Protests: Fifty Shades as Glamorizing Domestic Violence

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You absolutely have that right. Not disputing that. Just illustrating how you're wrong when you mischaracterize the behaviour as abusive. And thus that's why it's objectionable.

No one wants to be abused. But some do want to feel pain, or out of control, whatever else they're doing. One person's abuse, is another's pleasure as they say. Just like anal intercourse. To some it's only pain, to others it's pleasure. But because for some it's painful doesn't mean it's abuse.

Well, if you ENJOY beating people, does that not make you abusive? What if said person could NOT find a partner to go along? Would they just remove it from their repertoire? I think not.

Well, if they can't find someone who consent , then they best not force someone to participate.

Like I said. Anyone in the community who is found out to have forced someone without consent is immediately turned in to the authorities.

It is not condoned, nor tolerated.

There's really no need to do so either, there are manner of freaks out there who enjoy being put in cages, or whatever LOL

Are those healthy well-adjusted individuals in your opinion? And people who get off on hurting others? Is that healthy and well adjusted? I would say a big fat NO. I'm not saying to outlaw it. I'm just saying it is abnormal to want to be hurt or to want to hurt other people and to get off on that, because it is.

Of course it's abnormal, but I'm willing to bet we all have abnormal sexual desires. As long as they are consensual, so what?

 

[ChrisL]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

It doesn't matter. None of that matters. The fact of the matter is, people who get off on abusing others or being abused are fucked up.

 

[Darkwind]

Face it. These kinds of people are abusers who have just found someone confused enough to go along with it. Like I asked the other poster, if they could not find a person to go along with it, would they forget about it and remove it from their sexual repertoire?

So there is no woman out there who is into submissive stuff? Zero?

I'm sorry, but the "poor little girl" thing to me is just as demeaning as asking a woman to make a sandwich.

I never said those words. Never. I said they are fucked up individuals on both sides of the spectrum. It is abuse. The people are getting off on abuse of another person or on being abused. That is the fact. That is not sex. That is not love.

found someone confused enough to go along with it.

That implies that no one can choose to do this voluntarily. The fact that most actual abuse victims are women leads to my conclusion that your view is a form of the current "poor little girl" version of feminism and not the earlier empowered woman view of feminism.

Don't truncate my post. If you can't handle replying to the meat of my posts, then don't bother. You aren't worth the time or effort. Come up with a coherent argument that abusing people is NOT abuse. Lol.

The meat was included in the overall quotation. I just wanted to isolate the one statement I was replying to.

Abuse requires one side not wanting to be abused, and a "reason" for said abuse, even if said "reason" is "I hate my life" or "my steak is ovecooked" If a person, for whatever reason, WANTS to be smacked for no apparent cause, it is not abuse.

Now being actually abused to the point of compensating by enjoying it is another story, because the root is actual abuse, and only if it was the original abuser doing the subsequent abuse.

Exactly right. A person who comes to like abuse when they were not consenting prior is a form of Stockholm syndrome. However, that is not what the BDSM community is into. Without going into details, a person who is into the lifestyle and is willing to accept new...ah...partners...will often take months to vet a new person. They do so for a variety of reasons, but the chief among them is legal protection. It must be as certain as any person can be that the relationship is consenting, mutual, and with full knowledge of what is going to happen.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, if you ENJOY beating people, does that not make you abusive? What if said person could NOT find a partner to go along? Would they just remove it from their repertoire? I think not.

Well, if they can't find someone who consent , then they best not force someone to participate.

Like I said. Anyone in the community who is found out to have forced someone without consent is immediately turned in to the authorities.

It is not condoned, nor tolerated.

There's really no need to do so either, there are manner of freaks out there who enjoy being put in cages, or whatever LOL

Are those healthy well-adjusted individuals in your opinion? And people who get off on hurting others? Is that healthy and well adjusted? I would say a big fat NO. I'm not saying to outlaw it. I'm just saying it is abnormal to want to be hurt or to want to hurt other people and to get off on that, because it is.

Of course it's abnormal, but I'm willing to bet we all have abnormal sexual desires. As long as they are consensual, so what?

Well, THAT is what I've been arguing about. That it is not normal and it is not sex. It is fucked up.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

 

[ChrisL]

Kinda following this thread in between others what comes to mind is if we can characterize a woman killing her own baby with an abortion and fight tooth and nail about that being a "valid choice" why is something not killing something we can't handle? Isn't that kind of...I dunno, messed up?

The point is . . . abuse is not sex. Let's call what it is, fucked up people who like to hurt one another.

 

[WinterBorn]

So there is no woman out there who is into submissive stuff? Zero?

I'm sorry, but the "poor little girl" thing to me is just as demeaning as asking a woman to make a sandwich.

I never said those words. Never. I said they are fucked up individuals on both sides of the spectrum. It is abuse. The people are getting off on abuse of another person or on being abused. That is the fact. That is not sex. That is not love.

found someone confused enough to go along with it.

That implies that no one can choose to do this voluntarily. The fact that most actual abuse victims are women leads to my conclusion that your view is a form of the current "poor little girl" version of feminism and not the earlier empowered woman view of feminism.

Don't truncate my post. If you can't handle replying to the meat of my posts, then don't bother. You aren't worth the time or effort. Come up with a coherent argument that abusing people is NOT abuse. Lol.

The meat was included in the overall quotation. I just wanted to isolate the one statement I was replying to.

Abuse requires one side not wanting to be abused, and a "reason" for said abuse, even if said "reason" is "I hate my life" or "my steak is ovecooked" If a person, for whatever reason, WANTS to be smacked for no apparent cause, it is not abuse.

Now being actually abused to the point of compensating by enjoying it is another story, because the root is actual abuse, and only if it was the original abuser doing the subsequent abuse.

Exactly right. A person who comes to like abuse when they were not consenting prior is a form of Stockholm syndrome. However, that is not what the BDSM community is into. Without going into details, a person who is into the lifestyle and is willing to accept new...ah...partners...will often take months to vet a new person. They do so for a variety of reasons, but the chief among them is legal protection. It must be as certain as any person can be that the relationship is consenting, mutual, and with full knowledge of what is going to happen.

Indeed. And the BDSM community, as you have already said, is very strict about policing itself.

 

[ChrisL]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

They are physically harmed. They do sometimes punch each other, whip each other, shove things down each others throats, all kinds of sick shit that isn't sex.

 

[martybegan]

So there is no woman out there who is into submissive stuff? Zero?

I'm sorry, but the "poor little girl" thing to me is just as demeaning as asking a woman to make a sandwich.

I never said those words. Never. I said they are fucked up individuals on both sides of the spectrum. It is abuse. The people are getting off on abuse of another person or on being abused. That is the fact. That is not sex. That is not love.

found someone confused enough to go along with it.

That implies that no one can choose to do this voluntarily. The fact that most actual abuse victims are women leads to my conclusion that your view is a form of the current "poor little girl" version of feminism and not the earlier empowered woman view of feminism.

Don't truncate my post. If you can't handle replying to the meat of my posts, then don't bother. You aren't worth the time or effort. Come up with a coherent argument that abusing people is NOT abuse. Lol.

The meat was included in the overall quotation. I just wanted to isolate the one statement I was replying to.

Abuse requires one side not wanting to be abused, and a "reason" for said abuse, even if said "reason" is "I hate my life" or "my steak is ovecooked" If a person, for whatever reason, WANTS to be smacked for no apparent cause, it is not abuse.

Now being actually abused to the point of compensating by enjoying it is another story, because the root is actual abuse, and only if it was the original abuser doing the subsequent abuse.

Oh no it is not. There are all forms of coercive abuse that take place all the time. Just because another person is fucked in the head and agrees to be abused, does not make them normal and healthy. They are NOT.

In your opinion. Plenty of BDSM people lead perfectly normal lives outside of their sex life.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

What about female boxers? Is our characterization of these women limited to when it's for sexual pleasure? But not sport? I don't see that line myself. Getting hit's getting hit, as is consenting to it or not. Whether sexual or not is irrelevant.

 

[WinterBorn]

Kinda following this thread in between others what comes to mind is if we can characterize a woman killing her own baby with an abortion and fight tooth and nail about that being a "valid choice" why is something not killing something we can't handle? Isn't that kind of...I dunno, messed up?

The point is . . . abuse is not sex. Let's call what it is, fucked up people who like to hurt one another.

You go ahead and call it whatever you want.

I will call it what it is, and that is consenting adults who do not need your approval or permission.

 

[ChrisL]

BDSM is a sick fetish. It isn't sex though. It INVOLVES sex, but that isn't what it's about.

 

[ChrisL]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

What about female boxers? Is our characterization of these women limited to when it's for sexual pleasure? But not sport? I don't see that line myself. Getting hit's getting hit, as is consenting to it or not. Whether sexual or not is irrelevant.

We've already discussed boxing. Boxing is about two people, of similar weight, height and strength fighting it out to see who is stronger for money or a trophy. It is a sport. It isn't some sick fetish where they are tying or otherwise binding the other person, giving them a "safe" word and beating the shit out of them.

 

[ChrisL]

Kinda following this thread in between others what comes to mind is if we can characterize a woman killing her own baby with an abortion and fight tooth and nail about that being a "valid choice" why is something not killing something we can't handle? Isn't that kind of...I dunno, messed up?

The point is . . . abuse is not sex. Let's call what it is, fucked up people who like to hurt one another.

You go ahead and call it whatever you want.

I will call it what it is, and that is consenting adults who do not need your approval or permission.

I never said they did need my permission. I said they are sick and confused individuals who confuse violence and abuse with sex and love and affection.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

BDSM is a sick fetish. It isn't sex though. It INVOLVES sex, but that isn't what it's about.

That's the first true thing you've said. At least about it not being about sex per se'. So much so, dominatrixes can ad their services legally whereas traditional prostitutions (being all about the sex) cannot.

 

[Darkwind]

I never said those words. Never. I said they are fucked up individuals on both sides of the spectrum. It is abuse. The people are getting off on abuse of another person or on being abused. That is the fact. That is not sex. That is not love.

found someone confused enough to go along with it.

That implies that no one can choose to do this voluntarily. The fact that most actual abuse victims are women leads to my conclusion that your view is a form of the current "poor little girl" version of feminism and not the earlier empowered woman view of feminism.

Don't truncate my post. If you can't handle replying to the meat of my posts, then don't bother. You aren't worth the time or effort. Come up with a coherent argument that abusing people is NOT abuse. Lol.

The meat was included in the overall quotation. I just wanted to isolate the one statement I was replying to.

Abuse requires one side not wanting to be abused, and a "reason" for said abuse, even if said "reason" is "I hate my life" or "my steak is ovecooked" If a person, for whatever reason, WANTS to be smacked for no apparent cause, it is not abuse.

Now being actually abused to the point of compensating by enjoying it is another story, because the root is actual abuse, and only if it was the original abuser doing the subsequent abuse.

Exactly right. A person who comes to like abuse when they were not consenting prior is a form of Stockholm syndrome. However, that is not what the BDSM community is into. Without going into details, a person who is into the lifestyle and is willing to accept new...ah...partners...will often take months to vet a new person. They do so for a variety of reasons, but the chief among them is legal protection. It must be as certain as any person can be that the relationship is consenting, mutual, and with full knowledge of what is going to happen.

Indeed. And the BDSM community, as you have already said, is very strict about policing itself.

They have to be. Just look at the ignorance right here...

 

[ChrisL]

BDSM is a sick fetish. It isn't sex though. It INVOLVES sex, but that isn't what it's about.

That's the first true thing you've said. At least about it not being about sex per se'. So much so, dominatrixes can ad their services legally whereas traditional prostitutions (being all about the sex) cannot.

This is what I've been saying the WHOLE time. It's about people who get off on hurting other people or being hurt by other people.

 

[ChrisL]

Good Lord, if that isn't sick and a sign of a mentally or emotionally unstable individual who should be avoided, I don't know WHAT is. Lol.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

What about female boxers? Is our characterization of these women limited to when it's for sexual pleasure? But not sport? I don't see that line myself. Getting hit's getting hit, as is consenting to it or not. Whether sexual or not is irrelevant.

Unsanctioned, uninsured fights are illegal. So, I suppose that for the sake of argument I would concede that if a woman were willing to enter int a sanctioned, and insured relationship where she was going to be beaten on I would have to be okay with that.

 

[ChrisL]