Re: [wc] oh my god

Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:43:53 -0800

Sigh.  Some form of BDSM is practiced by a third of the population (and that's a conservative estimate).  Also, BDSM is rapidly entering the mainstream of cultural awareness.  Did you ever see the movie Secretary?  And yes, in healthy BDSM relationships the sub/bottom does have the power (assuming the dom/top is playing safely).  There are actually more submissives/bottoms in the BDSM world than dominants/tops, and dominants/tops are often at greater risk of having emotional issues (read: guilt/a sense of perversion) with their activities than s/bs.  It's a phenomenon known as "top drop."  The thing about this story that seems odd to me is the formality of the contract.  Most spousal abuse starts subtly, is cumulative, and involves more subterranean manipulation, as opposed to such overt power displays.  But I'm in no way saying that I believe this was consensual or non-abusive.  Just that it's unusual.

And to quench everyone's curiosity, I am not a member of the BDSM community.  I don't engage in anything more than the very lightweight stuff that most people do.  So I am by no means an expert, merely an interested academic.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Ellen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you guys seem to know a little too much about the D/S lifestyle.


--- In [email protected], Michael Campbell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Eleanor Keyser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It is repulsive if the situation is what it first appears, but I
> > wonder  if it's possible this couple was involved in a D/S
lifestyle
> > relationship that has now soured.  Doesn't sound like it, but
> > couples in the lifestyle often do have contracts with very
similar
> > specifications and reward/punishment systems.  Most of these
> > relationships are consensual and healthy. 
>
> I was thinking the same thing about the D/S lifestyle as well,
except
> that in typical D/S relationships, it's the sub that truly has the
> power.  They get to define the parameters of what is done to them
and
> how they are treated.  One utterance of the safety word and
playtime is
> over.
>
> >  In any event, something
> > went wrong somewhere, and there is NEVER any lifestyle
justification
> > for child pornography (defining child porn however...thornier
issue
> > than you might think.)
>
> I don't think it's as thorny as defining porn itself, though. 
Yeah, we
> probably all had pictures taken by our parents where we're naked as
> jaybirds.  Of course, being naked isn't the only yardstick. 
Witness JonBenet.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Reply via email to