> You weren't referring to criminal assault when you wrote: "then
> organized bdsmers wouldn't spend so much time trumpeting the need to
> be inside the bdsm community to avoid abuse and abusers."? What abuse
> were you referring to if not criminal assault, people merely being
> mean to others? [JT]
It didn't occur to me at the time, but yes, simply being mean is a form of coercion and sometimes of abuse. (I knew having been the kid that got picked on all the time in parochial school would someday be useful.) Further, I believe assault +is+ among the dangers specifically warned against by writers on bdsm and safety.
>> How about, "Do it because you love me"? That's one of the most
>> coercive statements possible, and it can evoke almost any human
>> behavior.
>
> "Do it because you love me" holds true for het sex practitioners just
> as much
Yes, it does. The many ways in which bdsm is totally unexceptional and its practitioners very much like everyone else are painfully obvious.
> but I don't recall you writing that any two people on a date are
> "playing with fire."
No, I didn't write that, because someone on a vanilla date making such a statement is much less often backed up by an heightened level of authority or exaggerated power differential. People in a bdsm encounter very often do have such differentials between them--that's built into the nature of the game.
What I'm trying to get at is that there are forms of coercion which are not violent, not criminal, and not even necessarily wrong. If you don't like that one, how about, "You should be ashamed of yourself for not submitting to this, you worthless piece of shit"?
> Nothing you've written yet has explained why consent between BDSM
> practitioners is "thornier" than the consent between people engaged in
> any other form of sex.
Let me ask you a question: If consent isn't more problematic (I thought "thornier" was a nice rhetorical touch, myself) in bdsm than in vanilla sex, then why does it take such a central and explicit role in organized bdsm? Why is it such a topic of discussion?
> If you can't find any evidence to support the idea that there is a
> connection between BDSM and non-consensual sexual violence or that
> abuse and coercion are much greater problems in the BDSM community
Now, is that everyone that practices bdsm, or is it everyone who is in the organized bdsm community?
> than they are for high schoolers dating, among dating co-workers, or
> among practitioners of any other form of sex play then it seems
> foolish to keep insisting that it still must be true.
I don't believe I've insisted that. What I have said is that, consent is a more difficult question in bdsm. For instance: What does consent mean if the person consenting has been in restraint for an afternoon when the consent is requested? What does consent mean if the person consenting is two years into a master-slave relationship? What does consent mean if the person consenting has become physically intimidated by the person requesting the consent? Those aren't questions usually raised in most sexual relationships. (Okay, the last one does get a certain amount of play.)
But again: If abuse is not a problem in bdsm, why is so much time and effort spent warning against it? (I'll even spot you a possible counter-argument: Bdsmers are engaging in pre-emptive public relations.)
And one more time: I'm not saying bdsm is bad. I am saying it's more complicated than you're making it out to be. I expect the same level of reflective thought and self-examination on the part of sex radicals that I do of everyone else. Consent, choice, all that jazz--that's the language of the market, too, and I find it suspect.
All the best,
John A