I recently was challenged in a response to a post. My post maintained that S&M facilitates violence.  I stand by that assertion.  First, I wold like to define some terms, so we do not engage in the Alice in Wonderland approach to language. Second a story that supports my assertion.

DEFINING OUR TERMS: "Sadism is pleasure in the infliction of pain or humiliation upon another person, while masochism refers to pleasure from receiving the pain.[1] These practices are often related and are collectively known as sadomasochism as well as S&M or SM. These terms may be used clinically, in psychotherapy, to describe mental illnesses, psychopathology or counterproductive coping mechanisms. Additionally, these terms may describe consensual practices -- often sexual, but not necessarily so -- within the BDSM community."

An ATF of mine was put out of commission for about 6 months because some jerk, when she told him that his spanking her with the hair brush was becoming too painful, decided to assault her by punching her in the face after dragging her across the room by the hair. In addition to being unable to work after the assault, she incurred significant hospital and medical bills, all the result of his assault. Because she had no source of revenue (escorting provides no medical, no accident and sickness benefits, etc,as you know), a few of us pitched in to keep the roof over her head, the utilities turned on, and bread on the table. The jerk who did this should, of course, be in jail, but how do escorts, those involved in illegal activity get a day in court and compensation for injuries? They know that they can inflict violence and not suffer any consequences, since they did it to an escort.  There were no consequences for this pervert's violent and illegal assault, an assault resulting he was into S&M, into--or perhaps addicted to--inflicting pain so he could receive some additional sexual gratification. I just do not get it, and perhaps it is me; how does inflicting pain provide additional sexual gratification. I think these people are sick, and that they need treatment. I think the practitioners of A&M are sick and anyone else who thinks all this shit, this S&M shit, is well and good.

To support his point of view, the challenger said this: Are you going to say you have never given your lover a slap on the ass while you are going at it? Never grabbed some hair and pulled a bit? Never given little love bites? Never pinched a nipple? All those are S&M, believe it or not.

I do not believe it, although they were asserted with more self-assurance than my original assertion.  These examples do not seem to qualify as S&M, based on the definition cited above, a definition from WIKIPEDIA.  

I am willing to revise my thinking, but it will taking something more persuasive than what I receive from the twerp who responded to a prior post.

Right now, I think S&M facilitates or, perhaps better, can be a prelude to violence. You thoughts, please.  Also, please no pontificating on the subject or attempts to overwhelm with omniscience. Regards, Amator.

I know it is futile to try to explain this to a vanilla - especially a 'phobe, but I'll try...

S&M is about pleasure. Psychological pleasure from the power exchange aspect, as well physical / psychosexual pleasure from receiving pain of types and levels that are experienced as sensual and / or  pleasurable by the receiver.

These activities happen consensually - even in CNC and edge play - in the context of a transactional relationship between those for whom these activities are pleasure. A vanilla simply is not wired to be able to enjoy it or to understand it.

That being said - activities that might *look* the same as the practice of S&M are not always consensual, are not always about the giving and receiving of pleasure.

When this is the case, you are looking at abuse.

If a /m /bottom likes to be spanked (or other - fill in the blank) and derives pleasure from it it is S&M. *As long as his / her limts are respected.*

If a person does not like it and does not want it but is spanked (or other - fill in the blank) against their will, this is abuse. *Their limits are not being respected.*

There is no statistical evidence at all to support the notion that S&M between willing participants leads to violence or abusive behavior, with the possible exception that depictions of in literature, photography or videography may "inspire" abusive persons to commit violent acts.

I am a lifestyle Dom/top of 29 years experience. I have never participated in non-consensual conduct and it would revolt me to do so.

Everyone in this lifestlye whom I have ever met is all about respecting limits and fulfilling needs.

Not consensual play within a BDSM framework.

Maybe this would be a better place for you to "start" trying to understand what youre talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM

Also keep in mind that this kind of play requires a tremendous amount of trust, and unless a provider is very comfortable with a client, she might be unwilling to deliberately put herself in a submissive role; for this very reason.

Regardless---assault is assault is assault. That is what happened to your friend.

And....maybe a wee bit judgmental considering you seem to have no clue what you're talking about, eh..?

It is a lot of fun.

I am looking forward to some new toys, lol.

I couldn't agree more on your comments.I, myself, have done several BDSM sessions and not once did I ever think the person who I was with had mental issues. I am the one in control at all times, it has never been considered anything but pure pleasure on behalf of the recepient. I have never once lost control or have been told I was abusing anyone. The sessions are always controlled and limits are aslways respected..

These sessions are done strickly for pleasure.

What you find painful, another might find pleasureable.

Sometimes you need to look way outside the box and be understanding instead of judging.


Mistress Bridgette as some would call me =)

so, trust me when I say there is pleasure involved..

s & m is not a violent activity.
sex is not a violent activity.

but both of these activities can become violent if one party doesn't want to engage in it.

so if you are going to say that s & m leads to violent abuse, you would have to also conclude that sex leads to rape.

Friend, thanks for your condescending remarks.  I know that only a few folks like yourself, the Gnostics of our age, have an understanding of such.

My friend, I think you are engaging in an  Alice in Wonderland approach to words: The words mean what you say they mean.  That is not a way to carry on rational and civil discourse (and referring to someone as "vanilla," as you did, does not advance civility or rational discourse).

The violence (assault) that I set forth occurred in the context of a S&M setting; the setting or environment facilitated it, I believe.  Would this have happened while the two were breaking bread or watching a movie?  I do not know for certain, but the S&M activity clearly triggered the violence.  You say that there are no stats to support such, but where are the stats to cast doubt on it?

What may have started out as consensual can, it appears, based on the story I got in detail from my ATF, easily escalate. It seems to me that there is a small step from S&M to violence--what starts out as an intimate encounter that is all about pleasure and gratification then moves to inflicting some pain and then to inflicting a hell of a lot of pain--good for the pervert but disastrous for the other party.  The context of the encounter has moved from pain to greater pain.

You speak from your limited personal experience: "I have never participated in non-consensual conduct and it would revolt me to do so."  Obviously not everyone is revolted by such.  Are  you in the majority?  If you do not know if you are in the majority, then how can you speak with so much self-assurance?  Also, you  say: "Everyone in this lifestlye whom I have ever met is all about respecting limits and fulfilling needs."  How many is that? 2, 200, 2000?  Such statements begs the question of the number you are talking about.

Yes, I am unpersuaded that S&M is normal for some people, people who are wired for such.  I think the wiring is defective.  That does not make these folks bad people who are to be punished, scorned, flogged, burned at the stake, or have their photo displayed in post offices, unless they do go a step further and engage in violence, as did the asshole who abused a very lovely and sweet lady.  But I think they need to be kept away from people who are not "wired," if that is possible.  

Also.  I am happy to change my mind when I hear persuasive arguments.  Your assertions seem freely asserted without much if any statistical support.  The general rule I have always lived by regarding assertion freely made is that they can be freely denied; however, I have provided you with a real life example and a standard definition that I think supports my position.  You seem to have made up your own definition and asked the rest of us to buy into the one you concocted.

Regards,

Amator

Your entire argument is a poorly constructed straw-man clouded by the secondary experience of trauma induced by an assault on a friend.

S&M, holiday dinners, and great sex are all activities engaged in by consensting people.

When one physically forces his/her will upon another against their wishes it is a violent crime. No matter the situation.

Proper S&M has a tremendously explicite protocol of safety adhered to in a most serious fashion.

this is the quintessential definition of the state of being a vanilla lol

we can talk this round in circles forever and you will never understand the alternative point of view.  It is futile.

I posted for the sake of the argument and those others who might read your OP and the follow on comments. "Equal time" if you will.

I did not expect to persuade you. Your post made it clear that this would not be possible.

You have the last word, if you care for it. The mods do not like back and forth "arguments" so I am bowing out.

Cheers

GTM

Thanks for the link and the condescending remarks.

You obviously know what you are talking about. We certainly need more folks pontificating on such matters.  You provide an opinion and nothing more.  Your opinion is exactly that, although you obviously want us to believe you have captured the truth in a few words.  Make me understand better the word "pontificating."

My point is not to be judgmental regarding individuals, especially people I think are ill or addicted. I just find it distressing--especially after living through the suffering my ATF experienced at the hands of  someone into the S&M game of  "tops or Dominant" and "bottoms or submissives"--that TER, and others into the S&M game of  "tops or Dominant" and "bottoms or submissives", provides approbation for behavior that facilitates violence (not obviously in all cases) and harm to some people; TER gives it respectability, and I personally think it deserves none.  I personally  do not care what two consenting adults do behind closed doors, but keep it there and get off the "in your face" shit and trying to persuade others that this activity makes one a better provider of service.

Let me provide an example, one that is relevant to me and provides some light, at least light for me, regarding this issue.  I am an alcoholic, but have been sober for years and very committed to AA and the 12 step program.  My  "wiring" is not right regarding alcohol. I am not normal when it comes to drinking; something is wrong.  Am I or other alcoholics bad persons because of this?  No. we are simply addicts, not "wired" correctly for alcohol; we are addicted and will be this way until we are on the other side of the grass. I think people "wired" for S&M have a problem, have perhaps an addiction that can be personally destructive and harmful to others.  Equating pain with pleasure and apparently making them indistinguishable defies logic, but perhaps makes perfect sense for those "wired" for such. Just do not ask or expect me to trust that this is normal human behavior that should be accepted without question. Folks who derive pleasure from S&M are not paradigms for providers or consumers of the service, and so why make this a consideration for a higher score on TER or ask the rest of us to think that these are folks with special knowledge or understanding of what is pleasurable and painful.

Its just ignorance demonstrated via logical fallacy.

"holding the conviction that S&M is "defective" is the quintessential definition of the state of being a vanilla"

I beg your pardon Sir.

I am so vanilla there is a blinding white glare emanating from me.

I do not, however, hold any misperception about the mental health of anyone who participates in BDSM. All fine by be me, just not my thing.

TYVM

I do agree that the OP may be a hopeless case as far as willingness to learn and understand.

I don't think the fact that this started out as an S&M session has anything to do with the fact that your ATF was assaulted.  There are many providers (and women, in general) being assaulted, beaten, and raped as you read this who are doing nothing but walking down the street and looking pretty.  Sexual assault and rape is an act of violence and a means of gaining control over a woman and has nothing to do with sex....consensual or otherwise....S&M or GFE, provider or civilian, etc, etc.  

Your friend was assaulted and battered, she did not engage in S&M.  The difference between S&M and Assault & Battery is simply consent by the bottom.  When your friend got beaten up, she did not consent to that, so it's a crime.  When Kelly Ann beat me to the point of being aggravated assault and close to felonious mayhem if non-consensual, it was consensual S&M that I gladly paid for and hope to pay again one day when I get my nerve up.  It's simply a matter of consent and desire by the bottom.  Get it?

I don't know why you think you are willing to change your thinking. Clearly you aren't. You have your perspective and you are asking why TER doesn't share yours by disallowing references to S&M. To support your view, you offer an anecdotal example of what you believe represents all that is S&M. First point, your example is not in fact S&M at all, it was an example of an abuser, nothing more.

S&M is all about a safe, sane, and consensual exchange of power. Its really not about pain, either inflicting it or experieincing. It is the heady rush of feeling as though all control has been given up, or the heady rush of experiencing total control. Spanking and discipline are but one facet of that control. There are many other facets as well.

But the real message of your post is S&M is sick, those who engage in it are sick, so why does TER allow it? Well, I suspect that those who feel compelled to drive an SUV might be mentally ill, but you don't see me out there starting a grass roots effort to ban the vehicle and force those who own one into treatment. I just don't buy one, that's all.

S&M isn't your cup of tea, and that's fine. Stick with vanilla if that is what you prefer.

As used by many of us within the bdsm community, "vanilla" does not refer so much to people who do not choose to play our way, but to those who do not understand and therefor judge us and our little world.

I highly respect any person who grants respect in turn to those who express themselves sexually in different ways.

I respect that it is "not your thing" and appreciate your non judgmental attitude.

You may refer to yourself as a "vanilla" in a generic sense if it pleases you.  However you do not meet the perjorative definition that some of us Old Guard types have in mind when we use the term.

Oh - FWIW - I very rarely play with providers - the headspace is all wrong for a Dom / top lol.

And I do not *need" bdsm to enjoy sex.

I only play with those who have the need for what I am skilled at giving....

Cheers -

GTM

And your response is clearly proof of the old Latin dictum: Nemo dat quod non habit.

Neither I nor probably anyone else reading these posts need lectures or definitions regarding violence. When pain is being inflicted "consenting people" are into  "tops or Dominant" and "bottoms or submissives" regardless of the setting, then, yes, these can be preludes to violence. The point is that S&M has already provided an environment that can make, in my opinion, a very easy next step to someone getting physically and emotionally harmed. Breaking bread  at Thanksgiving or any other time provides no such environment, for the environment is that of equals sharing what nourishes all life--food, drink, community with one another. However, inflicting pain and assuming roles of dominance and submissive provides the environment for violence, the antithesis of the community of equals symbolized by breaking bread and celebrating the source of life.

Also, am I to conclude that our experiences should not be included in shaping our arguments? Are they to be discounted as having no value, nothing to teach us?  Would like to hear a defense of that proposition.  

Very unpersuasive argument, my friend.  No bright light here being shown on the subject.

In many respects, you are preaching to the choir, so to speak.  As a Marine Corps colleague of mine once said: "There are more horses asses than there are horses." Can assume that also applies to jackasses.  Good image/metaphor for the jerks who assault women.

Call it whatever you like. It's all about informed consent. And if you got that, it's all good with me.


peace

Another "Nemo dat quod non habit, " my friend. It must be difficult to live with such dumb asses when you have been blessed with such intelligence.  I guess that entitles you to engage in pontificating about logic and all other matters relative to the human condition.

Eom

Just as some people use the excuse of frankness as a justification for brutality (i.e. "brutally frank"); there are those who will use sensual practices as a disguised outlet for unhealthy violent tendencies.

However, the fact that SOME people will do this, doesn't mean that it is used as such in all cases. Just as some people can be honest without being unnecessarily hurtful, some people can engage in S&M without it being hurtful or dangerous.

While I have not often engaged in S&M -- and NEVER with a provider -- in civie life I have assumed the dominant role in S&M play with a couple of civie ladies at their request.

For some women, to be tied up or restrained and made helpless to your desires and ministrations is in and of itself so incredibly erotic that the sheets are wet before you even touch them. No kidding.

I'm not completely sure what the source of the eroticism is, but I believe it may be that the restraint creates a power differential and allows her to just "let go" because there is nothing she can do. It also frees her from the need to reciprocate.

Outside of life or death situations, I simply can't cause myself to administer pain to someone else deliberately. So, instead, I tend to deliver teasing and denial and stuff like that to my temporary captive. But some submissives certainly DO find a certain amount of harmless pain, within limits, to be erotic as well. They most certainly enjoy being "taken" when in a position of powerlessness and some of the most intense orgasms I have ever seen were with women I had restrained, teased, and finally taken.

So long as S&M is used within limits; for some people it can be highly erotic and a source of intense sexual pleasure available through no other means.

Certainly, providing this pleasure is not a sign of any sort of mental illness so long as the person's wishes are respected and no harm is done.

Now, let me carefully delineate some exceptions to this.

There are a bunch of what I would call "consent worshipers" on this board. They seem to believe that because they use the idea of "two consenting adults" to justify breaking the law; that this idea can be used to justify practically anything. IT CANNOT.

"Two consenting adults" can be used to justify breaking the laws pertaining to prostitution because those laws, in and of themselves, are unjust. Proof of their injustice lies in the fact that those laws effectively deny providers access to legal protection for acts of force and fraud perpetrated against them. So because these laws are unjust, little real justification is required to justify breaking them.

But there are limits to consent; and one of those is that I cannot give you permission to do something that would be immoral for me to do personally. So, I cannot give you consent to kill your next door neighbor, because it would be immoral for me to kill him personally.

Likewise, as it would be immoral for me to harm another person (outside of self-defense), I cannot give someone else consent to harm another.

Thus, I cannot give someone consent to do harm to anyone -- including myself. (And self-infliction of true harm is a criteria that allows someone to be involuntarily admitted to a mental hospital.)

So the limit of consent in S&M is the point at which human harm would occur. Anything beyond that point is problematic.

So -- within the limits in which I have defined the practice, have you revised your thinking to see how it can be beneficial and isn't necessarily a gateway to mental illness or harm?

I grant you, I have defined it narrowly. But that is all I need to do to have you grant the idea that S&M is not NECESSARILY a mental illness.

Domestic violence is at its highest in November and December (during the holiday season, i.e. Thanksgiving and Christmas) due to financial stress, alcohol consumption, family stressors, and unrealistic expectations.  So, Thanksgiving could be considered a prelude to violence.  There is a very real argument to that point.

In regards to your original post, I don't know much about the S&M world but I do have friends who participate and they always speak of safe words and mutual enjoyment and accepting boundaries and NEVER NEVER doing what is unacceptable to any of those participating.  Everything done is of mutual interest and approval.  It should also be noted that those participating have developed trust in one another and is a huge part of why it works.

As I have also stated, what happened to your friend would have happened in any situation with that particular client.  He is an abuser, plain and simple.  If he reacted that way to a "NO" or a "Stop, that doesn't feel good", he has probably already assaulted another woman in an earlier situation.  S&M had nothing to do with it.  That was about power and control and he wanted to make sure she had none.

I am sorry for your ATF friend.  I hope she recovers  physically, emotionally and spiritually.  I am also glad that you and some of the others were there for her to see her through the bad times.  That was a very kind and sweet thing to do.  Try to get over the anger though...it is not good for you and is not good for her either to see you that way.

Good luck to you and her.

Friend,

You dismiss GTMs lifetime of experience offhandedly as being unsupported by statistics, yet you make wild assertions based on a single experience, told second hand, and inflicted by a man who was likely not into S&M but simple brutality.

All that anyone has offered in terms of support has been analogous, and it is your position which stands inferior here so far.

GTM was not condescending anywhere than I can see.  If you consider the use of the term vanilla to be condescending you should step back.  It is a term used by those in the lifestyle to refer to those who aren't.  It is a term of differentiation rather then condescension.

Before you make any assumptions about me, let me clarify.  I am as "vanilla" as they come.  I have never slapped a ladies ass or pulled her hair, and in fact turned down her request to do so only 4 days ago.  I just don't automatically condemn someone for their preferences acted out consensually simply because I do not understand or share them.

Typical response of someone who has poor command of the King's English and cannot resist mixing metaphors, and images that convey nothing regarding the issue of approbation: approval, acceptance, endorsement, appreciation, respect, admiration, commendation, praise, congratulations, acclaim, esteem, applause for "S&M": "Sadism is pleasure in the infliction of pain or humiliation upon another person, while masochism refers to pleasure from receiving the pain."  You do not even understand the point because you are apparently too busy reading between the lines and not reading the lines.

stroked mercilessly after orgasm....until I either cum again....or die!  Now do I sound sick to you?

Tell me this guy doesn't look like he's having the time of his life!!!  LOL

(Sorry Sins.....I know how you love this stuff...I couldn't resist)  LMAO

http://www.xvideos.com/video37315/strokella_handjob_from_realtickling_com

Argumentum ad personam.

Believe as you wish, tomorrow is still another day.

exactly what GoodTimingMan and johngaltnh have said. Don't read more into it than they wrote; don't filter it through your disgust at the notion. They gave you specifically what and why it isn't a mental illness.

JennaPurrLatte, although her comment is almost flip, is on the right track as well; it's in keeping with the bald fact that anything - even if begun in the right context - can spiral out of control. Since it's been (very recently) proven that drinking too much water in too a short time can kill you, why do you think sexual matters are immune?  

No one is disputing that what happened to your ATF was abuse. No one is disparaging your obvious revulsion for what happened.

They are, however, trying to answer your question. If you didn't ask in the spirit of really looking for answers, if you don't really want to learn why S/M works for certain people, then why didn't you simply rant?

Not one person agrees with you. You are stubborn and will not even listen. Yet you spout off with retorts trying to make yourself look smart.

Your reference is second hand experience that became assault (like I told you before), and you have to try to force everyone to either agree with you or make them into villains or some sort of sick pervert.

You don't get it, we understand that. That is why you were labeled as vanilla. Take whatever offense you want from any of the responses, the final truth is that you have not and cannot think any differently than you do. Stop trying to make others think your way and leave them alone.

BDSM has another acronym in the life, it is YKOK. Your Kink is O.K., in other words "whatever floats your boat" or "whatever creams your twinkie" (thanks Khym). As long as it is consentual with the people involved, anyone outside it can leave them alone. Once the consent is gone, then it is no longer BDSM, then it becomes assault and a crime, which is what happened to your friend.

As far as BDSM leading to violence (outside the session), that is no more true than watching loony tunes cartoons leads to violence.

b-

that anyones gives a rat's ass enough to care about proving anything to you at all?

It's clear from your OP and followup that you have your rock-solid, established viewpoint that will not change. The challenge to sway you is obviously disingenous, so why should anoyone waste their time?

This subject matter is one of broad scope with many facets. Even the term "S&M" itself (like the word "love") is used to decribe so many different behavior and feelings.

The atrocity you decribed was plain evil violence from the beginning and is in no way related to the S&M more typically enjoyed by the readers here. Your viewpoint, approach, and condimnations are more fitting for a rant from a church pulpit, or some moralistic-fueled political forum.

Your argument is no different that those made against other recreationl pursuits and play that are blasted by small-minded fear-mongers as being the first step to dangereous behavior   i.e. Playing "Dungeons & Dragons" doesn't lead people to the occult. Neither gun target practice, nor hunting leads to bloodlust for killing men. Playing "Grand Theft Auto" doesn't lead to a life of crime. Listening to heavy metal music doesn't lead to devil worship, and so on....
Your argument is just as pathetic.

I have  a term for you.

Post Hoc Ergo Proper Hoc
Translated as:
After this therefore because of this.

Your anecdotal evidence and conclusion is a perfect example. You have decided that because it was an S&M session and then she was assaulted, that the S&M session caused the assault.

I would argue if the guy is violent, which clearly he is, no matter what the session was about before the assault once she tried to stop whatever he was doing or indicated any displeasure with him an assault would have occurred.

Ladies I know in this business have been assaulted and those assaults were not preceded by BDSM or D/s play.  Most were GFE sessions where the client at some point was told "no" to something, and went off in a rage...since you say all S&M is abusive and violent because you know of one case where that is what followed, then I can just as easily say all GFE is abusive and violent because I know of a number of situations where GFE proceeded and assault.

You can see where that would be an incorrect conclusion on my part to equate GFE to assault, but you don't see where your argument is just as off, based on one incident.  

You use one anecdote, I have an anecdote for you...
I know a lady in this business had a session with a guy, mostly just FS (no role play, GFE or BDSM) when she was leaving the guy attacked her and broke her back (she was out of work for a very long time and will never be 100% again for the rest of her life) she found out after they caught the guy that he had assaulted a number of ladies and had even killed more than one (they don't have final numbers yet as to how many he may have, as far as I know).

So, does Full Service lead to murder?
That would apparently  be your conclusion.

I know a lady that a guy tried to rape during a sensual massage session...does sensual massage lead to rape?

Then look at how many women in this business are assaulted, raped or killed...if we apply your logic then the hobby itself leads to those atrocities and the very existence of TER facilitates assault, rape and murder...it must be since you keep telling people how sound your logic is and your logic is basically saying if one person does this then all do.

Now, to your definition as taken from WIKIPEDIA (the online resource of all things written by anyone with an internet connection) the very definition you use draws a distinction between the  psychological and consensual practices.

There at the end of the definition:
"Additionally, these terms may describe consensual practices -- often sexual, but not necessarily so -- within the BDSM community."

The "additionally" is used to draw the distinction between psychopathology and consensual practices which can be both sexual and non-sexual.

So, your definition, the one you want to use to prove your point, states clearly that the psychological terminology and the BDSM community are two different things. Yet, when someone in the BDSM community gives you the definition of what it means in that context you dismiss it out of hand.
(Which is funny because if he logged into WIKIPEDIA and added his definition there apparently it would carry some great weight with you).

Your WIKIPEDIA definition states S&M can also be used to mean acts in the BDSM community, having nothing to do with the previous part of the definition, but if members of that community try and explain how they use the term you say they are changing it...nope, you are comparing apples and orangutans.
It's like someone calling a lady here a "nympho" and having someone else apply the psychological definition of nymphomania to it...two completely different things.  

The clinical definition and the S&M community...two different things.

What confuses me is why you seem to want to absolve the one man that did this to your friend, by instead blaming a community that did nothing to her.  

Violent people are violent, abusive people are abusive, it doesn't matter if they are giving a spanking, getting a massage, kissing or anything else before they attack...the activity doesn't cause the behavior, the attack is based on the the person attacking, and blaming anything other than the person that committed the attack only serves to absolve the perpetrator by saying it was an activity and not a person that made the choice to assault, to attack, to hurt, to rape to kill.

You apparently see no relationship between poverty, poor neighborhoods,  and high crime rates in  an area.  Studies have clearly linked the two.  Are those living in poor neighborhoods more evil or criminal than those living in neighborhood where the rick dwell?  I do no think so, but the circumstances and environment in which people dwell makes the step to criminal behavior a short one. You want to say, like many who are posting, that environment or circumstances make no difference in behavior. I disagree, and studies that link poverty and crime make the same point.

When in Viet Nam, I saw young kids in my unit, many good-natured kids with a sense of humor and appearing to be well-balanced and from good families, go into rages and become violent and disregard the rules of engagement. Actually engage in crimes against civilians, although at times it was difficult to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants.  Were these bad kids, evil people, naturally inclined to violence? I do not think so.  But when people are exposed to an environment of violence, and we were in the depths of the shit there, then people can take on a persona that is totally different than what was before. The step to more hostile and pain-inflicting behavior becomes easier and more acceptable. The environment can actually diminish culpability, which was my argument when some in our unit were charged with what some considered criminal behavior.

My point is that S&M makes for such an environment, an environment that makes violence and inflicting pain acceptable--to be normal.  My  other point is that I do not understand the approbation that TER apparently awards S&M as do many of those posting.  Approbation:  approval, acceptance, endorsement, appreciation, respect, admiration, commendation, praise, congratulations, acclaim, esteem, applause.

First of all, this abuser you mentioned was not truly participating in sadomasochism, but was committing abuse under its pretext. That gives S&M a bad name.

How about a comparison between surgery and butchery? You go into the O.R. understanding that some diseased tissue will be removed, but instead a really really sick individual takes advantage of your being under anesthetic and cuts you to bits and eats them. Does this give surgery a bad name, and make all surgeons suspect?

If mental illness is some biological disease of the brain, I strongly doubt that sadomasochism is one of its manifestations. It's a lot more complicated than that. Sexual turn-ons can come from many kinds of stimulation, and some of them can hurt in a way that does not take away from the turn-on. These may be unique to the person receiving them (who seeks a top), and to the person giving them (who seeks a sub). In a perfect world both are fulfilled by the scene.

Some get turned on by "desperation", meaning a bursting bladder and nowhere to relieve it. Imagine having a sexy Top forcing you to hold it! Imagine, instead, forcing a Sub to hold it, looking into their eyes as they try to keep being strong, or as they try to plead with you to let them go!

Somewhere there is a girl who gets off on being forced to drink 3 liters of water, followed by having her stomach squeezed and punched, so she could hear the water slosh around inside her. She even drew a picture of the scene!

No, not mental illness. Just an experience in the past that wired together a pain with a sexual stimulus.


-- Modified on 2/9/2010 6:42:13 AM

wouldn't you rather they found people who are willing to recieve it ?

so perhaps s & m provides a release that prevents violence.

you are judging a group of people by the actions of 1. sort of like a sexual racism.   why dont you explore the world before you condemn it and then draw conclusions.

Unless its part of a sanctioned sporting event with rules, violence is be avoided. You should be prepared to deal with it (if imposed upon you) but never be a proponent of it. Providers who engage in SM are just asking for trouble.

I have already addressed S&M generally above. (Which I notice you didn't rebut. Did I convince you?)  What I want to refute here is the idea that pain is necessarily a bad thing.

We inflict pain on ourselves all the time. Eating hot peppers, squeezing a zit, working out at the gym.

Likewise, pain is inflicted by mutual consent in a non-sexual context in every Aikido school in the country every day.

Are you about to declare people who work out at the gym or go to Aikido practice mentally ill?

Now -- WHY would someone eat a hot pepper? Why would he allow a practice partner to put him in a wrist lock? Why would he run five miles? Are these people all ready for the loony bin?

And -- most importantly -- is the guy in Aikido class who is applying the wristlock just one step away from deliberately breaking that person's wrist out of sheer malice?

So let's establish right here that the mere inflicting of pain, especially in a controlled setting with limits, is not automatically bad, a prelude to malice or a sign of mental illness.

These are ALL circumstances in which pleasure and pain are mixed. Not only can the activities be pleasurable in and of themselves and often produce tangible benefits to the person, but the pain itself can contribute to the pleasure. And that is no mistake. In response to acute (though not so much chronic) pain, our bodies produce ENDORPHINS.

Endorphins are a naturally occuring opiate produced by our body in response to pain. These same chemicals are generated as a result of massage. And, often, during the exertion of sex, during orgasm, or from overstimulation where orgasm is withheld.

Other hormones (e.g. adrenaline) may or may not be released depending upon the perception of danger in the situation. But outside of this, in terms of chemical release, there is little difference in the end result of these diverse causes. Thus, it is extremely easy to link them together. In fact, they can augment each other to create far higher levels of endorphins than just one.

Furthermore, while it might seem counterintuitive that a perception of danger which might release adrenaline is compatible with sex (because adrenaline will empty the sex organs of blood in a hurry); people who share such an experience tend to BOND. Just to illustrate this principle, take an otherwise above-average attractiveness girl that you don't know on a roller coaster ride with you. Evaluate her attractiveness before and after the ride. In most people, if they are honest, she becomes more attractive.

So consensual co-mingling of pleasure and pain in an environment where there is a perception of potential danger (always the case when someone is bound) ... can cause an INCREASE in overall pleasure plus dramatically accelerate emotional bonding.

This knowledge can be used to create an amazing experience for the person you are dominating.

If the sub woman is agreeable (Notice the CONSENT) ...

Give her a nice Swedish massage, then tie her up and inflict light (but not injuring) pain, increase the element of perceived danger by applying a blindfold, use whatever means will most readily bring her to orgasm (it won't), but take your time. Alternate between pleasure and pain so that ultimately the pooled blood in her genitals is almost painful in and of itself. Tease and make it impossible to anticipate what is coming next. (Yes, girls CAN get the near-equivalent of "blue balls")

Because a prerequisite to orgasm in most humans is deactivation of fear centers in the brain; you might then switch to a more stroking, loving and healing approach with greater predictability, more concentration on the pleasure and absence of pain. (In subsequent sessions this will be less necessary as levels of trust will be established that will deactivate those centers.)

Then tease and build until you finally allow her to cum using whatever method works best for her. (With civies I've had good luck with slow vibrators. YMMV) Allow a few minutes for the impression of danger and unpredictability of light pain to re-establish itself, and then start to work her up again, but this time take her in intercourse. (Remember: this is CONSENSUAL. Without consent this is RAPE.)

The levels of endorphins generated by this process combined with bonding hormones can be so intense in some cases that you (the Dom) will have just become your Sub's version of CRACK COCAINE. Not only that, her level of trust in you will be like she has taken Ecstasy.

This sort of play is perfectly safe and can be very loving and caring. It is anything but a prelude to true harm. It can be a seriously bonding experience. And it can be addictive -- just like ordinary sex can be addictive -- only moreso because of the intensity.

Which is why, except for one very brave volunteer, this is something I've reserved for civies.

Now, really, Amator -- does this experience really  sound so horrible?

It isn't even a part of the environment of the kind of violence that was inflicted on your friend.

In ultra-simple terms, S/M is ruled by "yes" and "no." Violence of the kind you're talking about doesn't understand and/or chooses to ignore the boundary made up by the word "no."

The fact is, your friend was abused, but not by S/M. She was harmed by someone who ignored the boundary of the word "no."

Bringing in the other stuff (the kids and the poverty and the war, etc.) is a red herring and not worthy of you.

As for the approbation, TER is a review board. It accepts that this is what some people do BCD.

You want to argue good and evil now?
I can do that, from morals, ethics, religious and non-religious based...

You stated a premise and a conclusion that were flawed, you can't argue that they were not flawed so you now want to talk evil?

You want to talk about poverty and crime rates...ok yes, people who commit crimes are more criminal than those that do not.

You flunked debate didn't you?

Here is an idea that you obviously never considered...

is it at all possible that the guy that beat up your friend is just violent and abusive? and the S&M play was just an excuse to hurt her?  That he isn't into the lifestyle, that it didn't cause one damn thing in him, but he used it as an excuse to be able to hurt her...and by blaming the S&M community at large you have pretty much done exactly what he wanted, blame something other than him.  Use an act as a scapegoat to absolve him of a decision he made.

Even though you are a lousy debater...if that guy that did beat up your friend ever gets arrested you should be his lawyer and you can stand in a court and argue how it is a lifestyle that caused it and not an individual.  

You want to blame S&M for his actions, you want to blame poverty for other actions...you apparently do not believe in personal responsibility...

So, the only reason you never beat up your friend is because you never spanked her?  Nothing about you refrains from violence you just were never in a position to act on it?  to have that particular beast unleashed?  You are just as violent and just as abusive as the guy that beat her up...the only that has kept you from beating her and other women up is you never had a paddle in your hand to spank them otherwise you would be a serial killer by now?

Wait...do you do GFE?  because I know of a dozen GFE guys that have attacked women...so you are just a GFE session from beating women I guess.


As for folks that engage in BDSM...they don't think it's normal...hence why they call "normal" vanilla...but you take that as some kind of huge fucking insult...You get called "normal" in the community vernacular and you said it was an insult and condescending so maybe you're not the best advocate for normal thinking it's a bad thing and all.

I have another anecdote for you.
I have a very good friend that was molested as a child and then at 18 when she finally trusted a guy enough to date him she was date raped on Valentine's Day...
She wouldn't date men she was scared of them, she didn't trust them.  
She met a Mistress who made her a submissive to her.  My friend trained to become a Dom, it healed her...she now had some control in a situation, it made her not afraid of sex or intimacy...
She can date men now, and she doesn't need to dominate them to do so.

So, that same S&M you think makes people violent healed my friend...should I now argue everyone should train as a sub or Dom to heal because my friend did?

You say because one guy chose to harm your friend all S&M is bad...so I guess since my friend was healed by it I should say all S&M is good huh?

What you are unwilling to see is a study of one (which isn't even a study of that one since you don't know they guy, nor have you talked to him or know his motives for anything he did) does not and can not equate to all.  You want to hold up one guy who all you know about it him is he hit your friend and say he proves this...and therefore all people in that are like him...when you don't even know what he is...and you think you correct in this...and no one will ever convince you otherwise.

It seems that both sides have stated their case to the best of their abilities.  It also seems that one side has stopped listening, assuming that there was ever an intention for dialogue.

I prefer pain free fucking, so I have no dog in the fight.  I also prefer free speech, but I'm rapidly losing interest and suspect that most agree.  So, continue if you must, but recognize that you're doing so at your peril.

If you need me, I'll be listening to Howard Stern.

"So, continue if you must, but recognize that you're doing so at your peril."

are we risking getting banned or you gonna send thugs to beat us up if we continue to discuss a topic that you have lost interest in ?

what exactly is this peril you speak of ?