FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-13-2002, 01:55 PM   #1
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 451
Post Consentual BDSM - Immoral?

I'm still trying to figure out why Christians (protestants specifically) have such a huge problem with the idea of BDSM. Especially considering the Southern Baptist Convention's decree that women should be submissive to their husbands.

Ok, I'll agree that in general, causing someone unnecessary pain is bad. But if someone WANTS to experience unnecessary pain, or even considers pain to be necessary to sexual gratification, I don't quite see how that's still bad.

I also have a difficult time fitting the idea of BDSM into my own moral code of "harm none". It's tough to argue that taking a cat-o-nine to someone's bare behind isn't harming them. Maybe there's a subtle distinction between "hurt" and "harm"? Or between "pain" and "hurt" and/or "harm"?

Anyone have any thoughts?
Veil of Fire is offline  
Old 05-13-2002, 05:39 PM   #2
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: DC Metropolitan Area
Posts: 417
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Veil of Fire:
<strong>I'm still trying to figure out why Christians (protestants specifically) have such a huge problem with the idea of BDSM. Especially considering the Southern Baptist Convention's decree that women should be submissive to their husbands.

Ok, I'll agree that in general, causing someone unnecessary pain is bad. But if someone WANTS to experience unnecessary pain, or even considers pain to be necessary to sexual gratification, I don't quite see how that's still bad.

I also have a difficult time fitting the idea of BDSM into my own moral code of "harm none". It's tough to argue that taking a cat-o-nine to someone's bare behind isn't harming them. Maybe there's a subtle distinction between "hurt" and "harm"? Or between "pain" and "hurt" and/or "harm"?

Anyone have any thoughts?</strong>
I think we insult someones intelligence and interfere with their freedoms by telling them that they should not be allowed to engage in such consensual activities because, "Even though you don't know it, it will do you more harm than good", or (my favorite) "won't someone think about the children".

Who are we to tell someone this? I carry the simple logic that the only acts which are immoral are those which negatively impact others, believes aside. What does this mean? Well, for starters, just because I believe that my friend (for example) is doing something wrong by engaging in casual sex with multiple partners in a given day, that is just my belief, so we have to push it aside. Pardon the pun but: I am not a god, nor do I have moral authority over anyone.

So, does it negatively impact others? Well, what "others" are we talking about? Of course, the direct parties involved come to mind, but in order to hold a candle to this argument, we would have to admit that bungee jumping, full-contact football and alcohol harm others, so they must be immoral. But we cannot, because
1.)Only in certain circumstances or instances
does the harm actually apply. It's like the
saying goes--we cannot equate alcohol to
alcoholism &
2.)Who are we to control the lives of others
anyways.
If the others we refer to are the general population, than by all means, let's cater to them right. Let's push aside our own freedoms for the good of the general population. Oh wait...we do that anyway. It's called censorship. It's called shunning homosexuality, because it may make others "gay". It's all garbage--and it's all about individual freedoms--since they do not negatively impact others.
free12thinker is offline  
Old 05-13-2002, 06:10 PM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Down South
Posts: 12,879
Post

Quote:
Who, where, when, and how I fuck is none of your business-Michelle Pfeifer Scarface
Viti is offline  
Old 05-13-2002, 10:20 PM   #4
Beloved Deceased
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posts: 2,704
Post

I'd add why.
MadMordigan is offline  
Old 05-14-2002, 09:26 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 932
Post

Quote:
I'm still trying to figure out why Christians (protestants specifically) have such a huge problem with the idea of BDSM. Especially considering the Southern Baptist Convention's decree that women should be submissive to their husbands.
There is a Christian BDSM group. And sure enough, they believe only Male Doms and female subs are "Godly". My Domme friend likes to go there to snicker a lot.

Mainly, however, Christians seem to be trying to make sex less fun, not more.

Quote:
I also have a difficult time fitting the idea of BDSM into my own moral code of "harm none". It's tough to argue that taking a cat-o-nine to someone's bare behind isn't harming them. Maybe there's a subtle distinction between "hurt" and "harm"? Or between "pain" and "hurt" and/or "harm"?
BDSM people tend to differentiate between "harm" and "hurt". Specifically, "hurting" is good (causing of pain) whereas "harm" is bad (causing mental, physical, or emotional damage).

However, "harm" is fluid, depending on the people involved. What harms one sub, might be the best part to another.

Harm, to them, is best described as either breaking limits (doing more than a sub can handle), or doing things that represent risk of real damage.

I've never met a more safety-concious, consent seeking group in all my life. And they're quick to toss out the wankers who aren't anal about the "safe, sane, and consenual" motto...
Morat is offline  
Old 05-14-2002, 10:08 AM   #6
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 451
Post

Safe, Sane and Consentual..

It's nice, but really it should be obvious. I mean, doesn't it apply to EVERYTHING? That should really be my bank's motto, or the DMV's.

I find it slightly odd... it's like making PFLAGs motto "Happy, Normal, and Not After Your Children".

Sorry, side rant. Back to discussion!
Veil of Fire is offline  
Old 05-14-2002, 12:20 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 932
Post

When you play like BDSM people play, you need the reminder. Plus it helps keep the differences between couples in the forefront.

I know a girl who can take a flogging that makes even experienced players wince. She loves every second of it.

I know another that can't take anything but the lightest touch.

And then there's the risk of spiralling into ever more extreme scenes...
Morat is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:25 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.