Altering the perception of BDSM (97)

This topic is now full - if you want to reply, please make a new post on the board itself.

7 Oct 07, 9:14 PM
emark
UK, 5 yrs
mtii2007 wrote:
You chose to call me "not very tolerant" because of my like/dislike of certain words but not of other contributers for theirs. Because yours and ours are different.
I didn't see where anyone has called you intolerant?
And I wouldn't call anyone else intolerant because of their views on a word. The issue is things like wanting to lock people up based on what they do with consenting partners.
It's like saying: "Well I'm gay and I think people who go to gay clubs are silly. Does that make me homophobic? You can't say I'm not homophobic whilst someone else with the same views is homophobic. Obviously this means the word homophobic is a silly idea".
Just because a word or concept has complexities doesn't make the word have no meaning at all.
As for "PC", I believe you're the one getting cross at certain words, or opposing the use of new ones I don't think wanting people to not be prejudiced counts as "PC".

Poppy_Blue wrote:
i contributed to a thread the other day on scat where a few ic members referred to this activity as revolting, stomach turning etc. that's just amongst our own.
Thought it was revolting, or said they shouldn't be allowed to do it?

i personally don't feel my rights are affected in anyway by how i choose to get my kicks and can't see this changing anytime soon. it's true that there is a need to make people aware that bdsm is a healthy activity which has many positives side, but where do we start. what about the women who thinks doggy style is perverted?
Indeed, where do we start is the question.
BDSM is in an odd situation in that by many people it's viewed as eccentric at worst, but not usually with the same stigma as homosexuality. Yet much of it is still illegal, and we have new laws on the way, with a minority vocal viewpoint that is able to conflate it with abuse and win support for their views. That's the real issue I feel - not worrying about what we think about words like dom or sub.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/

7 Oct 07, 9:17 PM
IndelibleMarker
UK(N), 3 yrs

Poppy_Blue wrote:
there are many people within bdsm who have problems with accepting fellow bdsmers kinks. i contributed to a thread the other day on scat where a few ic members referred to this activity as revolting, stomach turning etc. that's just amongst our own.
A gay man who doesn't like the idea of giving oral sex won't get called a homophobe.
Words ending in phobia can be used as a technique to encourage people who don't really want to listen, to sit down, take notice and be educated.
Tuam matrem feci,
Patrick
IndelibleMarker
Edited 7 Oct 07, 9:18 PM by IndelibleMarker

7 Oct 07, 9:17 PM
z12345
14 mths
IndelibleMarker wrote:
The vanilla people we'd be talking to don't have the same views as you. Most don't even know what a Dom or sub are. They Think it's all D&M. You say you're not into S&M. Neither am I, I'm into the BD and D/s aspects but politicians don't currently know or care about the difference. An x-phobia word would make them sit up, take notice and learn the differences so they could make more rational decitions based on fact rather than perception.
That's not even right! Vanilla people DO SO know what a Dom and a Sub is. They've all seen documentaries which show how stupid/laughable we all are, they've all seen Secretary, they've all heard talk of "leather bars". They might use different words but they do SO know. And you keep on bringing in the politicians. Back in the early nineties, there were scandals after scandals of MPs enjoying kinky sex and getting caught. The ones making the laws, I'll put a hefty part of my reputation on, are kinkier than you. They're just repressed. It's "sexual bullimia" if I remember my cod psychology correctly. They're purging at the moment but at the weekend they'll be -insert crude slur relying on shock value (involving oranges)-

IndelibleMarker wrote:
Showing BDSMjoy is a lovely ideology, but unfortunately people don't listen to positive things very much. They put them to one side and ignore them for someone else to worry about.
And to THINK I held back from criticising YOU for being idealistic! I held back because it was going to be patronising AND condescending all at once.
PLEASE DON'T DO THIS, I think there are better ways. I think pissing off random people and putting repressed kinky people on the defensive is dangerous.
You said in the OP "let's fight fire with fire" I don't think that a truer sentiment has been spoken on this thread.

7 Oct 07, 9:18 PM
MarwoodBramwell
UK(CB), 2 yrs
Whoa! There is a LONG distance between disliking a practice or individual and actually being -phobic.
After all you are forgetting the basic core that being -phobic is irrational by definition.
To read through sections of this thread beggars belief. People are saying, and though I am sure this may not be what they mean and that is one of the limits of online communication, that it is accept one accept all! Does someone really forfeit the rights to have equally weighted opinions because they have a mild leather or PVC fetish?
For that matter,is a dislike of labels and terms that are thrown around IC like confetti invalid if kept internal?
After all there is a long way between the emotional reaction to something and acting upon it.
The very LAST thing needed is yet another term to divide people, to make the BDSM community seem any more victim like.
The thing that most of "mainstream society" (and may I point out that the society most ICers interact with is not exactly average, as after all IC is made up of a self-selecting section of a self-selecting minority) feel towards BDSM is a crashing jaw-straining yawn. They really don't care at all what is going on behind the closed curtains on the rest of their street. But label yourself, start a "cause" and make noise and they will dislike you on principle for making it into an issue and shortly after start judging you BECAUSE you make it into an issue. And I would have to say I would join them in that

7 Oct 07, 9:19 PM
z12345
14 mths
IndelibleMarker wrote:
Slightly off topic this, but this isn't a positive thing. People do have different feelings about these extremely emotive words but getting "cross" because someones feelings differ from yours and because they consider their last "boyfriend" their last "Dom" certainly can't be regarded as tollerant.
There. That's where I was called intolerant.

7 Oct 07, 9:25 PM
z12345
14 mths
MarwoodBramwell wrote:
The very LAST thing needed is yet another term to divide people, to make the BDSM community seem any more victim like.
The thing that most of "mainstream society" (and may I point out that the society most ICers interact with is not exactly average, as after all IC is made up of a self-selecting section of a self-selecting minority) feel towards BDSM is a crashing jaw-straining yawn. They really don't care at all what is going on behind the closed curtains on the rest of their street. But label yourself, start a "cause" and make noise and they will dislike you on principle for making it into an issue and shortly after start judging you BECAUSE you make it into an issue. And I would have to say I would join them in that
I am in complete agreement. My homophobic father (seriously, he's hilarious "no, you're wrong (mtii), they ALL wipe their arses and make stranger gays smell it. IT'S HOW THEY ALL GET OFF!") says "I like most gay people, I just can't bear the ones that stuff it down your throat, excuse the pun"
A quick look around a porn shop shows allsorts of "starter bondage kits" and porn involving spanking and tying up, (ALLY MCCOCKINGBEAL had a storyline about spanking), vanilla people play around with tying up, twisting nipples, ice cubes.... Most people are positive about *their* use of perverse sexual practices. And I agree, for the rest, what we do is BORING, they have no interest. Sometimes when they see someone on a chain in public, they titter. When they watch Eurotrash and someone is pooping onto someone else they smile. When they read Bizarre magazine, they read out the mucky bits to their mates.
Make us into victims, make us into an underclass, and those floating voters will switch on us. We'll cease to be amusing and become annoying and whiny and mental.

7 Oct 07, 9:29 PM
IndelibleMarker
UK(N), 3 yrs

mtii2007 wrote:
That's not even right! Vanilla people DO SO know what a Dom and a Sub is. They've all seen documentaries which show how stupid/laughable we all are, they've all seen Secretary, they've all heard talk of "leather bars". They might use different words but they do SO know.
You mean they *think* they know what Dom and sub mean?
They think we're stupid and laughable and that all Dom's need to hit people to feel in control?
The Secretary for example, although the best we have, is an inaccurate and terrible portrayl of a D/s relationship. He leaves her to virtually starve to death and at some points crushes her emotionally. Hardly what D/s is about.

The ones making the laws, I'll put a hefty part of my reputation on, are kinkier than you.
My girlfriends, along with other people who knows me, would argue differently!
I highly doubt we'll ever reach a mutual conclusion. I'm going to continue to maintain that as a tactic to help encourage people to listen it will, over time, help our cause.
Tuam matrem feci,
Patrick
IndelibleMarker
Edited 7 Oct 07, 9:32 PM by IndelibleMarker

7 Oct 07, 9:35 PM
MarwoodBramwell
UK(CB), 2 yrs

IndelibleMarker wrote:

mtii2007 wrote:
The Secretary for example, although the best we have, is an inaccurate and terrible portrayl of a D/s relationship. He leaves her to virtually starve to death and at some points crushes her emotionally. Hardly what D/s is about.
Don't look now BUT I will stake all the cash in my wallet right now that for some on IC that may well be EXACTLY what D/s is about for them.
and for the record, watched from right the way thru for the narrative, as opposed to scene skipping to the "action", that film is a strong advocate for acceptance and for any marginalized group. And the degree of tenderness on display is heartbreaking.

7 Oct 07, 9:36 PM
IndelibleMarker
UK(N), 3 yrs

MarwoodBramwell wrote:
tenderness on display is heartbreaking.
Fair point, there are some fantastic parts, there are just also some parts which really spoil it for me.

Tuam matrem feci,
Patrick
IndelibleMarker

7 Oct 07, 9:40 PM
z12345
14 mths
IndelibleMarker wrote:
You mean they *think* they know what Dom and sub mean? They think we're stupid and laughable and that all Dom's need to hit people to feel in control?
I am saying they know exactly what it is and don't give a shit. You remind me of the song "I wanna be a minority!"

The Secretary for example, although the best we have, is an inaccurate and terrible portrayl of a D/s relationship. He leaves her to virtually starve to death and at some points crushes her emotionally. Hardly what D/s is about.
You missed off "for me" YOU MISSED IT OFF! That's shocking. You lecture me on tolerance and then... ugh. You're proving my points for me.

The ones making the laws, I'll put a hefty part of my reputation on, are kinkier than you.
My girlfriends, along with other people who knows me, would argue differently!
I didn't mean to start a pissing contest. No matter how perverse your gfs say you are, I still would bet muchos dollars that a repressed mp is WAY more kinky than you.

I highly doubt we'll ever reach a mutual conclusion. I'm going to continue to maintain that as a tactic to help encourage people to listen it will, over time, help our cause.
Argue all you like. You don't have my agreement. You haven't persuaded a kinkster on a bdsm activism board. So, what chance have you got of convincing the bdsm adherents that don't read this board. And the ones that don't know this site exists.
PLEASE don't make this an issue the way you plan to. It will backfire.

Next page


	©1997-2008 Informed Consent