RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

dreamerdreaming -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/19/2010 5:19:40 PM)

Thank you!  [:)]



*chews a big mouthful of crunchy baby octopus tentacles and raw sea snails with their little eyestalks quivering*



AnimusRex -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/19/2010 6:50:37 PM)

In the original post, I sense a bit of the old "Argument of the beard" we learn about in Debating 101- that just because we can't pinpoint the exact line between a beard and a clean shaven face, then there is no difference.

There is a difference between abuse and consensual edgeplay, or abuse and the practice of religion, or abuse and the proper authority of parents.

We as a society have a difficult time locating that line, because we try to maximize freedom while protecting the innocent or vulnerable.

In the example the OP gave, I wouldn't call it abuse- but depending on the exact circumstances, depending on any number of other factors, I can see an argument made that it is.

Does it change your answer if the girl in question was 16?
Does it change your answer if she was the legal wife, in a state that allows teen marriages?
Does it change your answer if she is under the influence? In an emotionally vunerable state?

They ask these sorts of questions to first year law students precisely because there are no simple, easy to draw lines. We have to use wisdom, judgment, weighing all the facts and circumstances.

But we CAN draw lines. We CAN set boundaries, however fuzzy, and say this is off limits, and that is ok.



sweetsub1957 -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/19/2010 9:03:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

In the original post, I sense a bit of the old "Argument of the beard" we learn about in Debating 101- that just because we can't pinpoint the exact line between a beard and a clean shaven face, then there is no difference.

There is a difference between abuse and consensual edgeplay, or abuse and the practice of religion, or abuse and the proper authority of parents.

We as a society have a difficult time locating that line, because we try to maximize freedom while protecting the innocent or vulnerable.

In the example the OP gave, I wouldn't call it abuse- but depending on the exact circumstances, depending on any number of other factors, I can see an argument made that it is.

Does it change your answer if the girl in question was 16?
Does it change your answer if she was the legal wife, in a state that allows teen marriages?
Does it change your answer if she is under the influence? In an emotionally vunerable state?

They ask these sorts of questions to first year law students precisely because there are no simple, easy to draw lines. We have to use wisdom, judgment, weighing all the facts and circumstances.

But we CAN draw lines. We CAN set boundaries, however fuzzy, and say this is off limits, and that is ok.


i'm thinking that if i were to answer the question(i tried to earlier, but obviously i didn't think it through well enough), i'd say it needs to be a person of legal age that was not under the influence of a mind-altering substance that would put him/her in a vulnerable mental/emotional state. In this sort of thing, nothing is black & white or either/or. There are too many variables to make a blanket statement.



KnightofMists -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/20/2010 6:34:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

I've always found this argument terribly myopic and disingenuous. Honestly, out of you, I'd expect better. The basic facts are that as a society, we MUST determine what's allowed and what's not. Anything else is anarchy and has been shown decisively at various points in history, us humans don't like anarchy. So given that the lines must be drawn, then that means that people's various viewpoints about what is and is not detrimental to the fabric of society all need to get their air time. So yes... those folks who think that gay marriage is deleterious to the very fabric of marriage and our society and possibly even the space-time continuum have a right to their opinions and their opinions matter just as much as mine. And yes, those people who think beating your lover is heinous have a right to that opinion also. Just because you don't share someone's viewpoints doesn't make them stupid or selfish or any other thing.



I might not agree with your opinion... I might not even want to hear your opinion. But I will stand up be counted on your right to express your opinion even if no one wants to listen to it.

Then sometimes... one just has to stand up and applaud an opinion heard... sort of like I am doing with the one I quoted!



LadyCimarron -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/20/2010 7:03:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetsub1957


i'm thinking that if i were to answer the question(i tried to earlier, but obviously i didn't think it through well enough), i'd say it needs to be a person of legal age that was not under the influence of a mind-altering substance that would put him/her in a vulnerable mental/emotional state. In this sort of thing, nothing is black & white or either/or. There are too many variables to make a blanket statement.


But if you are dealing with matters of law a line has to be drawn. There has to a "blanket statement" where they say "cross this line and you are in violation." Now sometimes that line is drawn too narrowly and sometimes its way too broad, but there is really no other way to define something under the law. That is one reason why laws that govern us are ever changing.



LadyCimarron -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/20/2010 7:22:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer
Sometimes consenting adults like to enjoy things that are fun for them and don't hurt anybody, but that other people freak out over and decide are sick or morally wrong, because they think those things are disgusting.

I generally think it's smarter to accept that different people like different things, and that we have a pretty diverse BDSM community. Your personal preferences do not a universal moral compass make.


I agree with this to a point but sometimes consenting adults enjoy things that SEEM like they don't hurt anyone else, but they actually do.  Some consenting adults run methlabs out of their homes. Seems harmless enough, until it explodes.  Consenting adults opened up a nightclub in a residential neighborhood several years back. It was legal and fit all zoning requirements. It was no one's business.....until the bullets started flying every weekend.

Likewise Sexworkers, however people look down on them, are typically not bothered until they bring some kind of attention to themselves. I don't know what goes on in other people's bedrooms and frankly don't care. But once you let everyone know what's going on in your bedrooom, you open yourself up to scrutiny.



LadyNTrainer -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/20/2010 9:00:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
The basic facts are that as a society, we MUST determine what's allowed and what's not. Anything else is anarchy and has been shown decisively at various points in history, us humans don't like anarchy. So given that the lines must be drawn, then that means that people's various viewpoints about what is and is not detrimental to the fabric of society all need to get their air time.


I agree, but one of the places those lines need to be drawn is how much control anyone else gets to have over what other consenting adults do in private that is not detrimental to the public welfare.  How much control should the state have over people's religious beliefs, for instance?  Or who they are allowed to love and marry?  These are historically quite emotionally charged questions, and when the reason that people want to control what other adults may do is *not* about impacting their own rights or welfare but about enforcing their personal moral compass on others, I think that steps over the line.

quote:

So yes... those folks who think that gay marriage is deleterious to the very fabric of marriage and our society and possibly even the space-time continuum have a right to their opinions and their opinions matter just as much as mine.


Opinions are one thing; oppression is another.  I know you're not saying that the people who beat Matthew Shepherd to death were just exercising their right to express their opinion.  So where do you draw the line between expressing an opinion and actively seeking to harm or punish the people you don't agree with, inside or outside the law?


quote:

And yes, those people who think beating your lover is heinous have a right to that opinion also. Just because you don't share someone's viewpoints doesn't make them stupid or selfish or any other thing.


The question is whether they have the right to stop you from having a consensual D/s relationship in private with your lover.  The reality right now is that they do, and I don't think that is particularly a good thing.



juliaoceania -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/20/2010 9:29:52 AM)

I am about to say something pretty unpopular...


Societies have always taken an interest in what those living within them do with their naughty bits, and who they do those actions with. It is fairly important for there to be cultural constructs surrounding these behaviors... In our society we frown on incest, bestiality, interactions based upon age. We used to have taboos surrounding ethnicity. In some places it is okay to date your cousin on your father's side, but not the cousin on your mother's side. Some cultures have ritual prostitution... it really is a mixed bag out there, and the line is a cultural construct....

In our society most people do not get arrested for spanking their partner, hell, most of the time they don't get arrested for terrorizing their family members nonconsensually either. S&M has really kinda went mainstream in recent years, and people titter when they encounter it. It is becoming more and more culturally acceptable here in the USA, and it will probably continue to become more so....Cultural attributes are not static, they are dynamic....

As to your breakfast analogy, I found it to be kinda relevant in the way that tastes are cultural constructions, whether food tastes or sexual ones. We have to decide as a society where we draw our lines, and there will always be people that cross them. We have lines (taboos) that this site respects, not everything goes, even here... and the reason why is because we live in a society that has controls over what we do sexually.... and those lines are present no matter where you go in the world, they are just different lines...

BTW, in many parts of the world the fact we eat rotten milk (cheese is one example) sickens people from other places.... and yet we consider it a delicacy if it is a good enough cheese.... just saying



LadyNTrainer -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/20/2010 11:28:02 AM)

I think a pretty reasonable place to draw the line is with consenting adults in private who are not harming anyone, and where the ramifications of their actions are also not harming anyone, impacting the general public health and welfare, or imposing an economic burden on society.  Reasonable regulation comes into play when people get involved who are nonconsenting, not adults, or who are otherwise being impacted. 

Sexual behavior that falls into the category of potentially harming the nonconsenting or of impacting the public health and welfare should be regulated whether it is personal or professional.  Eg, you can't rape people, have sex with the underaged or those who have insufficient mental ability to consent, have sex in public, or knowingly spread STD's.  Those are reasonable lines for society to draw, and we already do draw them.

Trying to socially regulate other aspects of human sexual behavior that do not meet these citeria is not the rational behavior of a free society that respects human rights, in my opinion.



juliaoceania -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/20/2010 11:35:55 AM)

quote:

I think a pretty reasonable place to draw the line is with consenting adults in private who are not harming anyone, and where the ramifications of their actions are also not harming anyone, impacting the general public health and welfare, or imposing an economic burden on society.  Reasonable regulation comes into play when people get involved who are nonconsenting, not adults, or who are otherwise being impacted

Sexual behavior that falls into the category of potentially harming the nonconsenting or of impacting the public health and welfare should be regulated whether it is personal or professional. Eg, you can't rape people, have sex with the underaged or those who have insufficient mental ability to consent, have sex in public, or knowingly spread STD's. Those are reasonable lines for society to draw, and we already do draw them.

.


Spreading STDs is indeed a problem in this society....and most diseases are spread unknowingly.

People who lie and cheat on partners are likewise harming society and undermining the stability of the family, and society has a vested interest in that.

Children that grow up without parental support due to casual sex, also a problem

People who use emergency services because they hurt someone who consented cost society money through higher insurance premiums and the state funds many hospitals (meaning those who use those services do not pay the actual cost of them)


It is not so black and white as you think as to why societies exert control over "personal" behaviors (I am playing devil's advocate here)




leadership527 -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/20/2010 12:13:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer
The question is whether they have the right to stop you from having a consensual D/s relationship in private with your lover.  The reality right now is that they do, and I don't think that is particularly a good thing.
OK, I've rewritten this a few times trying to get down to the crux of my argument. It comes down to this... YOUR moral compass uses a measuring stick of "consenting adults" as the arbiter of what is good and what is not. Someone else's moral compass uses the bible for such things. My moral compass generally revolves around "making the most happiness" -- I find little use for "consent" between Carol and I.

Somehow, these different viewpoints need to be resolved and I don't get how my viewpoint or yours or theirs is inherently superior. I am unable to distinguish how your position is any better than the Christian fundamentalist position in that both lack empathy and respect for the opposing viewpoints. All we can do is talk it out and try to reach some compromise. Such a compromise is almost certainly going to be partly agreeable and partly uncomfortable for everyone involved. Ideally, such compromise would come from a stance of mutual respect even as the disagreements are acknowledged.



LadyNTrainer -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/20/2010 1:40:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
YOUR moral compass uses a measuring stick of "consenting adults" as the arbiter of what is good and what is not. Someone else's moral compass uses the bible for such things.


Are you saying that there is no difference between a viewpoint of respecting individual freedoms up to the point that they impact on others, and forcing arbitrary religious conformity?  I think there is a real and objective difference between these things that does not depend on an individual moral compass.



sweetsub1957 -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/20/2010 1:42:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyCimarron

quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetsub1957
i'm thinking that if i were to answer the question(i tried to earlier, but obviously i didn't think it through well enough), i'd say it needs to be a person of legal age that was not under the influence of a mind-altering substance that would put him/her in a vulnerable mental/emotional state. In this sort of thing, nothing is black & white or either/or. There are too many variables to make a blanket statement.


But if you are dealing with matters of law a line has to be drawn. There has to a "blanket statement" where they say "cross this line and you are in violation." Now sometimes that line is drawn too narrowly and sometimes its way too broad, but there is really no other way to define something under the law. That is one reason why laws that govern us are ever changing.

Yes, You are right. And i am thinking that the line could be drawn at the spot where the things that happen with people's "naughty bits" happen between consenting adults. But that's just my opinion.



leadership527 -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/20/2010 1:56:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer
Are you saying that there is no difference between a viewpoint of respecting individual freedoms up to the point that they impact on others, and forcing arbitrary religious conformity?  I think there is a real and objective difference between these things that does not depend on an individual moral compass.
Yes, that is what I'm saying... I'm saying that you seem to be stuck inside your own worldview and are not empathizing significantly with the other side. I think you are applying YOUR definitions of "freedoms" and YOUR defintiions of impact and YOUR defintions of everything on everyone else.... exactly as if it were YOUR religion.



LadyCimarron -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/20/2010 2:29:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetsub1957


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyCimarron

quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetsub1957
i'm thinking that if i were to answer the question(i tried to earlier, but obviously i didn't think it through well enough), i'd say it needs to be a person of legal age that was not under the influence of a mind-altering substance that would put him/her in a vulnerable mental/emotional state. In this sort of thing, nothing is black & white or either/or. There are too many variables to make a blanket statement.


But if you are dealing with matters of law a line has to be drawn. There has to a "blanket statement" where they say "cross this line and you are in violation." Now sometimes that line is drawn too narrowly and sometimes its way too broad, but there is really no other way to define something under the law. That is one reason why laws that govern us are ever changing.

Yes, You are right. And i am thinking that the line could be drawn at the spot where the things that happen with people's "naughty bits" happen between consenting adults. But that's just my opinion.


I do agree with you. I don't think we need a bedroom police either.  But even with that line being drawn it still goes back to your previous statement of "too many variables." Someone here brought up STD's.......what happens when someone thinks they got ripped off.......or when one person says it was consensual and another unconsenusual? There will still be many gray areas and many places where society's laws will have to get involved.



dvart -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/20/2010 2:44:14 PM)

@leadership527

Far too simplistic.

"Society" in Malawi has determined that fifteen years hard labour is an appropriate penalty for two gay men falling in love.

"Society" in Nazi Germany thought Jews,Gays and Gypsies should go to death camps.

So although "Society" has to have rules, those rules are not always moral and under certain circumstances (Nazi Germany) it is moral to violently oppose them.




leadership527 -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/20/2010 2:56:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dvart
So although "Society" has to have rules, those rules are not always moral and under certain circumstances (Nazi Germany) it is moral to violently oppose them.
Moral says who? YOUR morals? MY morals? Or do you just mean THE MORALS(tm). That is the rub.

EDITED TO ADD:
And of course if your morals and my morals disagree then we will oppose each other. Ideally, through mutual respect and understanding, we can reach some sort of workable compromise through discourse and diplomacy. If, however, that fails and the disagreement in moral values is substantial, we will resort to violence. That is all a given. I was kind of hoping to avoid a civil war in the US though.

So don't get me wrong. I do not agree with the moral stance of the fundamentalist christians. But to simply dismiss them as bored butt-insky's with nothing better to do than harass their neighbors is not conducive to fruitful discourse. I also don't agree with the moral stance of the "consenting adult" camp here on collarme. But, you know, I suspect some sort of compromise position can be hammered out.



GotSteel -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/20/2010 5:02:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy
Why are people horrified of sushi? Who would consider it abuse?

Not sushi, but Natto is definitely abuse and the kenshi who told me it was good knew it.



crazyml -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/21/2010 1:33:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer

I think a pretty reasonable place to draw the line is with consenting adults in private who are not harming anyone, and where the ramifications of their actions are also not harming anyone, impacting the general public health and welfare, or imposing an economic burden on society.  Reasonable regulation comes into play when people get involved who are nonconsenting, not adults, or who are otherwise being impacted. 



This is a perfectly reasonable place to draw the line.

But now we've got to define "consent", "adult", "private", "not harming anyone" and at what point actions will impact public heath and welfare.


And this is where my brain begins to melt.

Consent - How do you define "competence to consent" - Is someone with a long history of mental illness, that manifests itself in extremely low self esteem, a belief that they need to be punished and a desire to suffer competent to consent to a beating? Or are they better served by being protected from physical harm and given therapy?

Adult - In some countries the age of consent is as low as 12, in others it's 18. We have a pretty universal acceptance on these boards that "underage" is wrong. But there's still debate over what "underage" is...

Private - Different cultures define "Private" in different ways...

"Not harming anyone" - Well I cause "harm" whenever I cane someone - it's not lasting harm (which is where I personally draw the line), but by most reasonable definitions to cane someone is to cause some harm.

Public health and welfare - The disgusting attitude of some cultures towards homosexuality is justified (by them) on the grounds of public welfare... They're patently wrong... but that is how female genital mutilation, the burqua, and the horrific things that were done to the jews were all "justified".

I'm not getting at anyone - I'm just trying to point out, as others have said, that there has to be a "line". The line is never going to be perfect, and in some societies the line is going to be drawn in a horrifyingly stupid and nasty place.




Andalusite -> RE: The Naked Breakfast: Consensual kink versus abuse (6/21/2010 8:19:47 AM)

Generally speaking, I'm not interested in intervening unless it is likely to cause permanent harm that they either seem unaware of (in which case I may suggest they seek out some more training in person before attempting something like fireplay or needles or electrical play), or it is very likely to kill them. In the latter case, I would probably question their mental health. I don't have any problem with people engaging in rape play, and have eaten yucky things when someone I felt submissive toward wanted me to. Neither is a big deal or likely to cause permanent harm, much less death. There are lots of things that I hear about and go, "I don't want to do that!" but that generally gives me another question or two to ask potential partners.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875