Split from BDSM therapy (discussion on validity of BDSM)

[Brontosaurie]

go ahead and trivialize rape if that makes you feel edgy.

BDSM is an expression of inferior Ne.

 

[Cognisant]

Re: BDSM Therapy

You're referencing outdated pop psychology as if it means something.

Glass houses and all that.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: BDSM Therapy

care to explain the glass house comment?

typology as i use it is simply a vocabulary for basic people-ology. expression of inferior Ne in this context means: a way to adorn ones otherwise mundane and quotidian personality with seemingly eccentric, open-minded or innovative, but actually just irrational, preferences and practices. like tying up or beating and slashing your lover. that gist flew over your head? really?

your personal vendetta doesn't belong in this thread. and if you don't want typology, don't frequent a typology forum. speaking of glass houses...

to OP: this is a hypothesis, not an insult. not intentionally anyway.

 

[Cognisant]

Re: BDSM Therapy

expression of inferior Ne in this context means: a way to adorn ones otherwise mundane and quotidian personality with seemingly eccentric, open-minded or innovative, but actually just irrational, preferences and practices. like tying up or beating and slashing your lover. that gist flew over your head? really?

I'm still a little unsure of what you mean by inferior extroverted-intuition, otherwise you just appear to be repeating yourself.

your personal vendetta doesn't belong in this thread. and if you don't want typology, don't frequent a typology forum. speaking of glass houses...

Well you brought it up so unless you're just talking out of your ass it must be somehow relevant, although it is true that I do find the entire premise of reverse engineering the mind from a pop psychology classification system to be amusingly absurd.

care to explain the glass house comment?

I think you've got the gist of it

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: BDSM Therapy

I thought bronto's first comment was contrived and short sighted, and I don't have an agenda. *shrug* the "shorthand" didn't really offer much that seemed useful.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Re: BDSM Therapy

MBTI isn't exactly 'pure empirical science' but it provides us with a framework and a set of general definitions to talk about human behavior. To dismiss it would be to go backwards. We gotta start somewhere. I don't really see more consistent and down to earth classification of human behavior. MBTI isn't trying to contain human behavior in a box, it's trying to box things in so we can get to talk about them and to progress with it. It's just merely placing a dynamic grid on a x-y axis so we know what we're talking about- to a general degree.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: BDSM Therapy

bronto is very vanilla about sex

 

[Fukyo]

Re: BDSM Therapy

bronto is very vanilla about sex

It's a sign of inferior Ni.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: BDSM Therapy

It's a sign of inferior Ni.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

*cough*

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: BDSM Therapy

I thought bronto's first comment was contrived and short sighted, and I don't have an agenda. *shrug* the "shorthand" didn't really offer much that seemed useful.

how is it short sighted except for BDSM happening to be one of those holy cows (or perhaps emperor's new clothes) of open-mindedness, like performance art or noise music...?

it's simple irrationality and a boring predictable way of breaking the norm that just becomes another norm, a stupider and perverted one. yes, this is the reason underlying it all. no one has ever enjoyed BDSM for what it is. the most charitable explanation is trauma. but usually it's a community, a lifestyle, a subcultural set of conventions.

being "vanilla" about sex is comparable to not eating bolts and lightbulbs or snorting porridge. you guys all shackled by fear of being normal, and it makes you embrace irrationality. it is truly deplorable.

y'all's super fervent reaction to my suggestion serves to prove it. you could've had arguments. if any were available.

 

[redbaron]

Re: BDSM Therapy

being "vanilla" about sex is comparable to not eating bolts and lightbulbs or snorting porridge. you guys all shackled by fear of being normal, and it makes you embrace irrationality. it is truly deplorable.

Speaking of inferior Ne...

y'all's super fervent reaction to my suggestion serves to prove it. you could've had arguments. if any were available.

Are we reading the same thread?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: BDSM Therapy

redbaron: yes, brilliant. you have spotted the ostensibly conservative in the rejection of pointless lunacy. what a mindfuck!

will anyone be non-boring now?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: BDSM Therapy

Are we reading the same thread?

Fukyo's post wasn't funny, nor true in any sense (do i need to spell this out?). thus, Jenny's laughter is one of desperate grappling for defense, rather than amusement. and cherry chimes in of course!

these are the characteristics of myth. for some reason you must cling to the belief that engaging in, or at least "understanding", BDSM makes you tolerant, smart, different people. all i've done is offer a hypothesis.

 

[redbaron]

Re: BDSM Therapy

Consensual, safe, mutual enjoyment of sex is pointless lunacy. 'Kay

will anyone be non-boring now?

Inferior Ne demands shiny new things!

for some reason you must cling to the belief that engaging in, or at least "understanding", BDSM makes you tolerant, smart, different people.

Spoiler

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: BDSM Therapy

that's a piss-poor attempt at reaching my soaring level of effortless critique. cheap-ass connect-the-dots crap. i am right and you're just saying things that are possible to say.

everyone does sick shit. i know i do. what's so hard about admitting that BDSM is fundamentally deluded? why do you pretend to inhabit pristine panglossian perfection?

 

[Fukyo]

Re: BDSM Therapy

Fukyo's post wasn't funny, nor true in any sense (do i need to spell this out?). thus, Jenny's laughter is one of desperate grappling for defense, rather than amusement. and cherry chimes in of course!

As if your statement of it being a hallmark of inferior Ne was any truer... You can make an argument people into more alternative ways of sexual expression are more likely to be Intuitives.

Though, I think your statement that it trivializes rape has some weight, since her method of coping seemed to be desensitization to what happened to her via further exposure in a controlled manner.




Anyway, I just came by to say that I would like the "bronto vs his archnemesis" stuff to be cut short before it becomes another flame war and it makes this thread go to shit.

 

[redbaron]

Re: BDSM Therapy

what's so hard about admitting that BDSM is fundamentally deluded?

Please demonstrate how safe, consensual and mutually enjoyable activities are fundamentally deluded.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: BDSM Therapy

rape trials are more difficult because of BDSM. it's a real thing.

 

[redbaron]

Re: BDSM Therapy

That still doesn't demonstrate how safe, consensual and mutually enjoyable acts are fundamentally deluded.

What you're arguing against is rape, not BDSM. Pretty sure no one here would disagree with that.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: BDSM Therapy

Please demonstrate how safe, consensual and mutually enjoyable activities are fundamentally deluded.

please demonstrate how defying the essence of love is comparable to defying arbitrary cultural norms!

(we're talking a specific activity which has qualifiers beyond those you mention. is your confidence in your opinion so low that you immediately resort to blatant misrepresetation of phenomenon in question?)

Fukyo: a split maybe? seems warranted.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: BDSM Therapy

people die cause of drug abuse, how dare you use drugs

 

[redbaron]

Re: BDSM Therapy

please demonstrate how defying the essence of love is comparable to defying arbitrary cultural norms!

How do safe, consensual and mutually enjoyable acts defy the 'essence of love'?

is your confidence in your opinion so low that you immediately resort to blatant misrepresetation of phenomenon in question?

Are you projecting again Bronto?

 

[Fukyo]

I split the thread. Personal attacks are not going to keep this thread open. I wanna give you a chance, but as soon as this starts escalating I'm closing the thread, no warning.

I think it's long over due to say that the jockeying between you two is going to have consequences (temp bans) if it continues.

 

[Bock]

I can see the appeal in handcuffs/eyemasks and similar sensory deprivation etc but anything with violence/heavy restraining etc i feel is akin to stretching a rubberband until it breaks or is stretched so far that its springy-ness is gone. maybe

 

[Seteleechete]

Just because society says its sick shit doesn't mean it has to be Bronto. There are plenty of scenarios were BDSM could be practised without it being a deluded unsavoury act and plenty of scenarios were it could be. And that also depends on which perspective you look from.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: BDSM Therapy

people die cause of drug abuse, how dare you use drugs

let's equate the vast potentials of nootropics, neuromodulation, psychedelic experiences and purest most sincere forms of joy with the simple decadence of mixing sex with violence, because... urr what?

my argument is not that BDSM lacks substance and justification because there's risks associated with it. everything has risks.

you're all being terribly SJ here, replacing solid arguments with stuff that sounds reasonable and feels hard to disagree with because of cultural conventions. namely, in this case, the cultural convention of subjectivism, supported by some naive misconception of libertarian axiom. you guys got it wrong. it's not that stuff is necessarily good because it's consensual or personal. it's that no one gets to prohibit stuff that's consensual or personal.

can we argue the actual thing now? is BDSM healthy? is it defensible by reason as a worthwhile activity? or is it just trivially defensible with appeals to personal freedom (a notion that hasn't and won't be contended)? there's no pressure involved; as i said i myself also admittedly do stupid shit like eating pasta, procrastinating, smoking tobacco. we're monkeys. welcome.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: BDSM Therapy

Fukyo's post wasn't funny, nor true in any sense (do i need to spell this out?). thus, Jenny's laughter is one of desperate grappling for defense, rather than amusement. and cherry chimes in of course!

these are the characteristics of myth. for some reason you must cling to the belief that engaging in, or at least "understanding", BDSM makes you tolerant, smart, different people. all i've done is offer a hypothesis.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! !!

*cough*

 

[TBerg]

There are always good poster children for subcultures, but that doesn't mean that the subculture isn't generally socially destabilizing. What the subculture does is put novel meanings onto symbols that used to mean something else, thereby causing everyone to question the ideas that have animated social order. The whole reason we have a common language is to enable us actually to understand each other, thereby precluding mistrust.

 

[redbaron]

There are always good poster children for subcultures, but that doesn't mean that the subculture isn't generally socially destabilizing

Social destabilization isn't necessarily a bad thing either.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Just because society says its sick shit doesn't mean it has to be Bronto. There are plenty of scenarios were BDSM could be practised without it being a deluded unsavoury act and plenty of scenarios were it could be. And that also depends on which perspective you look from.

society says it's "alternative". something for the "daring" and "exploratory". the reason i find it sick shit is because it runs counter to the intrinsic impulse of love, caring, mutual self-preservation. however fake and pretended it is - that just waters it down, makes it not only irrational but also vapid.

i cannot find any scenario where power and violence belong in love. i've never heard anyone else do either. it's always "uh, it's a subjective preference, preferences are sacred, you just don't get it". with varying degrees of sophistry and poetry depending on level of education.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: BDSM Therapy

How do safe, consensual and mutually enjoyable acts defy the 'essence of love'?



Are you projecting again Bronto?

how does chewing and swallowing non-food items defy the essence of eating? how does 4'33 defy the essence of music?

no, not projecting. you're pretending that my criticism of BDSM phenomenon is based on its status as a voluntary activity. you're saying voluntary is always good. this is real poorly reasoned.

 

[TBerg]

I believe that gays, feminists, and sadomasochists are all fighting over the definition of rape, which used to mean straightforward use of force to obtain some form of gratification. Now a mother could be legally impugned for giving her son a nip on the cheek, and sexual adventurism of all sorts has to follow government procedures. I could have accused someone of sexual assault myself by the ultra-modern definition, but that would impugn the development of all sexual minorities, who emerge only in the presence of ambiguity. Minorities were initially offended by rejection, and they compound the problem by rejection of mainstream society. This fear of rejection necessitates the creation of an order of tolerance in which people don't do things out of the impulse to righteousness but out of the impulse to frail superficiality.

 

[redbaron]

you're saying voluntary is always good.

No actually I'm not. That's a straw man. I don't think voluntary is always good if it's not safe and mutually enjoyable.

If someone gives consent, really does enjoy it and isn't injured psychologically or physically in some way that they don't enjoy, then I'd consider it good, even healthy expression.

 

[Seteleechete]

the reason i find it sick shit is because it runs counter to the intrinsic impulse of love, caring, mutual self-preservation. however fake and pretended it is - that just waters it down, makes it not only irrational but also vapid.

So what, your subjective view of what is proper for those things has to apply for every situation and every practitioner?

 

[Brontosaurie]

No actually I'm not. That's a straw man. I don't think voluntary is always good if it's not safe and mutually enjoyable.

If someone gives consent, really does enjoy it and isn't injured psychologically or physically in some way that they don't enjoy, then I'd consider it good, even healthy expression.

yeah the part about being "safe". in my mind it's a fluff decoy but sure i'll take you through it if you wish:

i am not arguing that BDSM by necessity leads to discernible damage in individual specimen. i am arguing that it is an irrational cultural construct which skews perception. it doesn't cause trauma; it is a dogm. you may compare it to some "non-intrusive", not authoritatively enforced,
religious practice. all fine and dandy, one may conclude; stupid nevertheless.

now for the important bit: you only responded to half my post. do you admit partial defeat?

 

[Brontosaurie]

So what, your subjective view of what is proper for those things has to apply for every situation and every practitioner?

sorry, i fail to see how my proposition is in any sense reducible to personal subjectivity. it concerns the basic premise of life itself. dismissal as "subjective" can not be invoked meaningfully.

 

[Seteleechete]

Just like a religious practise, it is stupid and pointless to you, not to the people actually practising it.

And I admitt no defeat I am just to lazy to come up with an example, I am sure enough that there exists one so I'll just work under that premise.

I find life and love to be subjective subjects. There is no clear consensus on what these things are.

 

[redbaron]

yeah the part about being "safe". in my mind it's a fluff decoy but sure i'll take you through it if you wish:

i am not arguing that BDSM by necessity leads to discernible damage in individual specimen. i am arguing that it is an irrational cultural construct which skews perception. it doesn't cause trauma; it is a dogm. you may compare it to some "non-intrusive", not authoritatively enforced,
religious practice. all fine and dandy, one may conclude; stupid nevertheless.

Again, demonstrate how safe, consensual and mutually enjoyable BDSM activities are fundamentally deluded.

now for the important bit: you only responded to half my post. do you admit partial defeat?

You're still yet to properly demonstrate what I asked you to four posts ago.

 

[TBerg]

It is one way of overcoming challenges in life, which could validate the ritual on some level.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Again, demonstrate how safe, consensual and mutually enjoyable BDSM activities are fundamentally deluded.

You're still yet to properly demonstrate what I asked you to four posts ago.

i'd be intrigued to know if you find the benign religion i described in my previous post a rational behavior and not deluded, just because it lacks foreseeable detrimental consequences for each respective participant. if the answer is yes, we're onto a much bigger disagreement which could benefit from more general terms. please respond to this paragraph.

anyway, BDSM is fundamentally deluded because it counters the purpose of love in a relationship by introducing its opposite: power and violence. there can be no sane motivation for this. i maintain that the burden of proof is on you to find a single instance where BDSM has merit other than as fulfillment of an established habit, a conditioned appetite for BDSM (circular).

(i already had replied btw, though apparently you don't take a good old reductio ad absurdum for an answer)

 

[redbaron]

i'd be intrigued to know if you find the benign religion i described in my previous post a rational behavior and not deluded, just because it lacks foreseeable detrimental consequences for each respective participant.

Depends on the outcome. The only issue I have with religion is when it pervades and makes claims on reality. Where you get children who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and who're taught to reflexively reject any form of contrary evidence.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of religion in and of itself.

anyway, BDSM is fundamentally deluded because it counters the purpose of love in a relationship by introducing its opposite: power and violence. there can be no sane motivation for this.

There's a key thing you're missing though, which is that it's willingly given power and both parties are enjoying it. People role-play and it can be genuinely hilarious and a healthy form of expression to subvert the normal dynamic of the relationship. In fact I'd say that the most loving couples are the ones who can clown around and explore boundaries with each other, which for some may involve going to an amusement park for some thrills together, while for others it involves collars and whips. Or maybe they bond by getting stoned together.

The violence is not really that much different play-fighting as a kid. It's violent and you punch each other hard, you get bruises, cuts and scrapes but it's genuinely a lot of fun and it's not an unhealthy outlet for physicality. Sports are built on the same principle and are beneficial in the same ways.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Depends on the outcome. The only issue I have with religion is when it pervades and makes claims on reality. Where you get children who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and who're taught to reflexively reject any form of contrary evidence.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of religion in and of itself.



There's a key thing you're missing though, which is that it's willingly given power and both parties are enjoying it. People role-play and it can be genuinely hilarious and a healthy form of expression to subvert the normal dynamic of the relationship. In fact I'd say that the most loving couples are the ones who can clown around and explore boundaries with each other, which for some may involve going to an amusement park for some thrills together, while for others it involves collars and whips. Or maybe they bond by getting stoned together.

The violence is not really that much different play-fighting as a kid. It's violent and you punch each other hard, you get bruises, cuts and scrapes but it's genuinely a lot of fun and it's not an unhealthy outlet for physicality. Sports are built on the same principle and yare beneficial in the same ways.

what is the concept of religion, if not making bogus claims from metaphysical anthropomorphism and stuff? it becomes pantheism, just a formal aspect of cosmic totality.

both parties being into it doesn't mean it's part of a healthy relation or mindset. all of these things may be enjoyable/satisfying behaviors (as can any) but if it involves harm or malice (however controlled) it isn't a well-adapted, well-aligned love. being honest about having certain negative emotional build-up about each other? neutralizing power dynamics? sure, that's great. it facilitates intimacy and trust. handling it through injury of body tissue or even more powerplay? maladaptive, counterproductive. again, many things are deficient. i tend to think of role-playing and sports similarly.

and then we have BDSM culture making rape trials all fuzzy by normalizing violent intercourse. while i tend to care very little about trials, it's an issue worthy of consideration within our shared statist justice paradigm.

 

[SpaceYeti]

society says it's "alternative". something for the "daring" and "exploratory". the reason i find it sick shit is because it runs counter to the intrinsic impulse of love, caring, mutual self-preservation. however fake and pretended it is - that just waters it down, makes it not only irrational but also vapid.

i cannot find any scenario where power and violence belong in love. i've never heard anyone else do either. it's always "uh, it's a subjective preference, preferences are sacred, you just don't get it". with varying degrees of sophistry and poetry depending on level of education.

So... you have no practice with BDSM, huh? Your "counter to the intrinsic impulse of love, caring, mutual self-preservation" statement makes that glaringly obvious. That, or you're arguing for the shit of it. Which is fine, too. You sound like a creationist arguing against evolution, constantly hacking away at the straw-man they'd prefer evolution were, because they don't actually understand what they're talking about. I could guess that you got into a bad spot in the scene and presume your experience is common. I'm just curious if you could make a rational case for your views instead of just flinging shit.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

You see, you are so absent from LIFE,
that when you look at it you don't even realize how far away of the force of life you are.
WHAT THE FUCK IS ABSOLUTE LIFE AS IT IS???

 

[Brontosaurie]

So... you have no practice with BDSM, huh? Your "counter to the intrinsic impulse of love, caring, mutual self-preservation" statement makes that glaringly obvious. That, or you're arguing for the shit of it. Which is fine, too. You sound like a creationist arguing against evolution, constantly hacking away at the straw-man they'd prefer evolution were, because they don't actually understand what they're talking about. I could guess that you got into a bad spot in the scene and presume your experience is common. I'm just curious if you could make a rational case for your views instead of just flinging shit.

no. i also have no practice in the safe and voluntary consumption of little rocks, although i imagine it could be integrated in a life and portrayed as having some neutralizing, cathartic, therapeutic function as an emotional outlet or whatnot, if one is into that sort of thing. it could also be borne out of resentment and alienation from life and survival itself, which makes more sense and is a funner theory. conspiracies may be added. out of your hypotheses, "arguing for the shit of it" most accurately describes my angle.

what is wrong about my simple observation that violence opposes love?

ironically, your answer consists mainly of "you just don't get it", like i described.

 

[Brontosaurie]

You see, you are so absent from LIFE,
that when you look at it you don't even realize how far away of the force of life you are.
WHAT THE FUCK IS ABSOLUTE LIFE AS IT IS???

survival, my dear. now chill out. one person doesn't think your pseudo-occultist sexual practices make you a world-weary bad-ass. that should be possible to cope with.

 

[redbaron]

what is wrong about my simple observation that violence opposes love?

Well there's a lot of instances of intense and passionate sex that run contrary to the idea.

 

[Cognisant]

There's nothing wrong with a bit of role-play and sex is an inherently physical act but I think a discussion needs to be had about how far is too far, BDSM has come into the spotlight recently with the popularity of "Fifty Shades of Grey" and the hilarious number of people hurting themselves and each other whilst trying to imitate what they've read about.

Clearly there's an issue here, not whether or not BDSM is wrong (what are we going to do, ban it?) but rather about what a safe & healthy level of BDSM is and how people can tell the difference between bedroom roleplay and actual physical/emotional abuse/exploitation.

Now shall we have that discussion?

 

[Architect]

The original thread was clearly looking for justification for doing something that, in any other context would be considered illegal. Surely two consenting adults can and will do what they want in their bedroom, if for nothing else because there's no way to prevent or prosecute them. But if there was a way they would.

On this topic it's worth putting it in a different context, say any other illegal activity like genocide. Imagine if a video game came out as a form of therapy, that allowed you to kill all the jews, asians or whoever, or better maybe all the Arayans, so that Jewish people could have some therapy over what happened to them? Of course they'd never be allowed to sell it. Same thing here, if there was some product claimed to be therapy for rape, which included acting it out, I doubt it would get far.

Personally I don't care either way in the slightest, but taking a step back I think the idea that acting out rape scenes is therapy for previous abuse is flawed. It's like the old idea of anger management. People who were pissed would go to therapy and beat each other up with soft bats, yell and the like. What they found is that it didn't make them less angry, but more. Stewing on something is a form of practicing something, that is building a habit.

In this case I think it's likely this woman got a taste for consensual rape, which isn't that uncommon, and wants justification for it. Well it's not illegal so there's no need for justification - go for it. But I don't think it can or should be considered therapy in any form.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Well there's a lot of instances of intense and passionate sex that run contrary to the idea.

sure, perhaps so. but intent and structured conduct is a different thing. BDSM is systematic, deliberate and cultivated, not a side effect of bodily passion.