Now, guys, chill.
I think that Charles' initial concern is understandable though misplaced. The answer has been given, but let me restate it without heat.
1) It's normal for people without experience of nonstandard, kinky, BDSM sex, whatever you want to call it, to find it a little disturbing because it involves elements of things that re like things people normally associate with cruelty and oppression, such as infliction of pain or humiliation, relations of hierarchy, domination and subordination (more ore less temporary), and the like. So it's natural to ask, what makes this different from garden variety sadism and domestic abuse?
2) The main answer is that among people who do nonstandard sex, the activities are voluntary, consensual, and within limits acceptable to both (or all) parties. That's why it's not abuse any more than it's assault to hit someone in a boxing match, to use an imperfect analogy.
3) Many loving couples (or larger groups), whether or not they even consider what they do to be S&M or kinky, do these sorts of things to enhance stimulation, make sex more interesting and fun, and otherwise improve their relationships.
4) Activities that cease to be consensual and within agreed-on limits aren't kinky sex anymore, they are just abuse. This isn't just limited to BDSM type activities -- plain vanilla sex is rape if it is non-consensual.
5) There are people who practice these nonstandard activities who are abusive, just as there are people who do not practice them who are abusive. That is,a according to my understanding, the accepted norm of the community, if you want to call it that, of people who do this stuff. There's even a slogan: "safe, sane, and consensual."
(I don't know any studies, but it seems plausible that the ritualized self-limitation of BDSM activities may make abuse less likely, since "No means No" is (from my understanding) part of the basic ground rules. In addition, there is the point that people in such relationships or who do such activities are no more stuck them just in virtue of doing these activities than anyone else is stuck in a relationship.)
8) With regard to what counts as "the "right kind" of nonstandard sex, why not say it is whatever safe, sane, and consensual sexual activities people agree to do? One person may want to be tied up but not experience pain. Another, to experience pain, but not do things that involve drawing blood. A third may wish to have his/her partner excrete on his/her person, another my find that repulsive. Some people like fisting, others say any sort of anal intercourse is not for them. As long as the parties agree, what they agree on is right for them. When someone does something the other person doesn't agree to and won't stop, it's abusive. Pretty much everyone agrees on that.
8) Rapists and domestic abusers are not engaging in kinky sex but in violent abuse? Who's to say? Well, the people involved to start with. Same as the boxers. If we box and you pop me in the gut, that is part of the game. If you just see me on these street and do the same thing, you've done something wrong because I didn't bargain for that.
Brian and his husband, his Mistress friend whom I mention and her bottom (denoting a relationship not a body part), stay within limits agreed on by the parties involved. A rapist or domestic abuser does not. There are deep philosophical problems that can be raised with consent theory, but it is a good place to start. And it is the basis of relations, so I understand, among people who do this stuff -- whether with the full panoply of leather and chains or just because they got inspired by a Cosmo tip.
7) As I noted, with respect to men abusing women, it's my understanding that a very high proportion of the "bottoms" in such relations are men, who compete for the favors of the relatively few women who are willing to "top."
--- Charles Brown <cbrown at michiganlegal.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
> Ignore the fact that there is a big problem with
> domestic violence?
>
> ^^^^
> CB: Ignore the fact that to non-BDSM people, that
> some BDSM seems to
> simulate violent acts toward women, and therefore
> may feed into the
> misogynist mentality of men who beat/rape women.
>
> ^^^
>
> WTF?
>
> ^^^
> CB; To me you are just being dense if you don't see
> how people might have
> some concern about promotion of BDSM feeding
> misogynist thinking. You don't
> fucking see how some people might see a connection ?
> Give me a break. If you
> are trying to convince people that there isn't
> misogynist mentality or
> torturer's mentality in it, you need to think about
> the obvious, and stop
> acting like it's obvious how BDSM doesn't seem like
> purveying violent
> mentality.
>
>
>
> ^^^^^^
>
> Where do you get off bringing that into this
> discussion?
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: Your indignity is so ridiculous. Why don't you
> just go right ahead and
> continue on your high horse , because you are going
> to convince about nobody
> to give a good goddamn about what you are saying. Oh
> poor BDSMers. Everybody
> thinks they are weird.
>
> ^^^^^
>
>
> Why the fuck
> are you insinuating that I am ignoring domestic
> violence? I'm a
> feminist, fer chrissakes, who knows plenty of women
> who have been raped
> and/or been victims of domestic violence.
>
> ^^^^
> CB: I hate to go ad hominem , but you are really
> being dense.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> I can't ignore the fact that the overwhelming
> majority of that violence is
> being perpetrated by men with no interest in BDSM or
> other forms of kinky
> sex.
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: How do you know that ? Maybe most domestically
> violent men and rapists
> are just sadists trying to bring out the "inner
> masochist" in the women they
> violate ? Who are you to judge their sex as not the
> right kind of kinky sex
> ?
>
>
> ^^^^^^^
>
> That's not to say that men involved in BDSM/kink are
> angels. The men
> involved in those communities are like other guys.
> But what bothers me
> here is your association of domestic violence with
> BDSM/kink. Do you
> understand that BDSM/kink is a form of *consensual
> roleplaying*?
>
> Chuck
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: Yea, that's what I said. You need to explain in
> detail how BDSM/kink is
> not like domestic violence or rape. You really need
> to stop ignoring what
> many people understand to be happening in BDSM/kink.
> Also, for there to be
> sort of publically broadcast endorsements of BDSM ,
> there are many men (boys
> !) who might get the wrong idea.
>
> We are trying to teach boys not to hit or violate
> girls and women. Oh but,
> we have to make an exception for BDSM. Don't hit
> girls unless you are
> having BDSM. You of course, see absolutely nothing
> confusing in that, and
> are offended that anyone would suggest that it might
> be confusing.
>
> What about men/boys who might decide they're going
> to drop the "consensual"
> part , and use only part of the psychoanalysis that
> Doug refers to ? What
> about men who decide they are just playing and
> getting out their
> aggressions, but decide it's ok if their "masochist"
> is not in on the game ?
> It's all healthy and everything according to their
> particular school of
> psychoanalytical theory. "She wants it rough anyway,
> _subconsciously_." Are
> you , th anarchist, going to tell them that because
> of your authority they
> can't do this if they leave out the other party's
> consent ? They turn back
> to you and say "fuck your authority". I'm doing it
> my way.
>
> Being dense about all this does not help your cause
> of gaining everybody's
> approval of BDSM. And why are we talking about this
> if BDSMers are not
> trying to get others' approval ? If you don't care
> about what we think, then
> just do it and don't talk about it to us.
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com