College Chaplain Tried to Organize ‘BDSM 101’ Event with Local Dominatrix

[maquiscat]

lol...what an oxymoron...

Not at all. Keep in mind that early American puritans would have considered anything other than Missionary position as kink, not to mention oral sex. There is no absolute in what is "moral" and "immoral" when it comes to sex. That line has been all over the place across history, including religious history and even specifically Christian history.

 

[maquiscat]

I think that one of the problems here is that somehow some people are expecting that a chaplin would have no other interests in things outside religion/spiritually. But here is the question; would anyone have objected if this chaplin has organized a lecture on say, safety in cyber dating (i.e. using web sites to meet people to date)? If the answer is no, then why not? Is that not as much outside their "spiritual duties" as this topic was?

 

[Overitall]

No judgment on others' private preferences, but I'm perplexed by why the chaplain (who doesn't lead worship services but "functions as a faith adviser to Christians, Muslims, and Jews on campus," according to National Review) saw this as part of her job. The college cancelled the event within hours, but here is how it was described: “Chaplain Beatrix will host a local dominatrix to share wisdom on how to safely, sanely, and consensually learn about bondage, discipline/domination, sadism/submission, and masochism....” https://www.nationalreview.com/news...rganize-bdsm-101-event-with-local-dominatrix/

Since when did harming another become a "safe" activity? The whole point of sadism is to inflict harm to another.

 

[maquiscat]

Since when did harming another become a "safe" activity? The whole point of sadism is to inflict harm to another.

Boxing and wrestling are also activities about harming one another, not to mention martial arts.

However, as a BDSM practitioner and an instructor with a BDSM 101 class, I can tell you that not all of BDSM is about hurting another. Sadism is not included in every, or even most, BDSM activities. BDSM has become an umbrella term that covers most kinks, including things like pet play, and tickling fetishist, and many other things that don't involve pain. Even rope play doesn't involve pain, unless you purposely add it in.

As far as "safe activities" go, we can also throw in mountain climbing, sky diving, deep sea scuba, and many others. In the end, none of them are "safe". We do everything we can to make them safer, and we generally have good results with that. Same goes for the risky plays of BDSM. Even the plays that don't involve pain can have risks, such as the risk of cutting off blood flow with rope play, or even pulled muscles from excessive squirming during tickling.

One more point about the "pain". For many of us, we don't actually feel pain with these activities. When done right (which is why I always recommend classes), these plays cause no actual harm (some exceptions of course) and what is felt by the bottom is not pain but intense sensory overload. For simplicity's sake we do often refer to such as "good pain" and can tell the difference between that and "bad pain".

 

[Overitall]

Boxing and wrestling are also activities about harming one another, not to mention martial arts.

However, as a BDSM practitioner and an instructor with a BDSM 101 class, I can tell you that not all of BDSM is about hurting another. Sadism is not included in every, or even most, BDSM activities. BDSM has become an umbrella term that covers most kinks, including things like pet play, and tickling fetishist, and many other things that don't involve pain. Even rope play doesn't involve pain, unless you purposely add it in.

As far as "safe activities" go, we can also throw in mountain climbing, sky diving, deep sea scuba, and many others. In the end, none of them are "safe". We do everything we can to make them safer, and we generally have good results with that. Same goes for the risky plays of BDSM. Even the plays that don't involve pain can have risks, such as the risk of cutting off blood flow with rope play, or even pulled muscles from excessive squirming during tickling.

One more point about the "pain". For many of us, we don't actually feel pain with these activities. When done right (which is why I always recommend classes), these plays cause no actual harm (some exceptions of course) and what is felt by the bottom is not pain but intense sensory overload. For simplicity's sake we do often refer to such as "good pain" and can tell the difference between that and "bad pain".

You're comparing apples to oranges. All physical activity involves risks. Sadism doesn't involve potential risks, it involves intentional harm.

 

[nota bene]

I think that one of the problems here is that somehow some people are expecting that a chaplin would have no other interests in things outside religion/spiritually. But here is the question; would anyone have objected if this chaplin has organized a lecture on say, safety in cyber dating (i.e. using web sites to meet people to date)? If the answer is no, then why not? Is that not as much outside their "spiritual duties" as this topic was?

Why would a college chaplain need to organize a lecture on safe cyber-dating either?

 

[maquiscat]

You're comparing apples to oranges. All physical activity involves risks. Sadism doesn't involve potential risks, it involves intentional harm.

Sadism is only 1/6 of the stated label, AND the label has expanded to cover more than the original 6 aspects. Teaching a BDSM 101 class is not limited to teaching about sadism.

With that aside, there is a major difference between say skydiving, where there is risk, but no intentional harm, and boxing where there is risk AND intentional harm. I addressed the issues of potential risk vs "safe" and intentional harm as separate issue.

 

[maquiscat]

Why would a college chaplain need to organize a lecture on safe cyber-dating either?

Why does a chaplain need to limit what they do to spiritual matters? Is there a problem if a chaplin organizes say a board game night?

 

[Overitall]

Sadism is only 1/6 of the stated label, AND the label has expanded to cover more than the original 6 aspects. Teaching a BDSM 101 class is not limited to teaching about sadism.

With that aside, there is a major difference between say skydiving, where there is risk, but no intentional harm, and boxing where there is risk AND intentional harm. I addressed the issues of potential risk vs "safe" and intentional harm as separate issue.

Why do you think boxers wear gloves? They are meant to reduce the risks and the harm caused. In sadism, the risks are apparently ignored stretching out the intended harm up to the limit of causing death. It's a game similar to "Russian roulette".

 

[nota bene]

Why does a chaplain need to limit what they do to spiritual matters? Is there a problem if a chaplin organizes say a board game night?

A board game night would be considered part of the "fellowship" of the group, as would, oh, a Thanksgiving potluck.

BDSM refers to sexual practices. Why would any chaplain of any denomination consider student enhancing/educatings students on sexual practices part of the job description? And has this chaplain had specific training? From a 2017 article, and the bolding is mine:

Though individual programs vary in delivery style and content, both approaches typically follow similar formats such as small groups and classroom workshops, or large group presentation formats. Programs usually involve interactive activities such as group discussions, role play scenarios, worksheets, or interactive videos (e.g., Amar et al., 2015; Fenton & Mott, 2018). These programs may occur as a single session or over multiple sessions, and are often delivered by specific program facilitators which include program staff members and student volunteers who receive instructional training (e.g., Amar et al., 2015). The large presentation style programs generally occur as a single session, and are more didactic in style with fewer opportunities for participant interaction (e.g., Borsky et al., 2018; Reid et al., 2013). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15248380211036058

I really don't see how you can compare a board-game night to a workshop on BDSM.

 

[maquiscat]

Why do you think boxers wear gloves? They are meant to reduce the risks and the harm caused.

Very good. Guess what us lifestylers do as well. There is a reason we have classes to help people learn how to reduce the risks and harm caused. Still the point remains, Boxing and other such activities are intentional harm.

In sadism, the risks are apparently ignored stretching out the intended harm up to the limit of causing death. It's a game similar to "Russian roulette".

You are falling for the stereotypes. We don't want to actually break our "toys". We typically enjoy our play partners, and want to be able to engage with them multiple times. The risks that we actually take are equal to or even less than that of other activities such as sky diving. Further consent is a key aspect of this community. It is something that educators and most practitioners push a lot. The masochists are not victims here. They are willing participants who are in agreement to what happens to them and usually knowledgeable in the risks they are taking.

Now for the record, I pointed out that sadism was only 1/6 of the label and even less of the overall lifestyle. Are you only objecting to the sadism aspect, and are alright with the rest? Or are you objecting to the entire lifestyle, and if so why/on what basis?

 

[Overitall]

Very good. Guess what us lifestylers do as well. There is a reason we have classes to help people learn how to reduce the risks and harm caused. Still the point remains, Boxing and other such activities are intentional harm.



You are falling for the stereotypes. We don't want to actually break our "toys". We typically enjoy our play partners, and want to be able to engage with them multiple times. The risks that we actually take are equal to or even less than that of other activities such as sky diving. Further consent is a key aspect of this community. It is something that educators and most practitioners push a lot. The masochists are not victims here. They are willing participants who are in agreement to what happens to them and usually knowledgeable in the risks they are taking.

Now for the record, I pointed out that sadism was only 1/6 of the label and even less of the overall lifestyle. Are you only objecting to the sadism aspect, and are alright with the rest? Or are you objecting to the entire lifestyle, and if so why/on what basis?

I object to any intentional harm inflicted on another. I don’t care if it’s agreed to. It’s not natural.

 

[maquiscat]

A board game night would be considered part of the "fellowship" of the group, as would, oh, a Thanksgiving potluck.

BDSM refers to sexual practices. Why would any chaplain of any denomination consider student enhancing/educatings students on sexual practices part of the job description? And has this chaplain had specific training? From a 2017 article, and the bolding is mine:

Though individual programs vary in delivery style and content, both approaches typically follow similar formats such as small groups and classroom workshops, or large group presentation formats. Programs usually involve interactive activities such as group discussions, role play scenarios, worksheets, or interactive videos (e.g., Amar et al., 2015; Fenton & Mott, 2018). These programs may occur as a single session or over multiple sessions, and are often delivered by specific program facilitators which include program staff members and student volunteers who receive instructional training (e.g., Amar et al., 2015). The large presentation style programs generally occur as a single session, and are more didactic in style with fewer opportunities for participant interaction (e.g., Borsky et al., 2018; Reid et al., 2013). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15248380211036058

I really don't see how you can compare a board-game night to a workshop on BDSM.

We're looking at two different issues here. One is the chaplin organizing anything outside of religious activities. The other is the type of class (used in the general sense and not the sense of classes in college) or presentation created. If you are alright with a BDSM 101 class being held, but are not with the chaplin organizing it then your issues is with the chaplin going outside of religious areas. If such is the case why? What are the limits? what is considered within their roles and side of it? And finally why can't a chaplain be doing things outside of the religious area?

Now if you have a problem with a BDSM 101 lecture happening, then the point of it being the chaplain organizing it is moot. You would be having the problem with the presentation no matter who organized it. Now maybe you are not familiar with what is in most BDSM 101 classes. For the most part it is some history, explanation of common terms, describing of common etiquette for social events (munches, play parties, etc all having different sets of etiquette), and the dispelling of myths and stereotypes, such as all BDSM is about hurting someone, and a lot about safety. Very little actual descriptions of the various plays and activities are discussed. These are basics classes/lectures. Very few BDSM 101 classes actually teach any plays. That is mostly because each type of play has a lot of safety issues specific to it, that each needs its own class.

So let's make sure that we are addressing the two issues separately.

 

[maquiscat]

I object to any intentional harm inflicted on another. I don’t care if it’s agreed to. It’s not natural.

So then you object to boxing and martial arts competitions? And you also object to surgery, which is intentional harm in the form of cutting someone open? Is inserting needles into someone intentional harm, especially since many say it hurts when it happens? Setting a broken bone? That is most certainly intentionally causing pain to a person.

But you didn't actually answer the question. Are you only objecting to the sadism aspect, and are alright with the rest? Or are you objecting to the entire lifestyle, and if so why/on what basis? If the quoted is indeed your answer then I can only take it that you do not object to the other aspects of BDSM, and as such, you should not have a problem with people learning about the rest of it.

 

[Overitall]

So then you object to boxing and martial arts competitions? And you also object to surgery, which is intentional harm in the form of cutting someone open? Is inserting needles into someone intentional harm, especially since many say it hurts when it happens? Setting a broken bone? That is most certainly intentionally causing pain to a person.

But you didn't actually answer the question. Are you only objecting to the sadism aspect, and are alright with the rest? Or are you objecting to the entire lifestyle, and if so why/on what basis? If the quoted is indeed your answer then I can only take it that you do not object to the other aspects of BDSM, and as such, you should not have a problem with people learning about the rest of it.

If you’re going to put words into my “mouth” there’s no point of me responding to you. Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[nota bene]

We're looking at two different issues here. One is the chaplin organizing anything outside of religious activities. The other is the type of class (used in the general sense and not the sense of classes in college) or presentation created. If you are alright with a BDSM 101 class being held, but are not with the chaplin organizing it then your issues is with the chaplin going outside of religious areas. If such is the case why? What are the limits? what is considered within their roles and side of it? And finally why can't a chaplain be doing things outside of the religious area?

Now if you have a problem with a BDSM 101 lecture happening, then the point of it being the chaplain organizing it is moot. You would be having the problem with the presentation no matter who organized it. Now maybe you are not familiar with what is in most BDSM 101 classes. For the most part it is some history, explanation of common terms, describing of common etiquette for social events (munches, play parties, etc all having different sets of etiquette), and the dispelling of myths and stereotypes, such as all BDSM is about hurting someone, and a lot about safety. Very little actual descriptions of the various plays and activities are discussed. These are basics classes/lectures. Very few BDSM 101 classes actually teach any plays. That is mostly because each type of play has a lot of safety issues specific to it, that each needs its own class.

So let's make sure that we are addressing the two issues separately.

I don't see it as being within the job description of any university-sponsored organization to sex technique training (unless, of course, there is an institution-sponsored BDSM/other sex play student organization).

If you are talking strictly about safety issues, the office of the dean or vice president of student affairs would be the one responsible for such programs or workshops. Here is an example: https://www.uidaho.edu/student-affa...lence-prevention/interpersonal/digital-dating

 

[NatMorton]

No judgment on others' private preferences, but I'm perplexed by why the chaplain (who doesn't lead worship services but "functions as a faith adviser to Christians, Muslims, and Jews on campus," according to National Review) saw this as part of her job. The college cancelled the event within hours, but here is how it was described: “Chaplain Beatrix will host a local dominatrix to share wisdom on how to safely, sanely, and consensually learn about bondage, discipline/domination, sadism/submission, and masochism....” https://www.nationalreview.com/news...rganize-bdsm-101-event-with-local-dominatrix/

What's wrong with being judgmental?

I think it's reasonable to worry about the mental health of someone who gets their rocks off even by pretending to tie someone up and "dominating" them. Would you worry about two "willing adults" who each took turns pretending to be 8 years old and acting out a rape?

 

[nota bene]

What's wrong with being judgmental?

I think it's reasonable to worry about the mental health of someone who gets their rocks off even by pretending to tie someone up and "dominating" them. Would you worry about two "willing adults" who each took turns pretending to be 8 years old and acting out a rape?

That's some sick stuff, and I'd like to hope it's also extremely atypical. But how would I or you even know what's going on in a stranger's bedroom unless somebody ends up in the ER? And why should I worry about what others are hypothetically doing in their own homes so long as nobody (including animals) is being abused?

Yes, of course, I would worry about adults who pretend to molest kids in their sex play. Why? This is pedophilia by proxy, and it's sick. I think rape fantasies are disturbing too, but I don't pretend to understand why people do the "nurse" or "French maid" or "pirate captain" thing either (or the people who have realistic baby-dolls and take them shopping and to the movies or the people who can't have any foods touch on a plate or who race cars or watch car races).

But this doesn't really have much to do with the topic, which is whether organizing a BDSM workshop is an appropriate activity for a college chaplain. I say it is not.

 

[NatMorton]

That's some sick stuff, and I'd like to hope it's also extremely atypical. But how would I or you even know what's going on in a stranger's bedroom unless somebody ends up in the ER? And why should I worry about what others are hypothetically doing in their own homes so long as nobody (including animals) is being abused?

Yes, of course, I would worry about adults who pretend to molest kids in their sex play. Why? This is pedophilia by proxy, and it's sick. I think rape fantasies are disturbing too, but I don't pretend to understand why people do the "nurse" or "French maid" or "pirate captain" thing either (or the people who have realistic baby-dolls and take them shopping and to the movies or the people who can't have any foods touch on a plate or who race cars or watch car races).

But this doesn't really have much to do with the topic, which is whether organizing a BDSM workshop is an appropriate activity for a college chaplain. I say it is not.

BDSM is, IMO, a proxy for rape of an adult as one does not need to bind or dominate the willing.

So I ask again, why is it wrong to be judgemental about that?

 

[Overitall]

BDSM is, IMO, a proxy for rape of an adult as one does not need to bind or dominate the willing.

So I ask again, why is it wrong to be judgemental about that?

Perhaps the answer is in your own argument. Unless you don’t think there’s anything wrong about “rape” why would you even ask the question?

 

[NatMorton]

Perhaps the answer is in your own argument. Unless you don’t think there’s anything wrong about “rape” why would you even ask the question?

I do think there's someone thing wrong with rape, and, as a consequence, I don't have any hesitation about saying faux rape is something less than moral behavior.

 

[maquiscat]

If you’re going to put words into my “mouth” there’s no point of me responding to you. Enjoy the rest of your day.

I didn't put words into your mouth. I asked questions. That's what those question marks are for. Pointed ones to be sure, as your statement was so broad, that it would have included those things. So I am trying to get you to either acknowledge that you do object to those things to to admit that your statement was too broad and narrow it down so as to understand what your real objections here are. Because I really doubt that it is as simple as "any intentional harm inflicted on another."

And you avoided the question again.

 

[maquiscat]

I don't see it as being within the job description of any university-sponsored organization to sex technique training

First why does it have to be as part of their university duties? Why can't it be as if a student organized the presentation? Something above and beyond because there is interest.

Second, as I noted earlier, the topics covered most likely would not be directly sex technique related. In fact, many BDSM plays can be accomplished without any actual sex occuring. Many can be done without exposure of genitals. And this presentation most likely would not have included any of the plays, as most BDSM 101 presentations do not.

(unless, of course, there is an institution-sponsored BDSM/other sex play student organization).

And if there is? Do we know if there is a group of students who have gotten together for this purpose like they might gather for RPG playing or other purposes?

If you are talking strictly about safety issues, the office of the dean or vice president of student affairs would be the one responsible for such programs or workshops. Here is an example: https://www.uidaho.edu/student-affa...lence-prevention/interpersonal/digital-dating

Yeah, if the event was supposed to be sponsored by Everyday University (EDU), then maybe it would have been better through one of them. But was the chaplain even doing this in his official capacity? Why can't he don't this as a side thing? See that a bunch of the students were getting into this and making sure that they had the reality of what is and isn't. There is a reason why I call my own 101 class 50 Shades of Reality. Personally, I find it much better to be active in making sure the students are being safe, than to let it go by the wayside and problems arise through ignorance.

 

[maquiscat]

Yes, of course, I would worry about adults who pretend to molest kids in their sex play. Why? This is pedophilia by proxy, and it's sick.

Age play is actually a thing. There are some variations within it, including where no sex occurs. But it's not pedophilia based. First of all you have the ones who are the littles or middles. Not sure how they would be doing pedophilia by proxy since they are the "kids". But the bigs of the play are not actually interested in prepubescent bodies. They want the real adult thing.

I think rape fantasies are disturbing too,

Consensual Non-Consent. Quite honestly, not my cup of tea either, but from my observations this goes along the line of the adrenaline junkies. It's also shows the most trust of any relationship. You have to really know the person to give up that much power. While many claim that they want to get to that level, very few, relatively speaking actually get there.

but I don't pretend to understand why people do the "nurse" or "French maid" or "pirate captain" thing either

They didn't let the world crush out the fun of playing pretend like we all used to do when we were kids. Quite frankly, the idea of "adulting" is overrated. I get my bills paid and keep my family fed and still play with my Transformers.

 

[Daisy]

I think Paul pretty much summarized what should be on a Christian's mind and I don't see how dominatrix fits into that description in any way, shape, or form...

“Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things.” Philippians 4:8

Meaning of Philippians 4:8​

God is interested in what humans think about, especially since our thoughts lead to actions. (Psalm 19:14; Mark 7:20-23) Therefore, people who wish to please God reject thoughts that are bad in his eyes and instead think about things that he approves of.
This verse mentions eight types of good things that Christians should “continue considering,” that is, make a habit of thinking about.

• “True.” This word describes things that are upright and trustworthy, such as the information found in God’s Word, the Bible.—1 Timothy 6:20.
• “Of serious concern.” This phrase refers to matters of real importance. They are not frivolous, trivial, or petty. Rather, they help to reinforce a Christian’s determination to do what is right.—Titus 2:6-8.
• “Righteous.” This word refers to plans and actions that meet God’s standard of what is right rather than being based on limited human wisdom.—Proverbs 3:5, 6; 14:12.
• “Chaste.” This word conveys the idea of thoughts and motives that are clean and holy, not just in sexual matters, but in all things.—2 Corinthians 11:3.
• “Lovable.” This word refers to things that are pleasant, that stir up feelings of love rather than hatred, bitterness, or conflict.—1 Peter 4:8.
• “Well-spoken-of.” This phrase refers to things that would add to a person’s good reputation and that people who respect God would approve of.—Proverbs 22:1.
• “Virtuous.” This word refers to things that are morally excellent according to God’s standards. They are good through and through.—2 Peter 1:5, 9.
• “Praiseworthy.” This word refers to what is commendable, especially in God’s eyes. It also includes God’s own praiseworthy deeds, which humans do well to consider.—Psalm 78:4.
• https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/502300133?q=whatever+things+are&p=sen