This post is on the Other BDSM web board.
| 23 Apr 09, 9:36 PM kisses_for_me UK, 5 yrs  |
It's easy to tell the difference between right and wrong. What's hard is choosing the wrong that's more right. Elise Kraft, The Siege. | ||||
| 23 Apr 09, 9:46 PM avantgarden 3 yrs |
Yes, as long as those fantasies that aren't safe; affect non-consenting parties; or involve acts which call sanity into question (as in the 'vore' mentioned - though an irate philosopher might like to argue that defining what's sane and relying on this as criteria for admission into acceptability is completely flawed - but I'm not one of them) remain purely fantasy - and I think the OP was concerned this may not be the case. Apologies if that was entirely what you meant and I'm misinterpreting your post.
| ||||
| 23 Apr 09, 9:47 PM rabbot 12 yrs |
I don't agree that trying to save a life is just done to 'feel good'. 'taste the whip, in love not given lightly, taste the whip now bleed for me' Velvet Underground | ||||
| 23 Apr 09, 11:00 PM Sorceror UK(HU), 9 yrs |
The big problem with managing BDSM is that managing BDSMers is like herding cats. Amongst the 1000s of posts I've read here almost none were "I don't really understand all the intelligent things you are saying but I accept everything you say without question". Those that did say something like that were taking the piss. This places us at a significant disadvantage against, say, militant Islam since we have a huge shortage of willing followers and a general, but not universal, reluctance to advocate killing those who disagree with us. Policing BDSM therefore is virtually impossible. Admin here actually do a pretty good job of regulating the site. However it has to be accepted that the site operates as a quasi theocratic dictatorship with no form of accountability, limited discussion, no appeal process or system of representation to resolve rule infringement. But it is free. The future of BDSM is the same as the past of BDSM and the present of BDSM. Its practitioners will do whatever they want, with whomever they want (subject to adequate charisma or capital to attract willing parties) and justify it however they want if they can be bothered to do so. It will remain outspoken (or sullen and inarticulate) and ungovernable. people will support the things they want to support and viciously attack the things they don't like. Every so often the tabloid press or another part of the establishment will get highly upset at some element of the scene, there will be brief moments of outrage and even attempts of action, which will of course founder on the fact that without the ability to momitor people inside their dwellings, and without the power to readily force testimony from witnesses who are unwilling to co-operate policing what consenting people do inside their own homes is nearly impossible. The future will be the same as today. Unless we have an Apocalypse. In which case I believe leather will be in, PVC will be out. S....x. | ||||
| 23 Apr 09, 11:50 PM MasterOfMe UK(WD), 6 yrs  |
Love that line However...what is being missed here is the difference between fantasy and reality. For example if the Dolcett fantasy were taken to its full extreme then clearly that is not BDSM. But then if a rape fantasy is taken to its full extreme then that is not BDSM either - and yet many members of this site from both the giving and recieving side are quite open about enjoying rape fantasies. Dolcett as a fantasy is fairly 1 dimensional and I don't "get" the fetish - although I do get the appeal of that level of control. However that doesn't mean that anyone who enjoys it as a FANTASY is any more wrong than people who enjoy rape as a fantasy...or for that matter enjoying tying up people in real life and pouring molten wax on them! YKIOK - even if I don't like it...and Dolcett and Vore and whatever else someone comes up with a name for it are kinks and are ok...so long as they remain SSC - or even RACK. | ||||
| 24 Apr 09, 7:00 AM DaddysTouch UK(RG), 3 yrs |
Illegality does not equal immorality. It's only hubris if I fail. | ||||
| 24 Apr 09, 12:11 PM merrynb99 UK(SL), 6 yrs |
I'd say that regardless of the motivation, whether it's sexual desire or heroism or the desire to do good, consensual self-destruction for any reason requires an element of insanity, yes. It's just that it's harder to rationalise when the motivation is sexual.
Edited 24 Apr 09, 12:13 PM by merrynb99 | ||||
| 24 Apr 09, 1:14 PM othyim NL, 3 yrs |
Ok... question. For the sake of the discussion.
(For this would definately not be my kink).
On the soft (i.c. consentual) vore thingie.
The non-consentual thing is just that, non-consentual.
Thus it can never be called bdsm IMO. So, question: How much does this consentual vore thing actually differ from blood play and vampirism? Which both are accepted forms of play in certain circles? Logically, if we accept blood play and drinking blood you take from your partner as an activity within the realm of bdsm, eating flesh you take from your partner is almost the same thing?
Edited 24 Apr 09, 1:17 PM by othyim | ||||
| 24 Apr 09, 1:36 PM stormywaters PT, 4 yrs |
Well it always comes down to the same thing for me: accepting your own feelings. That sounds so simple but it can be the hardest thing in the world. For a start it isn't always at all easy to even know what they are. So I wonder what the OP's real feelings are about fantasies of sexual canabilism. I can, could, get into that a bit I guess but I choose not to. (Get into the fantasy I mean!) I wonder if the OP is more, albiet unconsciously, atracted by these fantasies than he is comfortable with. They are not as strange as they sound. Eating your enemy, especially the sexual bits (can't believe I am typing this!) is, anthropologically speaking, I suspect not so uncommon. So it is probably still lurking there in quite a lot of us. And to think I used to worry because I wanted to spank girls! The point is to take responsibility for your feelings, to acknowledge them honestly. Then you can 'make friends' with them and not be bullied or threatened by them. Guilt around feelings never did any good to anyone. It is suppression and guilt that leads to actual wrong doing and acceptance that makes people safe. That is the huge irony. There simply is not some terrible dark monster of insane desire lurking in us that we must suppress. There is a whole human being to be found and that is healing and makes us social not anti-social. And yes that can include (fantasies about, ie actually wanting to) eat people. To advertise here phone 02477 562966 Edited 24 Apr 09, 1:38 PM by stormywaters | ||||
| 24 Apr 09, 3:03 PM Kookie UK, 4 yrs |
Foe me BDSM is not an exclusive club, I neither feel I belong to IT, or IT belongs to me. Parts resonate, parts I collude with, and parts I have dumped as not for me. On the subject of cannibalism, consent, safety and insanity; I often wonder why some fantasies or mere thoughts have to be acted out or become fetish, rather than stay as a fantasy. I've had some ridiculous ones concerning heads of state etc. Personally I have an innate survival instinct which I project onto others, erdo I am in the business of saving lives and while it may make me feel good, I have also put myself in compromising positions in doing so. Judgements are necessary, in particular when you vue it for personal survival, not necessarily for the survival of a culture or society. BDSM dosent have to incorporate cannibalism to survive, and you dont have to collude with it to to be interested in BDSM because BDSM is not in itself a definitive of you.
We are all in the gutter, just some of us are looking at the stars (Wilde). |
