Intolerance (96)

Whilst there are probably others (in fact there are probably dozens) one of the main ideological battles seems to be SSC vs Ultraviolence.

Cards on the table here. I'm not on the centre ground. In fact I'm probably one of the primary safety police. To the extent that I'm shocked that I can get labelled as a dangerous pervert on a vanilla site. Ho hum.

One of the issues that seems to be overlooked (even by Admin) is that the AUP is squarely on the side of SSC in this case - explicit bans on mentions of rape, children, and anything non consensual. If we extend the "non consensual" to include activities to which no consent could be given (like being murdered and eaten by a cannibal for example) I think that full and rigorous enforcement of the AUP AS IT STANDS NOW would mean that no material could be published that could ruffle any but the most excitable objectors.

But... even I don't seek a ban on EVERYTHING that is unsafe or merely, subjectively, unpleasant. I acknowledge that all societies need some tolerance for alternative values to function.

That said I regard IC as the BBC of BDSM (acronym overload alert). What else could be described as the true voice of British BDSM ? Perhaps Caan and Backlash - but they are specific pressure groups. So our membership could cover anyone from curious vanillas to the hardcore of the hardcore. So I am concerned at the tendency for people on the boards to be shouted down and bullied just for posting criticism of certain posts. Apparently if you do not condone rape and non consensual violence you have no place here.

My concern is effectively split. On one hand I don't want my own fantasies and activities prohibited and policed (esopecially when some of the recent legislation could be interpreted as banning images that I have seen on the internet). On the other hand I don't want a situation to arise similar to when homosexual groups in the 1970s were infiltrated by PIE (paedophile information exchange) and to their regret they found themselves defending paedophiles. In fairness, other than in a recent post on incest, child related material isn't an issue on the site and few people would seek to defend it (and it is already in breach of AUP). Ultraviolence is more of an issue. Take as an example a blog post from one of this site's leading members. In it she described a scene where for wearing too revealing clothing she was beaten black and blue, facial injuries included, by her Dom. But this stuff is real. In real life women regularly get beaten up by jealous partners. And that is non consensual violence. As a community do we want to appear to be condoning this ? My difficulty is that I am compromised further by knowing the writer. She is one of the most self possessed people I know and about as far away from a victim as it is possible to imagine. And I would not be happy in saying "You shouldn't post that". Her fantasy, her thing, her life.

You can say "it's just fantasy" but thought is the father of the deed. I fantasise about tying up women (two or more is even more exciting), gagging them, and sexually teasing them, and flagellating them. And you know what... I've done that in real life. And I fantasise about being tied up by women (two or more is even more exciting), being gagged, and being sexually teased, and flagellated. And you know what ... I'd be up for that in real life. Of course not every sexual fantasy I've had I'd want to re-enact in real life - as Max Moseley showed being sure of discretion when you have more than four women involved is very difficult. But what of darker fantasies ?

We already have had one member here murdered by a (former) partner. Is there some responsibility on us as a community to say that real life non consensual violence is wrong ? From the many women I have talked to involved in the scene there have been at least two allegations of scene related rapes, and numerous complaints of very heavy handed and unsympathetic treatment at the hands of Doms. Do we risk normalising such behaviour if we take an "ANYTHING goes and be silent the nay sayers" approach ?

I think it's a difficult subject and where the lines should be drawn is a difficult question. However I am very firmly in the camp that there SHOULD be lines and not everything is OK. The one distinction I think could be made is between blogs and the porn channels - where views are either very clearly those of a single individual or fantasy - and the boards where a greater degree of social responsibility may be in order.

You know there are those of us in the community for whom this stuff is merely (mainly) harmless fun.

S.x.

Edited Sun 9 Jan 11, 5:32 PM by Sorceror

I have been taken to task by suggesting that cannibalism is outside the spectrum of BDSM.

Sometimes I feel that some people on the boards do not act as gentlemen and use abusive or aggressive syntax to make what maybe a good argument but devalue the point by the aggression of the expression.

I suppose in the end if someone continuously exceeds the limits of good manners we as individuals make the choice not to interact with them.

On content UV/Incest etc I think the only problem is when we loose sight of the consensual and/or fantasy play of it.

Edited 9 Jan 11, 6:03 PM by Ianneil

You, Sir, are to be congratulated for writing / starting an intelligent and thoughtful thread, such a pleasant change from the usual "How do I spank my monkey / choke my chicken?"

I think the basic, fundamental problem is adults in age acting like spoiled children in character, everything is rosy in the garden and HOW DARE YOU attempt to dictate to me what I can and cannot do, and then it all goes wrong, and then it is all WAAAAAAAH! IT'S NOT MY FAULT!!!! I'M A VICTIM!!!!

This is an increasing trend that I have observed in life, not confined to IC by any means.

"If it happens to you, it is your responsibility."

Children, we say, as adults, cannot give meaningful consent.

So what of children in adult bodies?

Can an immature person in an adult body who acts all empowered and equal and independent, who then fucks up (makes a bad choice) who then suffers as a direct result of their own fuck up, who then perhaps for the first time truly demonstrates their immaturity by attempting to shift all of the blame on to other parties, if necessary by retroactively re-writing history, genuinely be treated as an adult?

Can such an immature and childish person be considered any more capable of giving meaningful consent than say someone afflicted with Down's Syndrome?

Personally, I think not.

I think that if you deliberately create as broad and catholic (small "c", it has a different meaning) church as possible, then you are inviting future troubles for yourself and the rest of the congregation.

I think that there is a lack of tough love, a lack of honesty, and a lack of integrity, in much of what passes for normal in the scene.

Ultraviolence is just the latest in a long stream of names for a kink that is as old as the hills.

At the risk of not quite mentioning names, one you should all be familiar with who is now eligible for a free bus pass is S**** A*****

Now, while I will defend your right to do etc etc etc, I also have to be brutally honest, and state that anyone who is addicted to being whipped, repeatedly, not play, but hard, across the back and spine with a bullwhip until losing conciousness, is frankly fucking nuts.

So while I will defend their right to do etc etc etc, I will defend this right from a minimum distance of 800 yards or so, under the roof of the next church along the street, the one with the "No nutters" sign outside.

Speaking as someone who was inadvertently dragged into involvement with the forces of law and order, and whose kinks were subject to inspection (shades of Derek and Clive, "...all their hands, all over my knob for about four hours...") I have to tell you, DEMONSTRABLE distance from the "nutters" is a good thing.

YKIOK

cool, but surely a more fundamental right is YLAOK

Your Limits Are OK.

Yes, before the ankle biters come out, my profile says I don't believe in limits or safewords, and this is true, but to any sane and intelligent person this means that the selection of a mate must of necessity mean that they must be sane and sensible enough that we need no limits or safewords, it does not mean I want to shack up with someone who wants me to kill them, bury them, dig up the body, fuck it, and then eat it.

I'm not cynical mate, just experienced.

Edited 9 Jan 11, 6:12 PM by Asshole_Magnet

True accounts can appear indistinguishable from extremely brutal domestic violence/abuse. How easy is it to distinguish between an abusive relationship and a consensual one? I know a woman who endured domestic violence for years because she simply couldn't see an alternative. Her will and her sense of worth had been beaten from her.

Of course adults should be able to do whatever they wish in a consensual relationship. If we allow boxing I don't see how anyone could make a case for making it illegal. The danger is appearing to condone non consensual violence. It's difficult. I'm glad I'm not the one who has to decide where to draw the lines.

i think you are referring to subs here, but this as we have seen recently, equally applies to so called dominants.

"There is no such thing as liberty. You only change one sort of domination for another. All we can do is to choose our master." D. H. Lawrence
~ www.greenwichmunch.co.uk ~ www.wonkycircle.co.uk ~

The danger lies in the denial that the average human being will in fact draw a line in the sand, and say that anything beyond *this* is so extreme that if anyone does consent to it, they must be nuts.

At which point their capacity to give consent in Law is eliminated.

Boxing is legal, bare knuckle fighting is not.

However, the real problem is that on occasion, for whatever reasons, some people do lie, and retroactively re-write history and claim that consent was not given, or that if consent was given, it was given to this, but not that.

Lacking a contemporaneous record, such a video recorded on a mobile phone for a recent UK gang rape allegation, it is extremely tough for the retroactively accused to convince anyone of their innocence.

IC memo's are great for this purpose for example, until you delete them.

I'm not cynical mate, just experienced.

I do not mind what you do in any way, shape or form, as long as its not illegal. But appricate the fact that I may not be into what you do so dont ram it down my throat...

By the same token, I understand and appreciate that there are people who do not 'get' what I do. I do not expect to be villified by those people, and I will not ram my thing down your throat.

My view towards people is similar.. I am your friend and I will trust you UNTIL you do me wrong. Even then I will give you a second chance. Once wronged, I will not chase you or cause you any grief, I will simply do nothing (good or bad) for or to you, but I will simply leave you alone.

I am aware there are some people who find it unable to tolerate other people.. I simply steer clear of such people. Its their loss, in my view

The danger my approach lies in when someone has a hidden agenda and purports to tolerate you but is actually lieing to you. This is for whatever purpose they deem necessary (in my experience, the purpose is usually to manipulate all around them to their way of thinking, or they are jealous and want what you have).

In my mind, these are the most intolerent people. They will appear pleasant and well mannered to you, at first, building you your confidence in them, and your friendship. But they cannot keep it up, and sooner or later they show their true colours.

When discovered and confronted with their descipable behaviour, they will use every trick in the book to try to worm out of accepting any blame or responsibility for their own actions, to the extent of trying to make everyone believe something entirely different has happened.

It is for thea above reason (amongst others) (believe it or not, I am non confrontational by nature, when being confrontational, I am bratting or playing), that I adopt my stance of doing nothing and leaving them alone. If I do nothing, then nobody can ever confidently say I have done anything in retaliation, and I can hold my head high.

Sorry to (slighlty) hijack this thread, but I believe that tolerance is linked to behaviour, and intolerance is usually displayed by manipulative trouble makers.

In brief, its not illegal (not the same as legal) and consensual, it should be tolerated.

Huggles to all.

Anita

Brand new School, fun for all, www.stAudries-at-ouse.co.uk for details..

I have to admit the concept of ultraviolence worries me.

I begin to wonder how much of it is real "pleasure and consent" and how much of it has become competative "I can beat my sub closer to death than you can, wuss!" and "I can take being beaten closer to death than you can, coward!" type posturing.

For me there are conflicting points here.

The first is that I believe BDSM should not be the "excuse" for doing things that are stupidly dangerous. Being involved in BDSM is not an alternative to both having and using a brain, in fact I would regard being involved in BDSM as putting an even greater responsibility on your shoulders to think and act within the bounds of wisdom and reason.

And yet, conflicting with that, I really do believe that consenting adults should be able to do what they have consented to do without anyone else telling them that they must not.

So I find myself sitting here with a square to try and circle.

What it boils down to in the end is saying "You have every right to take any risks with your safety, or that of adults who have consented to those risks with you, that you wish. But if the shit hits the fan it's you that chose to take the risks, it's you who ended up either being damaged or causing damage, and it's you who must take full responsibility for your actions - and if others feel that the risks you took were not risks you should have taken they have every right to call you a fool and to disown any association with your foolishness."

Toak

FEMALE, BONDAGE-FRIENDLY MODEL SOUGHT. I am seeking to update my "How To" shibari bondage pictures (see my profile pics, the clothed blonde tied in red and black) with a model more "enthusiastic" about BDSM, and who is happy to be photographed nude. MEMO ME if this is you.

Edited 9 Jan 11, 7:10 PM by ToakReon

In fact there are many people who live out entire persona/lifes behind their computer screens and are in total contrast to the world in which we are forced to live.

Ultra this, ultra that, risk and blame legal systems are just facets of the this world.

If anyone has not seen the world of "Ghost in the shell", they, it is well worth watching and the accompanying series. It shows a horribley possible realistic future..

Good points I think Toak.

But the assumption is an equality of knowledge and ability. For example with the person who's blog I mentioned earlier if they asked "would you interfere ?" then I wouldn't - even if I disliked what was occurring she is so far above me in her level of experience that I wouldn't want to stop the activity. There might be limits to that - knife throwing at a club with a pissed Dom I would probably question - but the private beating, no. However with a bare vanilla novice who had "consented" but was clearly very unhappy - then I would intervene.

The issue on the main post however was not reality but fantasy. Policing people's fantasies and posts on their fantasies is more controversial - and rightly so.

S.x.

Why has incest necessarily got anything to do with children? The OP on that thread made no mention of children. Incest is about sexuality between close relatives and age has nothing to do with it, so if both participants are adults and consenting it isn't, as I understand it against the AUP. The paedophilia aspect is an insinuation that some people who posted on that thread chose to put on it that was not in anyway justified by the topic.

If you seek to ban discussion about incest on the grounds that some incest involves children, then logically you would have to ban discussion about all kinds of sex on the grounds that some sex involves children.

I would agree, but you have to be careful that you don't read too much into things to the point where you try to ban things just because some people might read something into it that isn't actually there, as in the example of incest.

I personally don't see any purpose in such a distinction. To my mind either something should be allowed on the site or it shouldn't.