - a set of agreements under which the people of a society agree to abide and live under.

We humans build societies, and societies need Compacts.  We do this from large groups, to small groups of two people in relationship to each other.


Of course, those Compacts are violated all the time by those in charge of enforcing them. How many police officers do we know that deal drugs on the side? How many Republican senators can you think of that enjoy a bit of buggery? How many millionaire televangelists do we know that talk about the need to live frugally and humbly, and Give To God? The Compact matters when there isn't enough of a power disparity to render it ignorable.

quote:

Our larger society (differing slightly by country) has a set of rules defining and setting the limits of causing "harm" to ourselves or another.  But we want more, us BDSM people - we want to submit and dominate and strike and be struck...tickle and be the ticklee...ahem...we want to experience the "edge of harm" and we want society to recognize our right to do so.


Worse, we want to do so as menschen - we want the right to violate social taboos without having to transcend our place in society. We want to be able to do weird and scary stuff without being Hollywood stars or people that frequent smoke-filled back rooms. And there's where our problem lies.

quote:

In my opinion, BDSM pushes at the borders of that definition of "harm" in most societal structures.  We say we do it "consensually" and as has been stated before, that loosely translates into a plea for acceptance in the larger society.  It also makes most of us feel better about stepping into a potentially dangerous situation with another person where we are engaging in power exchange.  The "edge" we are pushing is different for everyone and it gets us in trouble sometimes with our societies...and how much "harm" do we each of us want to endure?  That will vary too...and widely I suspect.


And it will keep varying until some of what we want is incorporated into the cultural norms of our larger society, and other bits of what we do is condemned and squashed - and then the whole cycle starts over again with some other set of behavior.

quote:

Part of that social compact is the agreement of legal consent - a status where a person of a certain age and mental competence is allowed to enter into legal agreements with others, and have general control of their lives.  But society still imposes their own strictures of "harm" inherant in the social compact upon them. 

For me, someone who wanted to amputate their limb...or my limb...I would want to get them help as I see that as causing "harm" to them or me that far exceeds the limits of harm imposed by our social compact.

...as a fully realized and clear eyed person, I can give my consent for someone to dominate me. 


And there are plenty of people that would want to get you help as they see that as causing "harm" to you that far exceeds the limits of harm imposed by our social compact.

quote:

Okay..so that is a rant...make -any- sense to anyone? 


Quite a bit, but I'm not sure if "sense" really matters regarding these subjects. :)


(in reply to OttersSwim)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 3:45:57 PM   
Rover


Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
quote:


I've reached the point of letting go of the idealism that I may have had to presume that folks (by simple virtue of being in what would popularly be considered a minority and deviant 'lifestlye') will unilaterally be more prone to display an anthropological worldview that echoes the empathy of being on the outside of someone else's ethical bubble


I know this wasn't the point of your post, but I believe it merits comment.  I'm stunned at the number of people who delude themselves into thinking that leather folk are somehow *more* or *better* (fill in the blank with "tolerant", "communicative" or any number of self-aggrandizing characteristics) simply by virtue of participating in WIITWD.  For some it may be idealism, but for the most part I believe it to be misplaced and unjustified feelings of superiority. 
 
I say that about no one in particular, and about all of us in the collective.

quote:

 
Where does the line of "sanity" and the intellectual competence that qualifies one to make their own decisions (without outside derision) lie?
What specifications do you personally expect an individual to possess before you'd consider them competent rather than 'disturbed' (or needing psychological help...or just needing to be 'saved from themselves')?


That line is drawn, as you have noted, by each of us individually.  Much like risk, we are all disposed to accept differing levels of sanity, or insanity.  Some may even wish not to draw a line at all.
 
I personally view the matter much like Justice Potter Stewart, who, when asked to define "pornography" replied (paraphrasing):  "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".  And I see no compelling reason to be any more precise than that.
 
John

_____________________________

"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."

Sri da Avabhas

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 4:42:06 PM   
MmeGigs


Posts: 706
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
While many would agree that the basest level of foundation that WIITWD is built upon is "consent", the concept (in terms of community interaction) is really just a disguise for the underlying status: sanity.


Many wouldn't agree with this.  I sure don't.  I agree that the foundation of WIITWD is consent.  "Consent" keeps the focus of who makes the decision about what's okay and what's not between the people who are directly involved, which is where it should be. I disagree that consent is a beard for sanity.  I disagree that the community has a voice in deciding what's okay between consenting individuals.

quote:

So, from this initial example, let's see if we can't work our way through from the most extreme to the most benign 'kinks' we all have to see if we can't (at least via an argumentum ad populum) figure out where this ethereal line lies.


"Argumentum ad populum" - a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it

I can't think of much that would upset and disgust me more than if kinky folk were to try to draw lines based on what most people think is okay.  I think that is the absolute antithesis of what kink is all about.  If we were all willing to go along with the argumentum ad populum, we'd all be behaving like vanillas, would we not? 


(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. - 10/3/2008 4:48:01 PM   
MmeGigs


Posts: 706
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rover
I personally view the matter much like Justice Potter Stewart, who, when asked to define "pornography" replied (paraphrasing):  "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".  And I see no compelling reason to be any more precise than that.


How is this to be applied?  If I'm doing something that you see as over the line, what should be done about it? 

(in reply to Rover)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Sanity & Consent and the Veils they wear. Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141