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

[nota bene]

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.

Again, such a class need not be offered by a college chaplain--THIS is the thread topic, not expositions on various theories about the pros and cons of BDSM itself. This is far outside the range of the job description.

 

[maquiscat]

Again, such a class need not be offered by a college chaplain--THIS is the thread topic, not expositions on various theories about the pros and cons of BDSM itself. This is far outside the range of the job description.

If Overitall is going to put out the points that he has, then there is nothing wrong with me putting out counter arguments to his arguments.

But unless you are of the assertion that other activities such as a D&D event or board game event are outside of the range of the job description, then this would be no more or less so.

 

[Overitall]

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



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.



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.

I object to any intentional harm to others. The comparison to sporting events is really not comparable because in them you have the element of defense. A sexual pervert isn’t trying to defend themselves. In fact they want/desire the pain/harm.

 

[Overitall]

If Overitall is going to put out the points that he has,

I’ve done so in response to points raised, but you seem stuck on trying to pin words and actions on me. Please stop it.

then there is nothing wrong with me putting out counter arguments to his arguments.

But unless you are of the assertion that other activities such as a D&D event or board game event are outside of the range of the job description, then this would be no more or less so.

 

[Gordy327]

I object to any intentional harm to others. The comparison to sporting events is really not comparable because in them you have the element of defense. A sexual pervert isn’t trying to defend themselves. In fact they want/desire the pain/harm.

If thats what they want, then what's the issue? There is consent. Defense does not mean harm will be avoided. It just prolongs the time for harm to be inflicted.

 

[Overitall]

If thats what they want, then what's the issue?

The ”issue“ is I object to any sexual perversion that involves pain. The human body is “designed” to defend against harm, thus sexually perverted activity, with the intention to harm (absent self-defense), is against nature

There is consent. Defense does not mean harm will be avoided. It just prolongs the time for harm to be inflicted.

 

[Overitall]

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

Does the curriculum include both pro and cons of engaging in this perversion of sex?

 

[Gordy327]

The ”issue“ is I object to any sexual perversion that involves pain. The human body is “designed” to defend against harm, thus sexually perverted activity, with the intention to harm (absent self-defense), is against nature

If you're not the one involved and there's consent, it doesn't really matter if you object or not. Some people get off on it. To each their own.

 

[maquiscat]

Does the curriculum include both pro and cons of engaging in this perversion of sex?

Since I already said that this wasn't a curriculum presentation, that would be a strawman argument.

 

[maquiscat]

The ”issue“ is I object to any sexual perversion that involves pain. The human body is “designed” to defend against harm, thus sexually perverted activity, with the intention to harm (absent self-defense), is against nature

As noted before most BDSM activity doesn't actually involve pain, sadism or masochism. That is before we look at how you might define a given sensation as pain, while I define it as pleasure. Who are you to tell another how they feel, especially given your objection to me supposedly speaking for you. Further, as each person knows their body better than you do, they get to determine what is and isn't harm to them. Unless you are wanting to take their free will away, but I'm doubting that.

SO once again to that question you are avoiding (and I am wondering why). From the first posting of the time I asked it: 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]

As noted before most BDSM activity doesn't actually involve pain, sadism or masochism. That is before we look at how you might define a given sensation as pain, while I define it as pleasure. Who are you to tell another how they feel, especially given your objection to me supposedly speaking for you. Further, as each person knows their body better than you do, they get to determine what is and isn't harm to them. Unless you are wanting to take their free will away, but I'm doubting that.

SO once again to that question you are avoiding (and I am wondering why). From the first posting of the time I asked it: 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’ve given you my perspective on this sexual perversion issue. I’m not interested in continuing down this off topic side discussion with you. Take the last word, if you must.

 

[maquiscat]

I’ve given you my perspective on this sexual perversion issue. I’m not interested in continuing down this off topic side discussion with you. Take the last word, if you must.

Except that you haven't. For example, BDSM can include the power exchange dynamic where the dominant has command of the submissive (within the bounds that the two negotiated), which does not involve sadism or the infliction of pain. Are you objecting to this as well or just the sadism?

You seem to be railing against BDSM as a whole, but you only ever deride one aspect. What I am trying to determine if you are conflating sadism as the whole of BDSM, either willfully or out of ignorance, or if you are alright with the other aspects of BDSM, and only are against sadism itself and by itself.