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

[j brown's body]

Sex and religion don’t have a very good history.

Precisely why she was the perfect person to host this event.

 

[j brown's body]

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".

Fun fact: boxing gloves where introduced to allow boxers to take more punishment before being knocked out. Before gloves, the fights were ending too quickly.

Which makes me wonder, would eliminating helmets in football make it safer since players would be responsible for protecting their own heads?

 

[BirdinHand]

Man…you all care WAY too much what consenting adults do in their bedrooms

 

[Daisy]

Man…you all care WAY too much what consenting adults do in their bedrooms

Yeah...not true...do whatever the heck you wanna do in your bedroom, just don't tell me you're a Christian while you're doin' it...

 

[Gordy327]

Yeah...not true...do whatever the heck you wanna do in your bedroom, just don't tell me you're a Christian while you're doin' it...

Doing it means one isn't a Christian?

 

[nota bene]

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.



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?



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.

Someone who is an employee of a university is by definition representing the university. In this case, the announced meeting was to be held on campus in the interfaith lounge. If a university chaplain has an outside gig (rents hotel rooms for seminars, for example), that's another thing. Even then, there are always wiggle phrases in employment contracts to cover unusual situations such as this.

And excuse me for not realizing that a meeting about a dominatrix sharing "wisdom on how to safely, sanely, and consensually learn about bondage, discipline/domination, sadism/submission, and masochism” is going to focus on theory.

Who cares whether students gather to have BDSM or "furrie" fun or whatever? This is about a university chaplain--see Post #16 for sample job descriptions.

I'm sure that the university is already doing its best to ensure student safety. Don't pretend that if a BDSM workshop isn't held on campus that student safety is going to fall by the wayside. Or that there aren't other ways to learn about safe sex practices either. Or that the responsibilities of a chaplain's office include something like this.

 

[Logician Man]

Doing it means one isn't a Christian?

Color me old fashioned, but you'll never find me "telling" anyone what's going on in my bedroom while I'm "doing it."

 

[Gordy327]

Color me old fashioned, but you'll never find me "telling" anyone what's going on in my bedroom while I'm "doing it."

Yeah, you save the bragging for after

 

[Overitall]

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.

Your questions were loaded ones. Or to put it another way -- they were statements masquerading as questions.

 

[Daisy]

Doing it means one isn't a Christian?

What do you think?

 

[maquiscat]

Your questions were loaded ones. Or to put it another way -- they were statements masquerading as questions.

Not at all. You just don't want to answer them because they destroy your premise and argument. Are you denying that boxing is intentional harm inflicted on another?

Also you are still avoiding this 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 you feel that it is a loaded question, then explain what makes it a loaded question. Really I'd like to know that for all the previous questions, but for now this one will do.

 

[Overitall]

Not at all. You just don't want to answer them because they destroy your premise and argument

To assume this is to assume how I would answer, and therein you reveal they were loaded questions.

You may have the last word.

. Are you denying that boxing is intentional harm inflicted on another?

Also you are still avoiding this 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 you feel that it is a loaded question, then explain what makes it a loaded question. Really I'd like to know that for all the previous questions, but for now this one will do.

 

[maquiscat]

To assume this is to assume how I would answer, and therein you reveal they were loaded questions.

You may have the last word.

It's your avoidance of the questions that is telling me this after the fact of asking the questions. They are not loaded because the assumption was not there until you avoided them. If they are loaded, the you could explain how they are loaded besides simply calling them loaded.

 

[Gordy327]

What do you think?

You tell me. You're the one saying one cannot call themselves Christian when doing it.

 

[Overitall]

Fun fact: boxing gloves where introduced to allow boxers to take more punishment before being knocked out. Before gloves, the fights were ending too quickly.

Which makes me wonder, would eliminating helmets in football make it safer since players would be responsible for protecting their own heads?

You don't seem to be able to connect your "fun fact" with the opposite scenario of a football helmet being eliminated from the activity. One improves the safety, while the other diminishes it.

 

[maquiscat]

You don't seem to be able to connect your "fun fact" with the opposite scenario of a football helmet being eliminated from the activity. One improves the safety, while the other diminishes it.

I have to agree that they are not as connected as the poster might think. Not even tackling in football is one intentionally trying to inflict harm on his opponent. However in boxing you are still intentionally inflicting harm on another.

 

[Overitall]

I have to agree that they are not as connected as the poster might think. Not even tackling in football is one intentionally trying to inflict harm on his opponent. However in boxing you are still intentionally inflicting harm on another.

Boxing is a sporting activity in which the participants are competing against each other. An activity where, despite the harm, one will attempt to protect themselves. Can the same be said about sadism?

 

[Gordy327]

. Can the same be said about sadism?

Yes. Ever hear of "safe words?"

 

[Overitall]

Yes. Ever hear of "safe words?"

A safe word is only said when a victim has reached their tolerance level. Unfortunately, if the abuser doesn’t hear the word being said, the harm can progress to levels of the victims being killed. It’s a variation of Russian Roulette.

 

[Gordy327]

A safe word is only said when a victim has reached their tolerance level. Unfortunately, if the abuser doesn’t hear the word being said, the harm can progress to levels of the victims being killed. It’s a variation of Russian Roulette.

You base that on what exactly?

 

[maquiscat]

Boxing is a sporting activity in which the participants are competing against each other.

And it still fits your criteria of intentionally inflicting harm upon another. Do you deny that?

An activity where, despite the harm, one will attempt to protect themselves.

I think you are suffering from some confusion or ignorance here. The goal of the boxer is to minimize the harm received and maximize the harm given to the opponent. In the context of BDSM, the masochist is welcoming in the amount of pain that they and the sadist have negotiated as mutually acceptable. In the context of BDSM, the sadist does not provide more than desired by the masochist. The masochist attempts to protect himself via the negotiation as well as the prior vetting of their play partner.

Can the same be said about sadism?

Yes, as noted above. BDSM has consent as past of its underlying foundation. Without consent, it's assault not BDSM. I think you are falling back too much on the stereotypes of BDSM. BDSM is no more of a "Russian Roulette" than skydiving, and even less so with many plays.

You still haven't said whether you object to BDSM as a whole, or just the sadism part. The distinction here is very important.

 

[CaughtInThe]

All I took for an easy "A" was bowling.

 

[maquiscat]

A safe word is only said when a victim has reached their tolerance level. Unfortunately, if the abuser doesn’t hear the word being said, the harm can progress to levels of the victims being killed. It’s a variation of Russian Roulette.

Safe words can have a variety of meanings, which is why it is important to discuss them prior to play. A safe word could be used to indicate approaching a limit, as well as a different one to indicate having reached or passed one.

You also showed a bias in calling the top "the abuser". If consent is present, the actions are not abuse. If a safeword is said, and even repeated, and still not heeded, then yes it becomes abuse. And even if a limit is reached, that does not mean that the top will continue to escalate the actions. The limit might be one of time. The bottom might only be able to withstand 5 minutes of the activity, but continuing at the same level still would not kill or permanently damage the bottom.

You seem to be conflating a lot of things into one. This is the reason that BDSM 101 classes exist; to dismiss these stereotypes and myths, and in some cases, outright lies.

 

[maquiscat]

All I took for an easy "A" was bowling.

It wasn't to be a curriculum class. It was supposed to be more of an iinformative presentation for those interested in the topic.

 

[CaughtInThe]

It wasn't to be a curriculum class. It was supposed to be more of an iinformative presentation for those interested in the topic.

Don't mess up my joke.