FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swinging Support and Advice > Bdsm
Bdsm
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're a sadist (that's the term I'm not insulting you), she'd be a masochist, she'd be a rope bunny and you'd be a rigger. Probably her sub, you dom. " Not even close to a sadist / masochist. BDSM is about the pain / pleasure sensation, the control & the adrenaline. Sex is not a part of a scene between a sadist & a masochist. Sadists like to inflict pain & get their kicks from that. Masochists like to experience pain. What you’re talking about OP is kinky sex, which is totally different & perfectly acceptable. It doesn’t need a label, it’s just a bit of light bondage in a sexual scenario  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're a sadist (that's the term I'm not insulting you), she'd be a masochist, she'd be a rope bunny and you'd be a rigger. Probably her sub, you dom. Not even close to a sadist / masochist. BDSM is about the pain / pleasure sensation, the control & the adrenaline. Sex is not a part of a scene between a sadist & a masochist. Sadists like to inflict pain & get their kicks from that. Masochists like to experience pain. What you’re talking about OP is kinky sex, which is totally different & perfectly acceptable. It doesn’t need a label, it’s just a bit of light bondage in a sexual scenario "If he's inflicting pain and she's enjoying it, then that's (mild) sadomasochism. It doesn't have to be scary to count. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're a sadist (that's the term I'm not insulting you), she'd be a masochist, she'd be a rope bunny and you'd be a rigger. Probably her sub, you dom. Not even close to a sadist / masochist. BDSM is about the pain / pleasure sensation, the control & the adrenaline. Sex is not a part of a scene between a sadist & a masochist. Sadists like to inflict pain & get their kicks from that. Masochists like to experience pain. What you’re talking about OP is kinky sex, which is totally different & perfectly acceptable. It doesn’t need a label, it’s just a bit of light bondage in a sexual scenario " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're a sadist (that's the term I'm not insulting you), she'd be a masochist, she'd be a rope bunny and you'd be a rigger. Probably her sub, you dom. Not even close to a sadist / masochist. BDSM is about the pain / pleasure sensation, the control & the adrenaline. Sex is not a part of a scene between a sadist & a masochist. Sadists like to inflict pain & get their kicks from that. Masochists like to experience pain. What you’re talking about OP is kinky sex, which is totally different & perfectly acceptable. It doesn’t need a label, it’s just a bit of light bondage in a sexual scenario
If he's inflicting pain and she's enjoying it, then that's (mild) sadomasochism. It doesn't have to be scary to count. "I have a friend who is a Sadist. The last scene he did was putting medical needles under a girl’s finger nails. The girl got off on it so much she actually went to masturbate straight afterwards. She was not permitted to come during the scene. His preferred play is knife play but he also enjoys branding. Sadism is about extreme pain & there is no sex involved. Masochism is about gettingnoff on extreme pain What the OP is talking about is not sadism. If people start off thinking they are a Sadist when they aren’t, it leads to problems. If he put a meet up looking for a Masochist for a scene, what he would get is a very incompatible partner. Imagine he meets a girl for this scene & tells her he’s a Sadist; she enjoys it & arranges another meet with an actual Sadist. Imagine how badly that could end. BDSM is not swinging. The two are not compatible, as BDSM is about the scene, the dynamic & the power play. Sex is not permitted in BDSM play unless it’s forced or denied orgasm, or a CNC scene. Sex with an element of kink is not BDSM. It’s sex with an element of fet play. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"... So you talk about it? I wouldn't let someone touch me in a kinky sense unless the boundaries were laid down, at which point a sadist would know if I were a needle girl or a light spanking girl, or neither. " Correct. However people aren’t always that straight forward. In your scenario, there’s no risk a girl could find herself at someone’s house & realise she’s over her head but agre to things because she feels she should. You listed the OP as a sadist, a Dom & a rigger in your response. None of those are correct, other than he has a dominant side. If he wants to explore that, and become a Dom, a Rigger or a Sadist, he needs to do it correctly & safely, not just label himself & off he goes. That’s the 50 shades approach to it, and it has the potential to be harmful. There are a lot of “Dom’s” on Fab - or so they think - just because they’ve watched 50 shades. But they wouldn’t have a clue about how to use a flogger properly, how to use a cane or whip safely, electro play, wax play, how to bring a Sub up & down safely, how to work them around their boundaries, how to recognise sub-space, how to bring them down safely, how to give aftercare or even how to look after their equipment. Being interested in a bit of kink does not make him anything other than a swinger with an interest in kink. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"... So you talk about it? I wouldn't let someone touch me in a kinky sense unless the boundaries were laid down, at which point a sadist would know if I were a needle girl or a light spanking girl, or neither. Correct. However people aren’t always that straight forward. In your scenario, there’s no risk a girl could find herself at someone’s house & realise she’s over her head but agre to things because she feels she should. You listed the OP as a sadist, a Dom & a rigger in your response. None of those are correct, other than he has a dominant side. If he wants to explore that, and become a Dom, a Rigger or a Sadist, he needs to do it correctly & safely, not just label himself & off he goes. That’s the 50 shades approach to it, and it has the potential to be harmful. There are a lot of “Dom’s” on Fab - or so they think - just because they’ve watched 50 shades. But they wouldn’t have a clue about how to use a flogger properly, how to use a cane or whip safely, electro play, wax play, how to bring a Sub up & down safely, how to work them around their boundaries, how to recognise sub-space, how to bring them down safely, how to give aftercare or even how to look after their equipment. Being interested in a bit of kink does not make him anything other than a swinger with an interest in kink." spot on | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"... So you talk about it? I wouldn't let someone touch me in a kinky sense unless the boundaries were laid down, at which point a sadist would know if I were a needle girl or a light spanking girl, or neither. Correct. However people aren’t always that straight forward. In your scenario, there’s no risk a girl could find herself at someone’s house & realise she’s over her head but agre to things because she feels she should. You listed the OP as a sadist, a Dom & a rigger in your response. None of those are correct, other than he has a dominant side. If he wants to explore that, and become a Dom, a Rigger or a Sadist, he needs to do it correctly & safely, not just label himself & off he goes. That’s the 50 shades approach to it, and it has the potential to be harmful. There are a lot of “Dom’s” on Fab - or so they think - just because they’ve watched 50 shades. But they wouldn’t have a clue about how to use a flogger properly, how to use a cane or whip safely, electro play, wax play, how to bring a Sub up & down safely, how to work them around their boundaries, how to recognise sub-space, how to bring them down safely, how to give aftercare or even how to look after their equipment. Being interested in a bit of kink does not make him anything other than a swinger with an interest in kink." I'm inclined to mostly agree with you, although I do think it comes back to what I said previously about there being many different ways to BDSM and none of them being the "right" or "true" way so long as they are done from a position of informed consent by all involved and it's those two words which are key regardless of the level you're playing at, even in the realms of kink play. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"... So you talk about it? I wouldn't let someone touch me in a kinky sense unless the boundaries were laid down, at which point a sadist would know if I were a needle girl or a light spanking girl, or neither. Correct. However people aren’t always that straight forward. In your scenario, there’s no risk a girl could find herself at someone’s house & realise she’s over her head but agre to things because she feels she should. You listed the OP as a sadist, a Dom & a rigger in your response. None of those are correct, other than he has a dominant side. If he wants to explore that, and become a Dom, a Rigger or a Sadist, he needs to do it correctly & safely, not just label himself & off he goes. That’s the 50 shades approach to it, and it has the potential to be harmful. There are a lot of “Dom’s” on Fab - or so they think - just because they’ve watched 50 shades. But they wouldn’t have a clue about how to use a flogger properly, how to use a cane or whip safely, electro play, wax play, how to bring a Sub up & down safely, how to work them around their boundaries, how to recognise sub-space, how to bring them down safely, how to give aftercare or even how to look after their equipment. Being interested in a bit of kink does not make him anything other than a swinger with an interest in kink. I'm inclined to mostly agree with you, although I do think it comes back to what I said previously about there being many different ways to BDSM and none of them being the "right" or "true" way so long as they are done from a position of informed consent by all involved and it's those two words which are key regardless of the level you're playing at, even in the realms of kink play." No, read that link above ^^^ you are mistaken. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Here we go again "Wanting people aware that they might be committing crimes? I'm doing them a favour. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"... So you talk about it? I wouldn't let someone touch me in a kinky sense unless the boundaries were laid down, at which point a sadist would know if I were a needle girl or a light spanking girl, or neither. Correct. However people aren’t always that straight forward. In your scenario, there’s no risk a girl could find herself at someone’s house & realise she’s over her head but agre to things because she feels she should. You listed the OP as a sadist, a Dom & a rigger in your response. None of those are correct, other than he has a dominant side. If he wants to explore that, and become a Dom, a Rigger or a Sadist, he needs to do it correctly & safely, not just label himself & off he goes. That’s the 50 shades approach to it, and it has the potential to be harmful. There are a lot of “Dom’s” on Fab - or so they think - just because they’ve watched 50 shades. But they wouldn’t have a clue about how to use a flogger properly, how to use a cane or whip safely, electro play, wax play, how to bring a Sub up & down safely, how to work them around their boundaries, how to recognise sub-space, how to bring them down safely, how to give aftercare or even how to look after their equipment. Being interested in a bit of kink does not make him anything other than a swinger with an interest in kink." I got to agree here. There's already loads pepole running around Fab claiming to be Dom's, when they don't understand the first thing about it and just want to make some do everything they want and that's just completely wrong. You better not trying to label your self and try things lightly with a trusting partner a little but at a time and not dive straight in, just enjoy yourself while exploring and don't dive in head first. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Here we go again Wanting people aware that they might be committing crimes? I'm doing them a favour."You’re quoting a case from 25 years ago. Legislation & attitudes have changed greatly in that time. While there are elements of law that are open to interpretation, I very much doubt that this kind of outcome would be reached today. I faced doubtthe CPS would even prosecute it, or thatthe police would make arrests on the back of it. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"... So you talk about it? I wouldn't let someone touch me in a kinky sense unless the boundaries were laid down, at which point a sadist would know if I were a needle girl or a light spanking girl, or neither. Correct. However people aren’t always that straight forward. In your scenario, there’s no risk a girl could find herself at someone’s house & realise she’s over her head but agre to things because she feels she should. You listed the OP as a sadist, a Dom & a rigger in your response. None of those are correct, other than he has a dominant side. If he wants to explore that, and become a Dom, a Rigger or a Sadist, he needs to do it correctly & safely, not just label himself & off he goes. That’s the 50 shades approach to it, and it has the potential to be harmful. There are a lot of “Dom’s” on Fab - or so they think - just because they’ve watched 50 shades. But they wouldn’t have a clue about how to use a flogger properly, how to use a cane or whip safely, electro play, wax play, how to bring a Sub up & down safely, how to work them around their boundaries, how to recognise sub-space, how to bring them down safely, how to give aftercare or even how to look after their equipment. Being interested in a bit of kink does not make him anything other than a swinger with an interest in kink. I'm inclined to mostly agree with you, although I do think it comes back to what I said previously about there being many different ways to BDSM and none of them being the "right" or "true" way so long as they are done from a position of informed consent by all involved and it's those two words which are key regardless of the level you're playing at, even in the realms of kink play. No, read that link above ^^^ you are mistaken." I'm aware of that case, also the fact there is much contention around it in law and it's validity because of possible bias as it related to homosexual activity, is somewhat outdated and has been superseded to an extent by other cases since, particularly from a heterosexual angle. Am also aware of the fact that it relates to a particularly extreme case, which bears little relation to the vast majority of BDSM that is under discussion here. Either way I stand by my post as it stands and that is the last I shall say on that specific matter as I don't believe it has any relevance to the OP. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Here we go again Wanting people aware that they might be committing crimes? I'm doing them a favour.
You’re quoting a case from 25 years ago. Legislation & attitudes have changed greatly in that time.
While there are elements of law that are open to interpretation, I very much doubt that this kind of outcome would be reached today. I faced doubtthe CPS would even prosecute it, or thatthe police would make arrests on the back of it."Maybe it depends on the judge or the victims. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Here we go again Wanting people aware that they might be committing crimes? I'm doing them a favour.
You’re quoting a case from 25 years ago. Legislation & attitudes have changed greatly in that time.
While there are elements of law that are open to interpretation, I very much doubt that this kind of outcome would be reached today. I faced doubtthe CPS would even prosecute it, or thatthe police would make arrests on the back of it. Maybe it depends on the judge or the victims."I think he homosexual bias would be eliminated through the equality act. As Gemini says, this was one extreme case almost 3 decades ago, where homosexual bias was in play. Consent - and more than that, trust - between parties is no more likely to lead to legal issues in BDSM play than it does in straight vanilla sex | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Knew there was a dark side to it. Personally only desire a lighter shade of grey, as in my forum post. Maybe the voyuer in me, as would enjoy viewing as well as participating. Can anyone give me advise on Munches?. What do they consist of? locations(nw England)?" Munches are just group socials for the BDSM world - usually held in pubs etc and are just a gathering of likeminded people and a good way to meet and discuss BDSM with experienced and serious (as in serious about the subject as opposed to hard core) players. The other site that can't be named lists them or even Googling "munches" and the name of a town near you will often get results. Some clubs also have fet events which may be worth looking into. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're a sadist (that's the term I'm not insulting you), she'd be a masochist, she'd be a rope bunny and you'd be a rigger. Probably her sub, you dom. Not even close to a sadist / masochist. BDSM is about the pain / pleasure sensation, the control & the adrenaline. Sex is not a part of a scene between a sadist & a masochist. Sadists like to inflict pain & get their kicks from that. Masochists like to experience pain. What you’re talking about OP is kinky sex, which is totally different & perfectly acceptable. It doesn’t need a label, it’s just a bit of light bondage in a sexual scenario
If he's inflicting pain and she's enjoying it, then that's (mild) sadomasochism. It doesn't have to be scary to count.
I have a friend who is a Sadist. The last scene he did was putting medical needles under a girl’s finger nails. The girl got off on it so much she actually went to masturbate straight afterwards. She was not permitted to come during the scene.
His preferred play is knife play but he also enjoys branding. Sadism is about extreme pain & there is no sex involved. Masochism is about gettingnoff on extreme pain
What the OP is talking about is not sadism.
If people start off thinking they are a Sadist when they aren’t, it leads to problems. If he put a meet up looking for a Masochist for a scene, what he would get is a very incompatible partner.
Imagine he meets a girl for this scene & tells her he’s a Sadist; she enjoys it & arranges another meet with an actual Sadist. Imagine how badly that could end.
BDSM is not swinging. The two are not compatible, as BDSM is about the scene, the dynamic & the power play. Sex is not permitted in BDSM play unless it’s forced or denied orgasm, or a CNC scene.
Sex with an element of kink is not BDSM. It’s sex with an element of fet play."Sex is not permitted in BDSM play? Do you have a copy of these rules as I've never seen them  No wait sorry of course not because they are of course your rules.
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Here we go again Wanting people aware that they might be committing crimes? I'm doing them a favour.
You’re quoting a case from 25 years ago. Legislation & attitudes have changed greatly in that time.
While there are elements of law that are open to interpretation, I very much doubt that this kind of outcome would be reached today. I faced doubtthe CPS would even prosecute it, or thatthe police would make arrests on the back of it. Maybe it depends on the judge or the victims.
I think he homosexual bias would be eliminated through the equality act.
As Gemini says, this was one extreme case almost 3 decades ago, where homosexual bias was in play.
Consent - and more than that, trust - between parties is no more likely to lead to legal issues in BDSM play than it does in straight vanilla sex"So the judge was a bigot now. He never condemned their sexuality only the acts. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're a sadist (that's the term I'm not insulting you), she'd be a masochist, she'd be a rope bunny and you'd be a rigger. Probably her sub, you dom. Not even close to a sadist / masochist. BDSM is about the pain / pleasure sensation, the control & the adrenaline. Sex is not a part of a scene between a sadist & a masochist. Sadists like to inflict pain & get their kicks from that. Masochists like to experience pain. What you’re talking about OP is kinky sex, which is totally different & perfectly acceptable. It doesn’t need a label, it’s just a bit of light bondage in a sexual scenario
If he's inflicting pain and she's enjoying it, then that's (mild) sadomasochism. It doesn't have to be scary to count.
I have a friend who is a Sadist. The last scene he did was putting medical needles under a girl’s finger nails. The girl got off on it so much she actually went to masturbate straight afterwards. She was not permitted to come during the scene.
His preferred play is knife play but he also enjoys branding. Sadism is about extreme pain & there is no sex involved. Masochism is about gettingnoff on extreme pain
What the OP is talking about is not sadism.
If people start off thinking they are a Sadist when they aren’t, it leads to problems. If he put a meet up looking for a Masochist for a scene, what he would get is a very incompatible partner.
Imagine he meets a girl for this scene & tells her he’s a Sadist; she enjoys it & arranges another meet with an actual Sadist. Imagine how badly that could end.
BDSM is not swinging. The two are not compatible, as BDSM is about the scene, the dynamic & the power play. Sex is not permitted in BDSM play unless it’s forced or denied orgasm, or a CNC scene.
Sex with an element of kink is not BDSM. It’s sex with an element of fet play.
Sex is not permitted in BDSM play? Do you have a copy of these rules as I've never seen them No wait sorry of course not because they are of course your rules.
"no they are not. I've been part of the bdsm scene for 35years It is a non sexual scene. Unless you are talking about underground clubs. Sex is not allowed at any fetish bdsm club up this way. There is some cross over at swinging clubs but real bdsm clubs have rules and all the ones I've been to definately do not allow open sexual play | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're a sadist (that's the term I'm not insulting you), she'd be a masochist, she'd be a rope bunny and you'd be a rigger. Probably her sub, you dom. Not even close to a sadist / masochist. BDSM is about the pain / pleasure sensation, the control & the adrenaline. Sex is not a part of a scene between a sadist & a masochist. Sadists like to inflict pain & get their kicks from that. Masochists like to experience pain. What you’re talking about OP is kinky sex, which is totally different & perfectly acceptable. It doesn’t need a label, it’s just a bit of light bondage in a sexual scenario
If he's inflicting pain and she's enjoying it, then that's (mild) sadomasochism. It doesn't have to be scary to count.
I have a friend who is a Sadist. The last scene he did was putting medical needles under a girl’s finger nails. The girl got off on it so much she actually went to masturbate straight afterwards. She was not permitted to come during the scene.
His preferred play is knife play but he also enjoys branding. Sadism is about extreme pain & there is no sex involved. Masochism is about gettingnoff on extreme pain
What the OP is talking about is not sadism.
If people start off thinking they are a Sadist when they aren’t, it leads to problems. If he put a meet up looking for a Masochist for a scene, what he would get is a very incompatible partner.
Imagine he meets a girl for this scene & tells her he’s a Sadist; she enjoys it & arranges another meet with an actual Sadist. Imagine how badly that could end.
BDSM is not swinging. The two are not compatible, as BDSM is about the scene, the dynamic & the power play. Sex is not permitted in BDSM play unless it’s forced or denied orgasm, or a CNC scene.
Sex with an element of kink is not BDSM. It’s sex with an element of fet play.
Sex is not permitted in BDSM play? Do you have a copy of these rules as I've never seen them No wait sorry of course not because they are of course your rules.
no they are not. I've been part of the bdsm scene for 35years It is a non sexual scene. Unless you are talking about underground clubs. Sex is not allowed at any fetish bdsm club up this way. There is some cross over at swinging clubs but real bdsm clubs have rules and all the ones I've been to definately do not allow open sexual play "Clubs may not allow sexual play for whatever reason, but that does not automatically mean sexual play doesn't have a part in BDSM - as I've said many times the only "right" way to BDSM is the way agreed between two (or more) informed and consenting adults - there is no all encompassing rule book that has to be adhered to. Yes there are "purists" that believe it's a non-sexual scene, and if that is how they choose to play then that is their right, there are others who have elements of sexual play in their version of BDSM and they are no more or less into BDSM than those purists who do not. I personally don't get the need to use words like "real" and "true" when it comes to BDSM being practiced by knowledgeable, informed and consenting adults. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're a sadist (that's the term I'm not insulting you), she'd be a masochist, she'd be a rope bunny and you'd be a rigger. Probably her sub, you dom. Not even close to a sadist / masochist. BDSM is about the pain / pleasure sensation, the control & the adrenaline. Sex is not a part of a scene between a sadist & a masochist. Sadists like to inflict pain & get their kicks from that. Masochists like to experience pain. What you’re talking about OP is kinky sex, which is totally different & perfectly acceptable. It doesn’t need a label, it’s just a bit of light bondage in a sexual scenario
If he's inflicting pain and she's enjoying it, then that's (mild) sadomasochism. It doesn't have to be scary to count.
I have a friend who is a Sadist. The last scene he did was putting medical needles under a girl’s finger nails. The girl got off on it so much she actually went to masturbate straight afterwards. She was not permitted to come during the scene.
His preferred play is knife play but he also enjoys branding. Sadism is about extreme pain & there is no sex involved. Masochism is about gettingnoff on extreme pain
What the OP is talking about is not sadism.
If people start off thinking they are a Sadist when they aren’t, it leads to problems. If he put a meet up looking for a Masochist for a scene, what he would get is a very incompatible partner.
Imagine he meets a girl for this scene & tells her he’s a Sadist; she enjoys it & arranges another meet with an actual Sadist. Imagine how badly that could end.
BDSM is not swinging. The two are not compatible, as BDSM is about the scene, the dynamic & the power play. Sex is not permitted in BDSM play unless it’s forced or denied orgasm, or a CNC scene.
Sex with an element of kink is not BDSM. It’s sex with an element of fet play.
Sex is not permitted in BDSM play? Do you have a copy of these rules as I've never seen them No wait sorry of course not because they are of course your rules.
no they are not. I've been part of the bdsm scene for 35years It is a non sexual scene. Unless you are talking about underground clubs. Sex is not allowed at any fetish bdsm club up this way. There is some cross over at swinging clubs but real bdsm clubs have rules and all the ones I've been to definately do not allow open sexual play "Club O&I Twisted Decadence Subversion Anti-Christ Torture Garden Non of these are underground clubs. All of them have rules. All allow sex I really hate this bullshit elitism of what is real BDSM. its as dull as people who think that they are true Doms or true submissives. Please don't assume that the house rules at your favourite club are somehow the rules for the whole scene. There is a considerable crossoverbetween the kink and swinging scenes and in my opinion the best events embrace that. And if they aren't to your taste, well that's great go to the high protocol events, I've tried them and they aren't for me but I'm not going to slag them off. But please don't say that they are the only real events or the only etribute to follow. Because they aren't. Kink and BDSM is many different things to many different people. Thankfully most people I know on the scene very much embrace 'your kink is not my kink but your kink is okay' and while that phrase is generally used to respect those who's kinks are more extreme, it also applies when respecting newbies and novices and those whose kinks may be considered tamer | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're a sadist (that's the term I'm not insulting you), she'd be a masochist, she'd be a rope bunny and you'd be a rigger. Probably her sub, you dom. Not even close to a sadist / masochist. BDSM is about the pain / pleasure sensation, the control & the adrenaline. Sex is not a part of a scene between a sadist & a masochist. Sadists like to inflict pain & get their kicks from that. Masochists like to experience pain. What you’re talking about OP is kinky sex, which is totally different & perfectly acceptable. It doesn’t need a label, it’s just a bit of light bondage in a sexual scenario
If he's inflicting pain and she's enjoying it, then that's (mild) sadomasochism. It doesn't have to be scary to count.
I have a friend who is a Sadist. The last scene he did was putting medical needles under a girl’s finger nails. The girl got off on it so much she actually went to masturbate straight afterwards. She was not permitted to come during the scene.
His preferred play is knife play but he also enjoys branding. Sadism is about extreme pain & there is no sex involved. Masochism is about gettingnoff on extreme pain
What the OP is talking about is not sadism.
If people start off thinking they are a Sadist when they aren’t, it leads to problems. If he put a meet up looking for a Masochist for a scene, what he would get is a very incompatible partner.
Imagine he meets a girl for this scene & tells her he’s a Sadist; she enjoys it & arranges another meet with an actual Sadist. Imagine how badly that could end.
BDSM is not swinging. The two are not compatible, as BDSM is about the scene, the dynamic & the power play. Sex is not permitted in BDSM play unless it’s forced or denied orgasm, or a CNC scene.
Sex with an element of kink is not BDSM. It’s sex with an element of fet play.
Sex is not permitted in BDSM play? Do you have a copy of these rules as I've never seen them No wait sorry of course not because they are of course your rules.
no they are not. I've been part of the bdsm scene for 35years It is a non sexual scene. Unless you are talking about underground clubs. Sex is not allowed at any fetish bdsm club up this way. There is some cross over at swinging clubs but real bdsm clubs have rules and all the ones I've been to definately do not allow open sexual play
Club O&I
Twisted
Decadence
Subversion
Anti-Christ
Torture Garden
Non of these are underground clubs. All of them have rules. All allow sex
I really hate this bullshit elitism of what is real BDSM. its as dull as people who think that they are true Doms or true submissives.
Please don't assume that the house rules at your favourite club are somehow the rules for the whole scene.
There is a considerable crossoverbetween the kink and swinging scenes and in my opinion the best events embrace that. And if they aren't to your taste, well that's great go to the high protocol events, I've tried them and they aren't for me but I'm not going to slag them off. But please don't say that they are the only real events or the only etribute to follow. Because they aren't.
Kink and BDSM is many different things to many different people. Thankfully most people I know on the scene very much embrace 'your kink is not my kink but your kink is okay' and while that phrase is generally used to respect those who's kinks are more extreme, it also applies when respecting newbies and novices and those whose kinks may be considered tamer
" | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Wow. Easy peeps. Opened a can of worms comes to mind. Thinking... Change my profile to.....intrigued by mild bdsm..the lesson endith here "No can of worms opened - debates like this are common place and actually a good thing, as not only do they make people think, but they actually serve to educate and help people realise there is more to BDSM than simply picking up a crop and ordering people around - the more these topics are raised and debated, the more people come to understand them, so they're always a good thing in my book, even if they do create debate | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're a sadist (that's the term I'm not insulting you), she'd be a masochist, she'd be a rope bunny and you'd be a rigger. Probably her sub, you dom. Not even close to a sadist / masochist. BDSM is about the pain / pleasure sensation, the control & the adrenaline. Sex is not a part of a scene between a sadist & a masochist. Sadists like to inflict pain & get their kicks from that. Masochists like to experience pain. What you’re talking about OP is kinky sex, which is totally different & perfectly acceptable. It doesn’t need a label, it’s just a bit of light bondage in a sexual scenario
If he's inflicting pain and she's enjoying it, then that's (mild) sadomasochism. It doesn't have to be scary to count.
I have a friend who is a Sadist. The last scene he did was putting medical needles under a girl’s finger nails. The girl got off on it so much she actually went to masturbate straight afterwards. She was not permitted to come during the scene.
His preferred play is knife play but he also enjoys branding. Sadism is about extreme pain & there is no sex involved. Masochism is about gettingnoff on extreme pain
What the OP is talking about is not sadism.
If people start off thinking they are a Sadist when they aren’t, it leads to problems. If he put a meet up looking for a Masochist for a scene, what he would get is a very incompatible partner.
Imagine he meets a girl for this scene & tells her he’s a Sadist; she enjoys it & arranges another meet with an actual Sadist. Imagine how badly that could end.
BDSM is not swinging. The two are not compatible, as BDSM is about the scene, the dynamic & the power play. Sex is not permitted in BDSM play unless it’s forced or denied orgasm, or a CNC scene.
Sex with an element of kink is not BDSM. It’s sex with an element of fet play.
Sex is not permitted in BDSM play? Do you have a copy of these rules as I've never seen them No wait sorry of course not because they are of course your rules.
no they are not. I've been part of the bdsm scene for 35years It is a non sexual scene. Unless you are talking about underground clubs. Sex is not allowed at any fetish bdsm club up this way. There is some cross over at swinging clubs but real bdsm clubs have rules and all the ones I've been to definately do not allow open sexual play
Club O&I
Twisted
Decadence
Subversion
Anti-Christ
Torture Garden
Non of these are underground clubs. All of them have rules. All allow sex
I really hate this bullshit elitism of what is real BDSM. its as dull as people who think that they are true Doms or true submissives.
Please don't assume that the house rules at your favourite club are somehow the rules for the whole scene.
There is a considerable crossoverbetween the kink and swinging scenes and in my opinion the best events embrace that. And if they aren't to your taste, well that's great go to the high protocol events, I've tried them and they aren't for me but I'm not going to slag them off. But please don't say that they are the only real events or the only etribute to follow. Because they aren't.
Kink and BDSM is many different things to many different people. Thankfully most people I know on the scene very much embrace 'your kink is not my kink but your kink is okay' and while that phrase is generally used to respect those who's kinks are more extreme, it also applies when respecting newbies and novices and those whose kinks may be considered tamer
"it's not a bullshit term. I don't wish to get into any argument. My kinks are extreme. I've done lots of things and have been used for many demonstrations.I do not profess to know everything. Even after all this time I'm still learning and I did not say all clubs... I said the ones up this way. The fetish /bdsm scene is a very close knit community.I respect the scene and I fully respect all the rules. Some overstep the boundries at times | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Hi. Fairly clueless about bdsm. Intrigued and Looking to experiance. Ok. My bdsm fetish. The lady dressed for the part or totally naked. Standing blindfolded, cuffed arms aloft, legs slightly apart. Me & another(male or female) teasing her with spanks, light whipping, paddles. Remove the blindfold. Teasing her nipples with tongue, light bites & clamps. Teasing her clitouris, hopefully bringing her to orgasam by penatrating her with vibrator. Only light pain involved. Their seems many scenarios & titles (sub,dom etc). What would my fetish be called? " So I read the responses. As a masochist this scenario doesn’t seem to come from a sadistic perspective but that’s not to say you may not be a Sadist. At the end of the day if you are clueless you won’t know what to identify as, for all we know you may in fact be a switch (someone who likes to give and receive). There’s nothing right or wrong about what you identify as. As the scenario described above I would suggest it was very light bdsm as we’ve all started there. Most of us stumble across bdsm because we’ve incorporated it into sex. The sadist _orticia is on about is my ex Dom and ex sadist. He did at one point cros sex and bdsm. Sadists can get sexual gratification from giving pain just as masochists can get sexual gratification from receiving pain. Bdsm is what you make it between everyone consenting. The best thing to do is research. Go to munches. Talk to people and ask questions. Educate yourself. Don’t just jump in head first and think you know how it is because people will see it a mile off. This week there is the Wirral munch at Townhouse on Tuesday. The Ormskirk munch is on Wednesday and there is the Wigan munch too this week. They are just a few munches that are happening this week. Make a fet profile to keep up with fet events but be aware that most people don’t connect sex and bdsm so filling you’re profile with dick picks and requests/offers for sex will get you no where on there. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Ive enjoyed reading this thread. As peoples interpretation of BDSM is so diverse. No right or wrong. You have your extreme. I watched a woman with her tits have screwdrivers put through them. Needles under fingernails. On the less extreme tied up, orgasam denial. Sounding, clit torture, tit torture, anal stretching and fisting ive experienced along with spanking etc. Is that bdsm or kink as its things I enjoy. " In all honestly it’s whatever you want to call it. I’d class it as bdsm but by opinion is irrelevant to you’re life. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're a sadist (that's the term I'm not insulting you), she'd be a masochist, she'd be a rope bunny and you'd be a rigger. Probably her sub, you dom. Not even close to a sadist / masochist. BDSM is about the pain / pleasure sensation, the control & the adrenaline. Sex is not a part of a scene between a sadist & a masochist. Sadists like to inflict pain & get their kicks from that. Masochists like to experience pain. What you’re talking about OP is kinky sex, which is totally different & perfectly acceptable. It doesn’t need a label, it’s just a bit of light bondage in a sexual scenario
If he's inflicting pain and she's enjoying it, then that's (mild) sadomasochism. It doesn't have to be scary to count.
I have a friend who is a Sadist. The last scene he did was putting medical needles under a girl’s finger nails. The girl got off on it so much she actually went to masturbate straight afterwards. She was not permitted to come during the scene.
His preferred play is knife play but he also enjoys branding. Sadism is about extreme pain & there is no sex involved. Masochism is about gettingnoff on extreme pain
What the OP is talking about is not sadism.
If people start off thinking they are a Sadist when they aren’t, it leads to problems. If he put a meet up looking for a Masochist for a scene, what he would get is a very incompatible partner.
Imagine he meets a girl for this scene & tells her he’s a Sadist; she enjoys it & arranges another meet with an actual Sadist. Imagine how badly that could end.
BDSM is not swinging. The two are not compatible, as BDSM is about the scene, the dynamic & the power play. Sex is not permitted in BDSM play unless it’s forced or denied orgasm, or a CNC scene.
Sex with an element of kink is not BDSM. It’s sex with an element of fet play.
Sex is not permitted in BDSM play? Do you have a copy of these rules as I've never seen them No wait sorry of course not because they are of course your rules.
no they are not. I've been part of the bdsm scene for 35years It is a non sexual scene. Unless you are talking about underground clubs. Sex is not allowed at any fetish bdsm club up this way. There is some cross over at swinging clubs but real bdsm clubs have rules and all the ones I've been to definately do not allow open sexual play
Club O&I
Twisted
Decadence
Subversion
Anti-Christ
Torture Garden
Non of these are underground clubs. All of them have rules. All allow sex
I really hate this bullshit elitism of what is real BDSM. its as dull as people who think that they are true Doms or true submissives.
Please don't assume that the house rules at your favourite club are somehow the rules for the whole scene.
There is a considerable crossoverbetween the kink and swinging scenes and in my opinion the best events embrace that. And if they aren't to your taste, well that's great go to the high protocol events, I've tried them and they aren't for me but I'm not going to slag them off. But please don't say that they are the only real events or the only etribute to follow. Because they aren't.
Kink and BDSM is many different things to many different people. Thankfully most people I know on the scene very much embrace 'your kink is not my kink but your kink is okay' and while that phrase is generally used to respect those who's kinks are more extreme, it also applies when respecting newbies and novices and those whose kinks may be considered tamer
" | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"A part of my family go climbing. Sometimes they climb (1) indoor walls sometimes they climb (2) easy mountains sometimes they climb (3) difficult mountains in difficult weather. Yes it is all climbing but they don't confuse 1, 2, or 3 and the skill levels required for each. So clarity about what us involved and ensuring the participants have the right skill levels is essential. If you like rock climbing they took me to see a film called Free Solo. Follow Alex Honnold as he becomes the first person to ever free solo climb Yosemite's 3,000 ft high El Capitan wall. With no ropes or safety gear, he completed arguably the greatest feat in rock climbing history. " An excellent analogy | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're a sadist (that's the term I'm not insulting you), she'd be a masochist, she'd be a rope bunny and you'd be a rigger. Probably her sub, you dom. " miles, away from a sadist | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're a sadist (that's the term I'm not insulting you), she'd be a masochist, she'd be a rope bunny and you'd be a rigger. Probably her sub, you dom. " Yeah I wouldn't say a Sadist as they like to give a lot of pain. And me being a Masochist knows this from experience and loves receiving a lot of pain. He sounds more like a sensualist. Gets off on the sensations with light pain.  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're a sadist (that's the term I'm not insulting you), she'd be a masochist, she'd be a rope bunny and you'd be a rigger. Probably her sub, you dom. Not even close to a sadist / masochist. BDSM is about the pain / pleasure sensation, the control & the adrenaline. Sex is not a part of a scene between a sadist & a masochist. Sadists like to inflict pain & get their kicks from that. Masochists like to experience pain. What you’re talking about OP is kinky sex, which is totally different & perfectly acceptable. It doesn’t need a label, it’s just a bit of light bondage in a sexual scenario
If he's inflicting pain and she's enjoying it, then that's (mild) sadomasochism. It doesn't have to be scary to count.
I have a friend who is a Sadist. The last scene he did was putting medical needles under a girl’s finger nails. The girl got off on it so much she actually went to masturbate straight afterwards. She was not permitted to come during the scene.
His preferred play is knife play but he also enjoys branding. Sadism is about extreme pain & there is no sex involved. Masochism is about gettingnoff on extreme pain
What the OP is talking about is not sadism.
If people start off thinking they are a Sadist when they aren’t, it leads to problems. If he put a meet up looking for a Masochist for a scene, what he would get is a very incompatible partner.
Imagine he meets a girl for this scene & tells her he’s a Sadist; she enjoys it & arranges another meet with an actual Sadist. Imagine how badly that could end.
BDSM is not swinging. The two are not compatible, as BDSM is about the scene, the dynamic & the power play. Sex is not permitted in BDSM play unless it’s forced or denied orgasm, or a CNC scene.
Sex with an element of kink is not BDSM. It’s sex with an element of fet play.
Sex is not permitted in BDSM play? Do you have a copy of these rules as I've never seen them No wait sorry of course not because they are of course your rules.
no they are not. I've been part of the bdsm scene for 35years It is a non sexual scene. Unless you are talking about underground clubs. Sex is not allowed at any fetish bdsm club up this way. There is some cross over at swinging clubs but real bdsm clubs have rules and all the ones I've been to definately do not allow open sexual play "So are you saying you only practice BDSM if you attend major clubs? What happens to those of us that practice it in our own homes and private BDSM dungeons etc. If we involve elements of sex are we not practicing what you see as true BDSM? I am sorry- but I have to agree- these appear to be your rules. Which is fair enough. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's a shame that these sort of threads invariably lead to the BDSM cannot include sex comments. On occasions we'd love to try the more kinky side and push our limits further but for us we freely admit we are coming to it from the swinging side and therefore see sex as being part of the end game. However finding other couples to explore this with does seem pretty difficult and threads like this tend to put us off trying fetish clubs." Please don’t be put off doing whatever you want or desire by some strangers on the inter noggin. As advised- google local clubs and munches. I can guarantee that the vast majority are so friendly and welcoming and will encourage you in whichever way YOU want to explore/ feel comfortable Go enjoy yourselves Life is for living x | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's a shame that these sort of threads invariably lead to the BDSM cannot include sex comments. On occasions we'd love to try the more kinky side and push our limits further but for us we freely admit we are coming to it from the swinging side and therefore see sex as being part of the end game. However finding other couples to explore this with does seem pretty difficult and threads like this tend to put us off trying fetish clubs." For a lot of people sex is the end goal. In clubs there’s generally a no ‘open sex’ rule however what you do in a private room is up to you. It’s your kink do what you want to do, just stick to the club rules. Hopefully you haven’t been put off attending a club and at least having a look around to see what actually happens x | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's a shame that these sort of threads invariably lead to the BDSM cannot include sex comments. On occasions we'd love to try the more kinky side and push our limits further but for us we freely admit we are coming to it from the swinging side and therefore see sex as being part of the end game. However finding other couples to explore this with does seem pretty difficult and threads like this tend to put us off trying fetish clubs." I think most have said BDSM/Kink is a very broad church and that for many it includes sex. It is a matter of doing what you enjoy as safely as is possible. I doubt that threads like this put off other couples. I am not talking in regard to you but of my own experience. Most couples into bdsm and sex that I have met prefer to take their time to get to know people before letting a stranger to touch their subs in a bdsm way. Not many will turn up at a club and do kink with a stranger. They may having done a scene between themselves meet strangers in the couples' room. They may want to see in a public place what skills you bring. I accept there are those that do their BDSM privately and those who play publicly. It would be interesting to hear how people who do bdsm meet others. Good luck | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. " Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I tend not to like to mix bdsm sex for the following reasons. The media portrays women into bdsm as being easy and particularly sub women as being sexually compliant. A number of women coming out as subs are then expected to be nothing but sex dolls. The dom has no discussion of what the sub wants or needs. If they do, there are doms that ignore what was agreed, once the sub is helpless. Further due to the portrayal of subs being submissive and the subs desire to be submissive the sub is not always able to refuse such treatment and leave the bdsm scene thinking doms are knobheads (similarly if they run into a sadistic dom). Therefore it can feel for subs that experienced skilled control, or any of the skills of kink are secondary to the sexual element. An example of media and vanilla confusion about bdsm women being sex dolls is sub men and dommes on Fab. Most seem to expect the domme to provide sexual services, the subs wanting to be pegged or "used and abused" usually a euphemism for sex. Most dommes don't have sex with their subs unless in a personal relationship. For obvious reasons I have not been to a fem dom night, but the ones I know of no sex occurs. Whereas dom lead nights sex generally occurs. But maybe a domme can help on the above points. Once you allow sex at events you get a determined minority of couples who want to have sex anywhere, no matter how inappropriate (and the dungeon is not an appropriate place). Most events (unless at a sex club) do not have a sex licence so sex should not occur publicly. Additionally such events attract a determined minority of men who want to muscle into the scene creating an unwanted spectacle. The situation should different from couples who should be aware of what their partners want. Also for couples that play privately but and if the couples are swingers then swinging will most likely be on the menu. Being a single man I don't get invited to bdsm events with sex, but to be honest I would not be that interested. In London there were couple of events of sex and bdsm based on the Story of O, but one was a heterosexual club and the subs vetted on the basis of looks. My view, and it is only a view amongst others, is that bdsm should not involve an expectation sex. It is like those guys wandering around the spas offering massages. The bdsm is the excuse for sex. One line of approach is for bdsm events to clearly advertise what is permitted and expected. Likewise in private meetings whether singles or couples there should always be a clear negotiation so that people know what is being asked from them. Good luck " Everyone is different but for me as a Domme it is not sexual. I have pegged occasionally or done anal fisting but that’s more the humiliation side not because of sexual satisfaction. No one touches or has sex with me when I Top. OP I’m a sadist and rigger and I can say those labels don’t fit what you describe. As others have said, kinky sex, sensualist that type of thing. But until you’ve fully explored your likes and desires labels really don’t do you justice. Anyway hello everyone sorry I’m late to the party | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so. "Quite rightly so? Hell no. It's also ABH which you can't consent to not just GBH. So harm such as bruises, scratches and bite marks is sufficient for a case. Bite marks... scratches... These are things that can happen in vanilla none BDSM settings, let alone what I and lots of people I know get up to. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
Quite rightly so? Hell no.
It's also ABH which you can't consent to not just GBH. So harm such as bruises, scratches and bite marks is sufficient for a case.
Bite marks... scratches... These are things that can happen in vanilla none BDSM settings, let alone what I and lots of people I know get up to.
"Yeah in my book, some of that stuff is evil. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
Quite rightly so? Hell no.
It's also ABH which you can't consent to not just GBH. So harm such as bruises, scratches and bite marks is sufficient for a case.
Bite marks... scratches... These are things that can happen in vanilla none BDSM settings, let alone what I and lots of people I know get up to.
Yeah in my book, some of that stuff is evil. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. "Your first four words are the key here - in your book it may be - in the book of thousands of others it is not - you're fully entitled to your opinions, but so are those thousands of others that disagree with you. And the case you cited is *not* absolute law, it's the result of an appeal case from nearly 30 years ago, which as has already been pointed out was particularly extreme and which was bought as a result of other unsavoury videos having been found by the Police - subsequent similar cases bought against heterosexual couples have had somewhat different results. The law is open to interpretation on the matter of consent on a case by case basis and would most likely not apply in the overwhelming majority of BDSM play situations where consent has been given - if it were to be any fetish clubs/events simply would not happen for starters. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so. "When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it? So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
Quite rightly so? Hell no.
It's also ABH which you can't consent to not just GBH. So harm such as bruises, scratches and bite marks is sufficient for a case.
Bite marks... scratches... These are things that can happen in vanilla none BDSM settings, let alone what I and lots of people I know get up to.
Yeah in my book, some of that stuff is evil. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence.
Your first four words are the key here - in your book it may be - in the book of thousands of others it is not - you're fully entitled to your opinions, but so are those thousands of others that disagree with you.
And the case you cited is *not* absolute law, it's the result of an appeal case from nearly 30 years ago, which as has already been pointed out was particularly extreme and which was bought as a result of other unsavoury videos having been found by the Police - subsequent similar cases bought against heterosexual couples have had somewhat different results.
The law is open to interpretation on the matter of consent on a case by case basis and would most likely not apply in the overwhelming majority of BDSM play situations where consent has been given - if it were to be any fetish clubs/events simply would not happen for starters."Yeah but the hardcore stuff wouldn't be. You wanna bet? That case is still the benchmark for the law. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"?"These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc. "But in that scenario it's not consensual is it? So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it?"Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" Unfortunatly can't make tomorrow night. How often is the meet. Do you know the date of the next one? " They happen ever month, you can find the details on there, you can find me under the same name, drop me a message | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're a sadist (that's the term I'm not insulting you), she'd be a masochist, she'd be a rope bunny and you'd be a rigger. Probably her sub, you dom. Not even close to a sadist / masochist. BDSM is about the pain / pleasure sensation, the control & the adrenaline. Sex is not a part of a scene between a sadist & a masochist. Sadists like to inflict pain & get their kicks from that. Masochists like to experience pain. What you’re talking about OP is kinky sex, which is totally different & perfectly acceptable. It doesn’t need a label, it’s just a bit of light bondage in a sexual scenario " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
Quite rightly so? Hell no.
It's also ABH which you can't consent to not just GBH. So harm such as bruises, scratches and bite marks is sufficient for a case.
Bite marks... scratches... These are things that can happen in vanilla none BDSM settings, let alone what I and lots of people I know get up to.
Yeah in my book, some of that stuff is evil. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. "Actually spat my tea out! The Amish are here!!  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story."That's a mighty strong accusation!!!
So to be clear people in the kink scene prey on vulnarable people, older people and people from broken homes? And that submissive are brainwashed. So ignoring the fact that you've just accused thousands of people of being sexual predators you also state that the only reason these people aren't prosecuted is because they aren't caught (a huge change from most likely be prosecuted) despite the fact the police could turn up to any munch or club which are easily found and find, according to you numerous sexual offenders?
Or have I missed interpreted your posts? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
Quite rightly so? Hell no.
It's also ABH which you can't consent to not just GBH. So harm such as bruises, scratches and bite marks is sufficient for a case.
Bite marks... scratches... These are things that can happen in vanilla none BDSM settings, let alone what I and lots of people I know get up to.
Yeah in my book, some of that stuff is evil. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence.
Actually spat my tea out! The Amish are here!! "Just quoting a judge. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
") When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it? So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc. But in that scenario it's not consensual is it? So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story." You've avoided the question again. And to add another - what is your basis for saying "a lot need professional help and have been brainwashed"? Do you know a lot of people into BDSM personally, or have a published and verifiable report that backs up your assertion or are you just making sweeping generalisations based on one situation you're aware of (which last time it was discussed had two very differing sides)? With the greatest of respect you've admitted several times that you have no understanding of BDSM nor want to have one so am not sure how you are qualified to comment objectively and from any position of knowledge. I have no wish to go round in circles with you on this again either and agree with you that there *are* some dangerous people out there that purport to be into BDSM, but they are the minority not the majority that you suggest. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
Quite rightly so? Hell no.
It's also ABH which you can't consent to not just GBH. So harm such as bruises, scratches and bite marks is sufficient for a case.
Bite marks... scratches... These are things that can happen in vanilla none BDSM settings, let alone what I and lots of people I know get up to.
Yeah in my book, some of that stuff is evil. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence.
Actually spat my tea out! The Amish are here!! Just quoting a judge."No worries. Just can't believe this escalated so quickly! Lmao!! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
Quite rightly so? Hell no.
It's also ABH which you can't consent to not just GBH. So harm such as bruises, scratches and bite marks is sufficient for a case.
Bite marks... scratches... These are things that can happen in vanilla none BDSM settings, let alone what I and lots of people I know get up to.
Yeah in my book, some of that stuff is evil. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence.
Actually spat my tea out! The Amish are here!! Just quoting a judge."But you said "in your book some of that stuff is evil?" How's that quoting a judge and not your own opinion? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
That's a mighty strong accusation!!!
So to be clear people in the kink scene prey on vulnarable people, older people and people from broken homes? And that submissive are brainwashed. So ignoring the fact that you've just accused thousands of people of being sexual predators you also state that the only reason these people aren't prosecuted is because they aren't caught (a huge change from most likely be prosecuted) despite the fact the police could turn up to any munch or club which are easily found and find, according to you numerous sexual offenders?
Or have I missed interpreted your posts?"Cuts on the police doesn't help. Yeah if caught they will most likely be prosecuted. In my opinion that stuff is perverted and depraved. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
Quite rightly so? Hell no.
It's also ABH which you can't consent to not just GBH. So harm such as bruises, scratches and bite marks is sufficient for a case.
Bite marks... scratches... These are things that can happen in vanilla none BDSM settings, let alone what I and lots of people I know get up to.
Yeah in my book, some of that stuff is evil. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence.
Actually spat my tea out! The Amish are here!! Just quoting a judge.
But you said "in your book some of that stuff is evil?" How's that quoting a judge and not your own opinion?"What the judge said in the benchmark case which is still the law. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" But you said "in your book some of that stuff is evil?" How's that quoting a judge and not your own opinion? What the judge said in the benchmark case which is still the law." No, it's not the law - it was a ruling in an appeal court and whilst it might be used as a precedent for other similar cases (in other words extreme ones) it did not become law - for that to happen it would have to go through parliament and be passed as a law defining every single possible thing that can and can't be consented to and *that* has not happened. There have also been subsequent cases that the findings were the opposite to this one that would also be used as precedents. Yes consent is a grey area in some cases but in the overwhelming majority of them it's very unlikely a conviction would be secured for what happens in most BDSM scenarios, and that's assuming it even came to court which it would be very unlikely to in the majority of cases. Do you really think clubs would hold fetish nights and have dungeons if there was a chance it might be breaking the law? In fact those clubs wouldn't even get a licence if it would. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" But you said "in your book some of that stuff is evil?" How's that quoting a judge and not your own opinion? What the judge said in the benchmark case which is still the law. No, it's not the law - it was a ruling in an appeal court and whilst it might be used as a precedent for other similar cases (in other words extreme ones) it did not become law - for that to happen it would have to go through parliament and be passed as a law defining every single possible thing that can and can't be consented to and *that* has not happened. There have also been subsequent cases that the findings were the opposite to this one that would also be used as precedents. Yes consent is a grey area in some cases but in the overwhelming majority of them it's very unlikely a conviction would be secured for what happens in most BDSM scenarios, and that's assuming it even came to court which it would be very unlikely to in the majority of cases. Do you really think clubs would hold fetish nights and have dungeons if there was a chance it might be breaking the law? In fact those clubs wouldn't even get a licence if it would." Look up the defence of consent on google and the case is still on it. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" But you said "in your book some of that stuff is evil?" How's that quoting a judge and not your own opinion? What the judge said in the benchmark case which is still the law. No, it's not the law - it was a ruling in an appeal court and whilst it might be used as a precedent for other similar cases (in other words extreme ones) it did not become law - for that to happen it would have to go through parliament and be passed as a law defining every single possible thing that can and can't be consented to and *that* has not happened. There have also been subsequent cases that the findings were the opposite to this one that would also be used as precedents. Yes consent is a grey area in some cases but in the overwhelming majority of them it's very unlikely a conviction would be secured for what happens in most BDSM scenarios, and that's assuming it even came to court which it would be very unlikely to in the majority of cases. Do you really think clubs would hold fetish nights and have dungeons if there was a chance it might be breaking the law? In fact those clubs wouldn't even get a licence if it would. Look up the defence of consent on google and the case is still on it. " Pretty sure you can still be prosecuted on some charge. My best friend is a solicitor and warned me on it when I explained what I'm into. Obviously depends on situation and case by case basis i guess | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" But you said "in your book some of that stuff is evil?" How's that quoting a judge and not your own opinion? What the judge said in the benchmark case which is still the law. No, it's not the law - it was a ruling in an appeal court and whilst it might be used as a precedent for other similar cases (in other words extreme ones) it did not become law - for that to happen it would have to go through parliament and be passed as a law defining every single possible thing that can and can't be consented to and *that* has not happened. There have also been subsequent cases that the findings were the opposite to this one that would also be used as precedents. Yes consent is a grey area in some cases but in the overwhelming majority of them it's very unlikely a conviction would be secured for what happens in most BDSM scenarios, and that's assuming it even came to court which it would be very unlikely to in the majority of cases. Do you really think clubs would hold fetish nights and have dungeons if there was a chance it might be breaking the law? In fact those clubs wouldn't even get a licence if it would. Look up the defence of consent on google and the case is still on it. Pretty sure you can still be prosecuted on some charge. My best friend is a solicitor and warned me on it when I explained what I'm into. Obviously depends on situation and case by case basis i guess" Thank you and you even have a dog in the fight. These people seem ignorant to the fact they might be committing crimes. Pretty stupid to me. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" But you said "in your book some of that stuff is evil?" How's that quoting a judge and not your own opinion? What the judge said in the benchmark case which is still the law. No, it's not the law - it was a ruling in an appeal court and whilst it might be used as a precedent for other similar cases (in other words extreme ones) it did not become law - for that to happen it would have to go through parliament and be passed as a law defining every single possible thing that can and can't be consented to and *that* has not happened. There have also been subsequent cases that the findings were the opposite to this one that would also be used as precedents. Yes consent is a grey area in some cases but in the overwhelming majority of them it's very unlikely a conviction would be secured for what happens in most BDSM scenarios, and that's assuming it even came to court which it would be very unlikely to in the majority of cases. Do you really think clubs would hold fetish nights and have dungeons if there was a chance it might be breaking the law? In fact those clubs wouldn't even get a licence if it would. Look up the defence of consent on google and the case is still on it. Pretty sure you can still be prosecuted on some charge. My best friend is a solicitor and warned me on it when I explained what I'm into. Obviously depends on situation and case by case basis i guess" Exactly, your last sentence is the key here. Like I said clubs wouldn't get a licence or be allowed to have dungeons and the like if there was any danger of being prosecuted for consensual BDSM activity taking place on the premises. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" But you said "in your book some of that stuff is evil?" How's that quoting a judge and not your own opinion? What the judge said in the benchmark case which is still the law. No, it's not the law - it was a ruling in an appeal court and whilst it might be used as a precedent for other similar cases (in other words extreme ones) it did not become law - for that to happen it would have to go through parliament and be passed as a law defining every single possible thing that can and can't be consented to and *that* has not happened. There have also been subsequent cases that the findings were the opposite to this one that would also be used as precedents. Yes consent is a grey area in some cases but in the overwhelming majority of them it's very unlikely a conviction would be secured for what happens in most BDSM scenarios, and that's assuming it even came to court which it would be very unlikely to in the majority of cases. Do you really think clubs would hold fetish nights and have dungeons if there was a chance it might be breaking the law? In fact those clubs wouldn't even get a licence if it would. Look up the defence of consent on google and the case is still on it. Pretty sure you can still be prosecuted on some charge. My best friend is a solicitor and warned me on it when I explained what I'm into. Obviously depends on situation and case by case basis i guess Thank you and you even have a dog in the fight. These people seem ignorant to the fact they might be committing crimes. Pretty stupid to me." I'm not saying people are ignorant etc and I'm not here to judge people, I'm just overly cautious with safety as my friend sat me down and explained stuff very sternly and it made me think twice about what I do and my limits and who I play with. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" But you said "in your book some of that stuff is evil?" How's that quoting a judge and not your own opinion? What the judge said in the benchmark case which is still the law. No, it's not the law - it was a ruling in an appeal court and whilst it might be used as a precedent for other similar cases (in other words extreme ones) it did not become law - for that to happen it would have to go through parliament and be passed as a law defining every single possible thing that can and can't be consented to and *that* has not happened. There have also been subsequent cases that the findings were the opposite to this one that would also be used as precedents. Yes consent is a grey area in some cases but in the overwhelming majority of them it's very unlikely a conviction would be secured for what happens in most BDSM scenarios, and that's assuming it even came to court which it would be very unlikely to in the majority of cases. Do you really think clubs would hold fetish nights and have dungeons if there was a chance it might be breaking the law? In fact those clubs wouldn't even get a licence if it would. Look up the defence of consent on google and the case is still on it. Pretty sure you can still be prosecuted on some charge. My best friend is a solicitor and warned me on it when I explained what I'm into. Obviously depends on situation and case by case basis i guess Thank you and you even have a dog in the fight. These people seem ignorant to the fact they might be committing crimes. Pretty stupid to me. I'm not saying people are ignorant etc and I'm not here to judge people, I'm just overly cautious with safety as my friend sat me down and explained stuff very sternly and it made me think twice about what I do and my limits and who I play with. " Sounds wise. Some other people should take heed to that. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" But you said "in your book some of that stuff is evil?" How's that quoting a judge and not your own opinion? What the judge said in the benchmark case which is still the law. No, it's not the law - it was a ruling in an appeal court and whilst it might be used as a precedent for other similar cases (in other words extreme ones) it did not become law - for that to happen it would have to go through parliament and be passed as a law defining every single possible thing that can and can't be consented to and *that* has not happened. There have also been subsequent cases that the findings were the opposite to this one that would also be used as precedents. Yes consent is a grey area in some cases but in the overwhelming majority of them it's very unlikely a conviction would be secured for what happens in most BDSM scenarios, and that's assuming it even came to court which it would be very unlikely to in the majority of cases. Do you really think clubs would hold fetish nights and have dungeons if there was a chance it might be breaking the law? In fact those clubs wouldn't even get a licence if it would. Look up the defence of consent on google and the case is still on it. Pretty sure you can still be prosecuted on some charge. My best friend is a solicitor and warned me on it when I explained what I'm into. Obviously depends on situation and case by case basis i guess Exactly, your last sentence is the key here. Like I said clubs wouldn't get a licence or be allowed to have dungeons and the like if there was any danger of being prosecuted for consensual BDSM activity taking place on the premises." Yep exactly. The part above where someone mentioned practising on vulnerable people..surely that comes with knowing the person and working out whether you take that person as 'vulnerable' or not. Using your 'common sense' to come to a conclusion whether their hard limits are sensible and within your experience and skill set. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story."My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help. I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" But you said "in your book some of that stuff is evil?" How's that quoting a judge and not your own opinion? What the judge said in the benchmark case which is still the law. No, it's not the law - it was a ruling in an appeal court and whilst it might be used as a precedent for other similar cases (in other words extreme ones) it did not become law - for that to happen it would have to go through parliament and be passed as a law defining every single possible thing that can and can't be consented to and *that* has not happened. There have also been subsequent cases that the findings were the opposite to this one that would also be used as precedents. Yes consent is a grey area in some cases but in the overwhelming majority of them it's very unlikely a conviction would be secured for what happens in most BDSM scenarios, and that's assuming it even came to court which it would be very unlikely to in the majority of cases. Do you really think clubs would hold fetish nights and have dungeons if there was a chance it might be breaking the law? In fact those clubs wouldn't even get a licence if it would. Look up the defence of consent on google and the case is still on it. Pretty sure you can still be prosecuted on some charge. My best friend is a solicitor and warned me on it when I explained what I'm into. Obviously depends on situation and case by case basis i guess Exactly, your last sentence is the key here. Like I said clubs wouldn't get a licence or be allowed to have dungeons and the like if there was any danger of being prosecuted for consensual BDSM activity taking place on the premises. Yep exactly. The part above where someone mentioned practising on vulnerable people..surely that comes with knowing the person and working out whether you take that person as 'vulnerable' or not. Using your 'common sense' to come to a conclusion whether their hard limits are sensible and within your experience and skill set. " Oh, some people would definitely be considered vulnerable in the eyes of the law. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude."Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" But you said "in your book some of that stuff is evil?" How's that quoting a judge and not your own opinion? What the judge said in the benchmark case which is still the law. No, it's not the law - it was a ruling in an appeal court and whilst it might be used as a precedent for other similar cases (in other words extreme ones) it did not become law - for that to happen it would have to go through parliament and be passed as a law defining every single possible thing that can and can't be consented to and *that* has not happened. There have also been subsequent cases that the findings were the opposite to this one that would also be used as precedents. Yes consent is a grey area in some cases but in the overwhelming majority of them it's very unlikely a conviction would be secured for what happens in most BDSM scenarios, and that's assuming it even came to court which it would be very unlikely to in the majority of cases. Do you really think clubs would hold fetish nights and have dungeons if there was a chance it might be breaking the law? In fact those clubs wouldn't even get a licence if it would." I think you’ll find that those of us who have been around s while are well aware that things can go wrong and things that we do my be prosecutionable. Which is my consent, negotiation and communication are such key pillars of the community. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene. "If you don’t care why stick you’re 2 pence into the debate? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" But you said "in your book some of that stuff is evil?" How's that quoting a judge and not your own opinion? What the judge said in the benchmark case which is still the law. No, it's not the law - it was a ruling in an appeal court and whilst it might be used as a precedent for other similar cases (in other words extreme ones) it did not become law - for that to happen it would have to go through parliament and be passed as a law defining every single possible thing that can and can't be consented to and *that* has not happened. There have also been subsequent cases that the findings were the opposite to this one that would also be used as precedents. Yes consent is a grey area in some cases but in the overwhelming majority of them it's very unlikely a conviction would be secured for what happens in most BDSM scenarios, and that's assuming it even came to court which it would be very unlikely to in the majority of cases. Do you really think clubs would hold fetish nights and have dungeons if there was a chance it might be breaking the law? In fact those clubs wouldn't even get a licence if it would. Look up the defence of consent on google and the case is still on it. Pretty sure you can still be prosecuted on some charge. My best friend is a solicitor and warned me on it when I explained what I'm into. Obviously depends on situation and case by case basis i guess Exactly, your last sentence is the key here. Like I said clubs wouldn't get a licence or be allowed to have dungeons and the like if there was any danger of being prosecuted for consensual BDSM activity taking place on the premises. Yep exactly. The part above where someone mentioned practising on vulnerable people..surely that comes with knowing the person and working out whether you take that person as 'vulnerable' or not. Using your 'common sense' to come to a conclusion whether their hard limits are sensible and within your experience and skill set. Oh, some people would definitely be considered vulnerable in the eyes of the law." I'm sure they would be but that is the responsibility of the dominant partner/person to judge that and decide whether they play or not. I also think its just as much the subs responsibility to check the dominant persons mindset. As long as you have done everything in your power to check or cover your back then I think it would be okay. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene.
If you don’t care why stick you’re 2 pence into the debate?"To give people who practice this stuff who are ignorant of the law, the facts before they go around wrecking peoples lives and possibly their own but I don't mind the latter. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" But you said "in your book some of that stuff is evil?" How's that quoting a judge and not your own opinion? What the judge said in the benchmark case which is still the law. No, it's not the law - it was a ruling in an appeal court and whilst it might be used as a precedent for other similar cases (in other words extreme ones) it did not become law - for that to happen it would have to go through parliament and be passed as a law defining every single possible thing that can and can't be consented to and *that* has not happened. There have also been subsequent cases that the findings were the opposite to this one that would also be used as precedents. Yes consent is a grey area in some cases but in the overwhelming majority of them it's very unlikely a conviction would be secured for what happens in most BDSM scenarios, and that's assuming it even came to court which it would be very unlikely to in the majority of cases. Do you really think clubs would hold fetish nights and have dungeons if there was a chance it might be breaking the law? In fact those clubs wouldn't even get a licence if it would. I think you’ll find that those of us who have been around s while are well aware that things can go wrong and things that we do my be prosecutionable. Which is my consent, negotiation and communication are such key pillars of the community. " Exactly
And that last sentence is very much the key and the mantra that all should abide by.
I stand by the fact that with all of those pillars in place, whilst it *could* come to prosecution, it's unlikely to in the overwhelming majority of cases. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene.
If you don’t care why stick you’re 2 pence into the debate?
To give people who practice this stuff who are ignorant of the law, the facts before they go around wrecking peoples lives and possibly their own but I don't mind the latter."That’s not really how it looks though. Looks like you’re just trying to stir shit in a post that was trying to explain the bdsm is what you want to make it. Especially when you start out with stating you know nothing about bdsm and have no interest in it. And you think we are all brainwashed. Very narrow minded and unsupported opinions. If you’re not interested don’t comment. Throwing lawsuits from decades ago doesn’t really help when the opinions surrounding it have shifted ten fold too. It may still be used but it doesn’t pack as much punch as it did 30 years ago because opinions have changed. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene.
If you don’t care why stick you’re 2 pence into the debate?
To give people who practice this stuff who are ignorant of the law, the facts before they go around wrecking peoples lives and possibly their own but I don't mind the latter.
That’s not really how it looks though. Looks like you’re just trying to stir shit in a post that was trying to explain the bdsm is what you want to make it. Especially when you start out with stating you know nothing about bdsm and have no interest in it. And you think we are all brainwashed. Very narrow minded and unsupported opinions.
If you’re not interested don’t comment. Throwing lawsuits from decades ago doesn’t really help when the opinions surrounding it have shifted ten fold too. It may still be used but it doesn’t pack as much punch as it did 30 years ago because opinions have changed. "When people make me feel guilty I'm not happy. That's exactly how it is. You should get clued up to. Freud calls it maintaining a life of trauma syndrome. Wasn't a lawsuit either, it was a court case. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene.
If you don’t care why stick you’re 2 pence into the debate?
To give people who practice this stuff who are ignorant of the law, the facts before they go around wrecking peoples lives and possibly their own but I don't mind the latter.
That’s not really how it looks though. Looks like you’re just trying to stir shit in a post that was trying to explain the bdsm is what you want to make it. Especially when you start out with stating you know nothing about bdsm and have no interest in it. And you think we are all brainwashed. Very narrow minded and unsupported opinions.
If you’re not interested don’t comment. Throwing lawsuits from decades ago doesn’t really help when the opinions surrounding it have shifted ten fold too. It may still be used but it doesn’t pack as much punch as it did 30 years ago because opinions have changed. When people make me feel guilty I'm not happy. That's exactly how it is. You should get clued up to. Freud calls it maintaining a life of trauma syndrome. Wasn't a lawsuit either, it was a court case. "Yes and Freud has had his theories disproved many times. So that’s not really a valid argument in today’s society, Lawsuit/court case... semantics. The point is you, by you’re own words, no nothing about bdsm or the community so therefore are not really in a potion to give people the more accurate information on what is and isn’t bdsm/kink. You may work in law enforment of some description but can only give an example of a successful case from 30years ago; again not very convincing. So maybe you should take you 2 pence back. Because it’s not really helped anyone. Most of the community are actually very aware of the potential percieved criminality if our actions and that is why we have our own ways of vetting people with in the community. Yes they are not always correct but then the law isn’t always correct either. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Freud calls it maintaining a life of trauma syndrome. Wasn't a lawsuit either, it was a court case. " Oh my goodness, for the love of all things scientific and sensible stop mentioning Freud. Or you know. Go ahead. Keep talking on about theories from a century ago that have no place in modern medicine or psychiatry and then I can put you in the same box as those who believe all illnesses can be cured with some essential oils, water and crystals. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene.
If you don’t care why stick you’re 2 pence into the debate?
To give people who practice this stuff who are ignorant of the law, the facts before they go around wrecking peoples lives and possibly their own but I don't mind the latter.
That’s not really how it looks though. Looks like you’re just trying to stir shit in a post that was trying to explain the bdsm is what you want to make it. Especially when you start out with stating you know nothing about bdsm and have no interest in it. And you think we are all brainwashed. Very narrow minded and unsupported opinions.
If you’re not interested don’t comment. Throwing lawsuits from decades ago doesn’t really help when the opinions surrounding it have shifted ten fold too. It may still be used but it doesn’t pack as much punch as it did 30 years ago because opinions have changed. When people make me feel guilty I'm not happy. That's exactly how it is. You should get clued up to. Freud calls it maintaining a life of trauma syndrome. Wasn't a lawsuit either, it was a court case.
Yes and Freud has had his theories disproved many times. So that’s not really a valid argument in today’s society,
Lawsuit/court case... semantics.
The point is you, by you’re own words, no nothing about bdsm or the community so therefore are not really in a potion to give people the more accurate information on what is and isn’t bdsm/kink. You may work in law enforment of some description but can only give an example of a successful case from 30years ago; again not very convincing.
So maybe you should take you 2 pence back. Because it’s not really helped anyone.
Most of the community are actually very aware of the potential percieved criminality if our actions and that is why we have our own ways of vetting people with in the community. Yes they are not always correct but then the law isn’t always correct either. "He was on the money here Freud. People on this thread who participate aren't even aware. Some guy was done recently for body modification of splitting tongues. That case is the benchmark of the law look it up. No I won't because it's pertinent. Anything you have said has been pretty vacant. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Freud calls it maintaining a life of trauma syndrome. Wasn't a lawsuit either, it was a court case. Oh my goodness, for the love of all things scientific and sensible stop mentioning Freud. Or you know. Go ahead. Keep talking on about theories from a century ago that have no place in modern medicine or psychiatry and then I can put you in the same box as those who believe all illnesses can be cured with some essential oils, water and crystals. " Freud is still relevant today and his theories are still practiced today actually. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Freud calls it maintaining a life of trauma syndrome. Wasn't a lawsuit either, it was a court case. Oh my goodness, for the love of all things scientific and sensible stop mentioning Freud. Or you know. Go ahead. Keep talking on about theories from a century ago that have no place in modern medicine or psychiatry and then I can put you in the same box as those who believe all illnesses can be cured with some essential oils, water and crystals. " Amen! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Freud calls it maintaining a life of trauma syndrome. Wasn't a lawsuit either, it was a court case. Oh my goodness, for the love of all things scientific and sensible stop mentioning Freud. Or you know. Go ahead. Keep talking on about theories from a century ago that have no place in modern medicine or psychiatry and then I can put you in the same box as those who believe all illnesses can be cured with some essential oils, water and crystals. Freud is still relevant today and his theories are still practiced today actually." The views of Frued are not held to the standard you are trying to use them. They are used as a basic support but it is not used to prove anything in moder psychology. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene.
If you don’t care why stick you’re 2 pence into the debate?
To give people who practice this stuff who are ignorant of the law, the facts before they go around wrecking peoples lives and possibly their own but I don't mind the latter."I'm not sure that telling people that they will "most likely be prosecuted" is giving them the facts. Particularly when that claim is something you've completely failed to substantiate as soon as has come under any sort of scrutiny | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene.
If you don’t care why stick you’re 2 pence into the debate?
To give people who practice this stuff who are ignorant of the law, the facts before they go around wrecking peoples lives and possibly their own but I don't mind the latter.
I'm not sure that telling people that they will "most likely be prosecuted" is giving them the facts. Particularly when that claim is something you've completely failed to substantiate as soon as has come under any sort of scrutiny"I can’t say either way as I don’t specifically know the actual sections of the law but I do know that it comes under ABH/GBH and the stuff I do is considered quite extreme for most people that yes I do believe if someone took it out of context that they would most likely be some form of prosecution. My point is this post was a guy asking if his idea was bdsm. To an extent yes it is. What this other guy is doing is sticking his ore in when he has no interest in the topic and no knowledge of the topic. That’s in no way helping the OP. Many acts in bdsm would be considered prosecutionable but you don’t go from a scene to court without many steps in the middle to determine if there’s even a case. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene.
If you don’t care why stick you’re 2 pence into the debate?
To give people who practice this stuff who are ignorant of the law, the facts before they go around wrecking peoples lives and possibly their own but I don't mind the latter.
I'm not sure that telling people that they will "most likely be prosecuted" is giving them the facts. Particularly when that claim is something you've completely failed to substantiate as soon as has come under any sort of scrutiny"I just give a recent example. A tattoist was done for gbh even though consent was given. You seem ignorant too. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene.
If you don’t care why stick you’re 2 pence into the debate?
To give people who practice this stuff who are ignorant of the law, the facts before they go around wrecking peoples lives and possibly their own but I don't mind the latter.
That’s not really how it looks though. Looks like you’re just trying to stir shit in a post that was trying to explain the bdsm is what you want to make it. Especially when you start out with stating you know nothing about bdsm and have no interest in it. And you think we are all brainwashed. Very narrow minded and unsupported opinions.
If you’re not interested don’t comment. Throwing lawsuits from decades ago doesn’t really help when the opinions surrounding it have shifted ten fold too. It may still be used but it doesn’t pack as much punch as it did 30 years ago because opinions have changed. When people make me feel guilty I'm not happy. That's exactly how it is. You should get clued up to. Freud calls it maintaining a life of trauma syndrome. Wasn't a lawsuit either, it was a court case.
Yes and Freud has had his theories disproved many times. So that’s not really a valid argument in today’s society,
Lawsuit/court case... semantics.
The point is you, by you’re own words, no nothing about bdsm or the community so therefore are not really in a potion to give people the more accurate information on what is and isn’t bdsm/kink. You may work in law enforment of some description but can only give an example of a successful case from 30years ago; again not very convincing.
So maybe you should take you 2 pence back. Because it’s not really helped anyone.
Most of the community are actually very aware of the potential percieved criminality if our actions and that is why we have our own ways of vetting people with in the community. Yes they are not always correct but then the law isn’t always correct either. He was on the money here Freud. People on this thread who participate aren't even aware. Some guy was done recently for body modification of splitting tongues.
That case is the benchmark of the law look it up.
No I won't because it's pertinent. Anything you have said has been pretty vacant. "But the key point of the body modification prosecution was about his lack of qualifications to perform surgical procedures rather than the consent of hia customers. And the split tongue was arguably the most minor of the 3 procedures he was prosecuted for. So I'm not sure how sombody being paid to perform minor surgery that the aren't qualified or licensed to undertake is sonewhow a legal benchmark for prosecution in consensensual BDSM? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene.
If you don’t care why stick you’re 2 pence into the debate?
To give people who practice this stuff who are ignorant of the law, the facts before they go around wrecking peoples lives and possibly their own but I don't mind the latter.
I'm not sure that telling people that they will "most likely be prosecuted" is giving them the facts. Particularly when that claim is something you've completely failed to substantiate as soon as has come under any sort of scrutiny I just give a recent example. A tattoist was done for gbh even though consent was given. You seem ignorant too."I’m not the one saying we’re all brain washed. I fail to see how a tattooist is relevant to the bdsm community too. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene.
If you don’t care why stick you’re 2 pence into the debate?
To give people who practice this stuff who are ignorant of the law, the facts before they go around wrecking peoples lives and possibly their own but I don't mind the latter.
I'm not sure that telling people that they will "most likely be prosecuted" is giving them the facts. Particularly when that claim is something you've completely failed to substantiate as soon as has come under any sort of scrutiny
I can’t say either way as I don’t specifically know the actual sections of the law but I do know that it comes under ABH/GBH and the stuff I do is considered quite extreme for most people that yes I do believe if someone took it out of context that they would most likely be some form of prosecution.
My point is this post was a guy asking if his idea was bdsm. To an extent yes it is. What this other guy is doing is sticking his ore in when he has no interest in the topic and no knowledge of the topic. That’s in no way helping the OP.
Many acts in bdsm would be considered prosecutionable but you don’t go from a scene to court without many steps in the middle to determine if there’s even a case."How isn't it? The OP would probably like to be privy to the law before he starts his bdsm "journey". | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"You're a sadist (that's the term I'm not insulting you), she'd be a masochist, she'd be a rope bunny and you'd be a rigger. Probably her sub, you dom. Not even close to a sadist / masochist. BDSM is about the pain / pleasure sensation, the control & the adrenaline. Sex is not a part of a scene between a sadist & a masochist. Sadists like to inflict pain & get their kicks from that. Masochists like to experience pain. What you’re talking about OP is kinky sex, which is totally different & perfectly acceptable. It doesn’t need a label, it’s just a bit of light bondage in a sexual scenario " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene.
If you don’t care why stick you’re 2 pence into the debate?
To give people who practice this stuff who are ignorant of the law, the facts before they go around wrecking peoples lives and possibly their own but I don't mind the latter.
That’s not really how it looks though. Looks like you’re just trying to stir shit in a post that was trying to explain the bdsm is what you want to make it. Especially when you start out with stating you know nothing about bdsm and have no interest in it. And you think we are all brainwashed. Very narrow minded and unsupported opinions.
If you’re not interested don’t comment. Throwing lawsuits from decades ago doesn’t really help when the opinions surrounding it have shifted ten fold too. It may still be used but it doesn’t pack as much punch as it did 30 years ago because opinions have changed. When people make me feel guilty I'm not happy. That's exactly how it is. You should get clued up to. Freud calls it maintaining a life of trauma syndrome. Wasn't a lawsuit either, it was a court case.
Yes and Freud has had his theories disproved many times. So that’s not really a valid argument in today’s society,
Lawsuit/court case... semantics.
The point is you, by you’re own words, no nothing about bdsm or the community so therefore are not really in a potion to give people the more accurate information on what is and isn’t bdsm/kink. You may work in law enforment of some description but can only give an example of a successful case from 30years ago; again not very convincing.
So maybe you should take you 2 pence back. Because it’s not really helped anyone.
Most of the community are actually very aware of the potential percieved criminality if our actions and that is why we have our own ways of vetting people with in the community. Yes they are not always correct but then the law isn’t always correct either. He was on the money here Freud. People on this thread who participate aren't even aware. Some guy was done recently for body modification of splitting tongues.
That case is the benchmark of the law look it up.
No I won't because it's pertinent. Anything you have said has been pretty vacant.
But the key point of the body modification prosecution was about his lack of qualifications to perform surgical procedures rather than the consent of hia customers. And the split tongue was arguably the most minor of the 3 procedures he was prosecuted for.
So I'm not sure how sombody being paid to perform minor surgery that the aren't qualified or licensed to undertake is sonewhow a legal benchmark for prosecution in consensensual BDSM?"Not just that, you cannot consent to GBH full stop. That was just an example of the defence of consent. For sexual pleasure it is completely invalid. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene.
If you don’t care why stick you’re 2 pence into the debate?
To give people who practice this stuff who are ignorant of the law, the facts before they go around wrecking peoples lives and possibly their own but I don't mind the latter.
I'm not sure that telling people that they will "most likely be prosecuted" is giving them the facts. Particularly when that claim is something you've completely failed to substantiate as soon as has come under any sort of scrutiny
I can’t say either way as I don’t specifically know the actual sections of the law but I do know that it comes under ABH/GBH and the stuff I do is considered quite extreme for most people that yes I do believe if someone took it out of context that they would most likely be some form of prosecution.
My point is this post was a guy asking if his idea was bdsm. To an extent yes it is. What this other guy is doing is sticking his ore in when he has no interest in the topic and no knowledge of the topic. That’s in no way helping the OP.
Many acts in bdsm would be considered prosecutionable but you don’t go from a scene to court without many steps in the middle to determine if there’s even a case. How isn't it? The OP would probably like to be privy to the law before he starts his bdsm "journey". "Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Freud is still relevant today and his theories are still practiced today actually." Only in that Freud is taught as an example of how far we have progressed, his thoughts formed the basis of psychoanalysis, much the same way as Alan Turing's work formed the basis of the smartphone you hold in your hand. (Ok not a perfect analogy because Turings work in computer science is based in science, logic and binary computing but modern applications of his work are poles apart from his starting point.) Our understanding of psychoanalysis, the brain and the subconscious has changed. Psychoanalysis itself is a contested area because it is opinion, observation and assumption that is unable to be scientifically proven, but that doesn't mean it hasn't progressed in 130 years.  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene.
If you don’t care why stick you’re 2 pence into the debate?
To give people who practice this stuff who are ignorant of the law, the facts before they go around wrecking peoples lives and possibly their own but I don't mind the latter.
I'm not sure that telling people that they will "most likely be prosecuted" is giving them the facts. Particularly when that claim is something you've completely failed to substantiate as soon as has come under any sort of scrutiny
I can’t say either way as I don’t specifically know the actual sections of the law but I do know that it comes under ABH/GBH and the stuff I do is considered quite extreme for most people that yes I do believe if someone took it out of context that they would most likely be some form of prosecution.
My point is this post was a guy asking if his idea was bdsm. To an extent yes it is. What this other guy is doing is sticking his ore in when he has no interest in the topic and no knowledge of the topic. That’s in no way helping the OP.
Many acts in bdsm would be considered prosecutionable but you don’t go from a scene to court without many steps in the middle to determine if there’s even a case. How isn't it? The OP would probably like to be privy to the law before he starts his bdsm "journey".
Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories.
Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene.
As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things.
And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. "No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are a number of issues being discussed in this thread and I will deal with them individually. Consent to Harm and R v Brown Although Mr Blonde's heart is in the right place, he is going about it the wrong way. I was going to reply Friday night to his similar post but was too tired. I have read the case a number of times and the heterosexual cases following it. The case is actually a House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) which was split in a 3 to 2 majority supporting the prosecution. The case is the high water mark for judicial intervention and interprets in BDSM. Two factors were at play, firstly clear homophobia, and secondly moral outrage. The acts were in modern terms not extreme and you can look them up as I don't want a ban by a twitchy mod. However what people point to is that subsequent heterosexual cases were treated more lightly where more severe acts occurred. But the position in law is that consent cannot be given to grievous lasting damage. Thank you. Heart of a lion me. Somebody who knows the law too. Consent to being harmed for sexual pleasure e.g torture, gbh will be INVALID! That is still the law today. You can and most likely will be prosecuted and quite rightly so.
When you say "most likely" what exactly do you mean? Because the term "most likely" would suggest prosecutions for partaking in consensual BDSM are common place? In fact looking at it literally you use if the words "most likely" would suggest more than half of people partaking on consensual BDSM are prosecuted and that's not the case is it?
So by "most likely" do you actually mean "theoretically could be"? These people are just not caught but if they were they probably would be. They do it to older people, vulnerable people from broken homes etc.
But in that scenario it's not consensual is it?
So can you not just answer my question? You have explicitly said that "you know the law" and also said that people partaking in consensual BDSM will "most likely be prosecuted". But that's simply not the case is it? Because they have been brainwashed, a lot need professional help. If family etc found out it would be a different story.
My whole family and work know about my life style. My work ask me after every event what I get up to. They do not for a second think I’m brainwashed. And I definitely don’t need professional help.
I think you’re opinion, although you’re quite rightly entitled to it, is very rude. Some aren't aware though. Freud would tell you different too. I don't care what people think of me from this scene.
If you don’t care why stick you’re 2 pence into the debate?
To give people who practice this stuff who are ignorant of the law, the facts before they go around wrecking peoples lives and possibly their own but I don't mind the latter.
I'm not sure that telling people that they will "most likely be prosecuted" is giving them the facts. Particularly when that claim is something you've completely failed to substantiate as soon as has come under any sort of scrutiny
I can’t say either way as I don’t specifically know the actual sections of the law but I do know that it comes under ABH/GBH and the stuff I do is considered quite extreme for most people that yes I do believe if someone took it out of context that they would most likely be some form of prosecution.
My point is this post was a guy asking if his idea was bdsm. To an extent yes it is. What this other guy is doing is sticking his ore in when he has no interest in the topic and no knowledge of the topic. That’s in no way helping the OP.
Many acts in bdsm would be considered prosecutionable but you don’t go from a scene to court without many steps in the middle to determine if there’s even a case. How isn't it? The OP would probably like to be privy to the law before he starts his bdsm "journey".
Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories.
Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene.
As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things.
And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. "I don’t really understand what you expect me to look up, we’ve been around the houses with you’re cases which are loose linked to bdsm and fruedian theories which are used as a basic principle. You have nothing current and scientifically proven to support you’re negative view that bdsm is actually damaging to anyone’s health other than your opinion. There is a potential to be prosecuted for almost every single action you make everyday but it’s doesn’t happen, you can’t even get a police officer when you need one for crying out loud. Scaremongering people who have an actual interest in the community or even in just expanding their basic knowledge is wrong especially when you know admittedly know nothing of the actually community yourself. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but scaremongering helps no one. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. " Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"... So you talk about it? I wouldn't let someone touch me in a kinky sense unless the boundaries were laid down, at which point a sadist would know if I were a needle girl or a light spanking girl, or neither. Correct. However people aren’t always that straight forward. In your scenario, there’s no risk a girl could find herself at someone’s house & realise she’s over her head but agre to things because she feels she should. You listed the OP as a sadist, a Dom & a rigger in your response. None of those are correct, other than he has a dominant side. If he wants to explore that, and become a Dom, a Rigger or a Sadist, he needs to do it correctly & safely, not just label himself & off he goes. That’s the 50 shades approach to it, and it has the potential to be harmful. There are a lot of “Dom’s” on Fab - or so they think - just because they’ve watched 50 shades. But they wouldn’t have a clue about how to use a flogger properly, how to use a cane or whip safely, electro play, wax play, how to bring a Sub up & down safely, how to work them around their boundaries, how to recognise sub-space, how to bring them down safely, how to give aftercare or even how to look after their equipment. Being interested in a bit of kink does not make him anything other than a swinger with an interest in kink." | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"... So you talk about it? I wouldn't let someone touch me in a kinky sense unless the boundaries were laid down, at which point a sadist would know if I were a needle girl or a light spanking girl, or neither. Correct. However people aren’t always that straight forward. In your scenario, there’s no risk a girl could find herself at someone’s house & realise she’s over her head but agre to things because she feels she should. You listed the OP as a sadist, a Dom & a rigger in your response. None of those are correct, other than he has a dominant side. If he wants to explore that, and become a Dom, a Rigger or a Sadist, he needs to do it correctly & safely, not just label himself & off he goes. That’s the 50 shades approach to it, and it has the potential to be harmful. There are a lot of “Dom’s” on Fab - or so they think - just because they’ve watched 50 shades. But they wouldn’t have a clue about how to use a flogger properly, how to use a cane or whip safely, electro play, wax play, how to bring a Sub up & down safely, how to work them around their boundaries, how to recognise sub-space, how to bring them down safely, how to give aftercare or even how to look after their equipment. Being interested in a bit of kink does not make him anything other than a swinger with an interest in kink." So much this | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. " Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I think the original case deemed you couldn't give permission for your body to be hurt. It was the Spanner case and the only case I am aware of. I don't doubt someone will tell me otherwise. I've been playing in the scene public and private for 50 years and I've never known anyone get arrested for it even having experienced scene police raids in the past " Spanner was the name of the investigation, the court case was R v Brown. The House of Lords ruling and ramifications are discussed above. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime." But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime." It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that." No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. " Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too." Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. " I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time." Pretty much. Life has its ways. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. " Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either." No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community." You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ." If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant." I don't think they did though. That stuff is the lowest of the low! You wouldn't see that kind of thing on Jeremy kyle or a pornstar because it is batshit crazy! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant. I don't think they did though. That stuff is the lowest of the low! You wouldn't see that kind of thing on Jeremy kyle or a pornstar because it is batshit crazy!" Maybe you’re just watching different porn? As for Jeremy Kyle, who cares about that. This is a scene between two consenting adults. And that’s not really you’re business unless one of them makes it you’re business by raising a concern. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant. I don't think they did though. That stuff is the lowest of the low! You wouldn't see that kind of thing on Jeremy kyle or a pornstar because it is batshit crazy! Maybe you’re just watching different porn? As for Jeremy Kyle, who cares about that. This is a scene between two consenting adults. And that’s not really you’re business unless one of them makes it you’re business by raising a concern. " I've seen the owner of a club moan about being judged for having tattoos in society. How do you think society would judge a young girl with slut carved into their thigh? What world are you from. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant. I don't think they did though. That stuff is the lowest of the low! You wouldn't see that kind of thing on Jeremy kyle or a pornstar because it is batshit crazy! Maybe you’re just watching different porn? As for Jeremy Kyle, who cares about that. This is a scene between two consenting adults. And that’s not really you’re business unless one of them makes it you’re business by raising a concern. I've seen the owner of a club moan about being judged for having tattoos in society. How do you think society would judge a young girl with slut carved into their thigh? What world are you from. "Trust me, that scene broke my relationship with the person who did the carving. I’m bell aware of what went on between the two of them. But you are talking about opinions. I personally used to walk around with the word slut around my neck every day. I don’t care it’s a word I love and feel is uplifting. You may deem it derogatory. That’s the opinion you are entitled to. What you’re not entitled to do it push that opinion onto other people. Which is what you are doing. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant. I don't think they did though. That stuff is the lowest of the low! You wouldn't see that kind of thing on Jeremy kyle or a pornstar because it is batshit crazy! Maybe you’re just watching different porn? As for Jeremy Kyle, who cares about that. This is a scene between two consenting adults. And that’s not really you’re business unless one of them makes it you’re business by raising a concern. I've seen the owner of a club moan about being judged for having tattoos in society. How do you think society would judge a young girl with slut carved into their thigh? What world are you from.
Trust me, that scene broke my relationship with the person who did the carving. I’m bell aware of what went on between the two of them.
But you are talking about opinions. I personally used to walk around with the word slut around my neck every day. I don’t care it’s a word I love and feel is uplifting. You may deem it derogatory. That’s the opinion you are entitled to. What you’re not entitled to do it push that opinion onto other people. Which is what you are doing."More motive to mutilate for themselves then. Yeah, a landslide majority consider it derogatory and always will. Only on sites like this it is embraced. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant. I don't think they did though. That stuff is the lowest of the low! You wouldn't see that kind of thing on Jeremy kyle or a pornstar because it is batshit crazy! Maybe you’re just watching different porn? As for Jeremy Kyle, who cares about that. This is a scene between two consenting adults. And that’s not really you’re business unless one of them makes it you’re business by raising a concern. I've seen the owner of a club moan about being judged for having tattoos in society. How do you think society would judge a young girl with slut carved into their thigh? What world are you from.
Trust me, that scene broke my relationship with the person who did the carving. I’m bell aware of what went on between the two of them.
But you are talking about opinions. I personally used to walk around with the word slut around my neck every day. I don’t care it’s a word I love and feel is uplifting. You may deem it derogatory. That’s the opinion you are entitled to. What you’re not entitled to do it push that opinion onto other people. Which is what you are doing.
More motive to mutilate for themselves then. Yeah, a landslide majority consider it derogatory and always will. Only on sites like this it is embraced. "I don’t understand why you’re bothered by whether or not someone thinks the word slut is derogatory or not. They made their decision to do that scene with no thought of the consequences to other people. But they both consented freely to the scene. And the consent is the key part of this debate. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant. I don't think they did though. That stuff is the lowest of the low! You wouldn't see that kind of thing on Jeremy kyle or a pornstar because it is batshit crazy! Maybe you’re just watching different porn? As for Jeremy Kyle, who cares about that. This is a scene between two consenting adults. And that’s not really you’re business unless one of them makes it you’re business by raising a concern. I've seen the owner of a club moan about being judged for having tattoos in society. How do you think society would judge a young girl with slut carved into their thigh? What world are you from.
Trust me, that scene broke my relationship with the person who did the carving. I’m bell aware of what went on between the two of them.
But you are talking about opinions. I personally used to walk around with the word slut around my neck every day. I don’t care it’s a word I love and feel is uplifting. You may deem it derogatory. That’s the opinion you are entitled to. What you’re not entitled to do it push that opinion onto other people. Which is what you are doing.
More motive to mutilate for themselves then. Yeah, a landslide majority consider it derogatory and always will. Only on sites like this it is embraced.
I don’t understand why you’re bothered by whether or not someone thinks the word slut is derogatory or not.
They made their decision to do that scene with no thought of the consequences to other people. But they both consented freely to the scene. And the consent is the key part of this debate."Because it can have massive implications on the rest of their life something like that. You are still not grasping the defence of consent. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant. I don't think they did though. That stuff is the lowest of the low! You wouldn't see that kind of thing on Jeremy kyle or a pornstar because it is batshit crazy! Maybe you’re just watching different porn? As for Jeremy Kyle, who cares about that. This is a scene between two consenting adults. And that’s not really you’re business unless one of them makes it you’re business by raising a concern. I've seen the owner of a club moan about being judged for having tattoos in society. How do you think society would judge a young girl with slut carved into their thigh? What world are you from.
Trust me, that scene broke my relationship with the person who did the carving. I’m bell aware of what went on between the two of them.
But you are talking about opinions. I personally used to walk around with the word slut around my neck every day. I don’t care it’s a word I love and feel is uplifting. You may deem it derogatory. That’s the opinion you are entitled to. What you’re not entitled to do it push that opinion onto other people. Which is what you are doing.
More motive to mutilate for themselves then. Yeah, a landslide majority consider it derogatory and always will. Only on sites like this it is embraced.
I don’t understand why you’re bothered by whether or not someone thinks the word slut is derogatory or not.
They made their decision to do that scene with no thought of the consequences to other people. But they both consented freely to the scene. And the consent is the key part of this debate. Because it can have massive implications on the rest of their life something like that. You are still not grasping the defence of consent."No I am. I totally understand the defenct of consent. You’re not grasping the actual consent part. I personally consent to being referred to as a slut by the person I have given my consent to via negotiation and communication (not just any old so and so) and if you don’t like it you know where the door is. No one asked for you’re opinion on how I prefer to be referred to. No one asked for you’re opinion on the particular cutting scene you have a gripe with. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant. I don't think they did though. That stuff is the lowest of the low! You wouldn't see that kind of thing on Jeremy kyle or a pornstar because it is batshit crazy! Maybe you’re just watching different porn? As for Jeremy Kyle, who cares about that. This is a scene between two consenting adults. And that’s not really you’re business unless one of them makes it you’re business by raising a concern. I've seen the owner of a club moan about being judged for having tattoos in society. How do you think society would judge a young girl with slut carved into their thigh? What world are you from.
Trust me, that scene broke my relationship with the person who did the carving. I’m bell aware of what went on between the two of them.
But you are talking about opinions. I personally used to walk around with the word slut around my neck every day. I don’t care it’s a word I love and feel is uplifting. You may deem it derogatory. That’s the opinion you are entitled to. What you’re not entitled to do it push that opinion onto other people. Which is what you are doing.
More motive to mutilate for themselves then. Yeah, a landslide majority consider it derogatory and always will. Only on sites like this it is embraced.
I don’t understand why you’re bothered by whether or not someone thinks the word slut is derogatory or not.
They made their decision to do that scene with no thought of the consequences to other people. But they both consented freely to the scene. And the consent is the key part of this debate. Because it can have massive implications on the rest of their life something like that. You are still not grasping the defence of consent.
No I am. I totally understand the defenct of consent. You’re not grasping the actual consent part.
I personally consent to being referred to as a slut by the person I have given my consent to via negotiation and communication (not just any old so and so) and if you don’t like it you know where the door is. No one asked for you’re opinion on how I prefer to be referred to.
No one asked for you’re opinion on the particular cutting scene you have a gripe with. "I'm entitled to my opinion. If I see something morally wrong and somebody vulnerable, conflicted and possibly needing help I will intervene. It is just in my nature, they knew that too. I'm probably 1 of the last people you would show that too. So what does that tell you. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant. I don't think they did though. That stuff is the lowest of the low! You wouldn't see that kind of thing on Jeremy kyle or a pornstar because it is batshit crazy! Maybe you’re just watching different porn? As for Jeremy Kyle, who cares about that. This is a scene between two consenting adults. And that’s not really you’re business unless one of them makes it you’re business by raising a concern. I've seen the owner of a club moan about being judged for having tattoos in society. How do you think society would judge a young girl with slut carved into their thigh? What world are you from.
Trust me, that scene broke my relationship with the person who did the carving. I’m bell aware of what went on between the two of them.
But you are talking about opinions. I personally used to walk around with the word slut around my neck every day. I don’t care it’s a word I love and feel is uplifting. You may deem it derogatory. That’s the opinion you are entitled to. What you’re not entitled to do it push that opinion onto other people. Which is what you are doing.
More motive to mutilate for themselves then. Yeah, a landslide majority consider it derogatory and always will. Only on sites like this it is embraced.
I don’t understand why you’re bothered by whether or not someone thinks the word slut is derogatory or not.
They made their decision to do that scene with no thought of the consequences to other people. But they both consented freely to the scene. And the consent is the key part of this debate. Because it can have massive implications on the rest of their life something like that. You are still not grasping the defence of consent.
No I am. I totally understand the defenct of consent. You’re not grasping the actual consent part.
I personally consent to being referred to as a slut by the person I have given my consent to via negotiation and communication (not just any old so and so) and if you don’t like it you know where the door is. No one asked for you’re opinion on how I prefer to be referred to.
No one asked for you’re opinion on the particular cutting scene you have a gripe with.
I'm entitled to my opinion. If I see something morally wrong and somebody vulnerable, conflicted and possibly needing help I will intervene.
It is just in my nature, they knew that too. I'm probably 1 of the last people you would show that too. So what does that tell you."As someone who has been on the scene a while now it tells me that you have no respect for people and to steer massively clear of you. Massive red flags that you need the need to intervene when no one has asked you to. ‘To be one of the last people to show that to’ also tells me you’re a someone who wouldn’t consider that you’re barating I’d peoples choices is actually damaging to someone’s mental health. You would be someone I would massively avoid. It’s that simple. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant. I don't think they did though. That stuff is the lowest of the low! You wouldn't see that kind of thing on Jeremy kyle or a pornstar because it is batshit crazy! Maybe you’re just watching different porn? As for Jeremy Kyle, who cares about that. This is a scene between two consenting adults. And that’s not really you’re business unless one of them makes it you’re business by raising a concern. I've seen the owner of a club moan about being judged for having tattoos in society. How do you think society would judge a young girl with slut carved into their thigh? What world are you from.
Trust me, that scene broke my relationship with the person who did the carving. I’m bell aware of what went on between the two of them.
But you are talking about opinions. I personally used to walk around with the word slut around my neck every day. I don’t care it’s a word I love and feel is uplifting. You may deem it derogatory. That’s the opinion you are entitled to. What you’re not entitled to do it push that opinion onto other people. Which is what you are doing.
More motive to mutilate for themselves then. Yeah, a landslide majority consider it derogatory and always will. Only on sites like this it is embraced.
I don’t understand why you’re bothered by whether or not someone thinks the word slut is derogatory or not.
They made their decision to do that scene with no thought of the consequences to other people. But they both consented freely to the scene. And the consent is the key part of this debate. Because it can have massive implications on the rest of their life something like that. You are still not grasping the defence of consent.
No I am. I totally understand the defenct of consent. You’re not grasping the actual consent part.
I personally consent to being referred to as a slut by the person I have given my consent to via negotiation and communication (not just any old so and so) and if you don’t like it you know where the door is. No one asked for you’re opinion on how I prefer to be referred to.
No one asked for you’re opinion on the particular cutting scene you have a gripe with.
I'm entitled to my opinion. If I see something morally wrong and somebody vulnerable, conflicted and possibly needing help I will intervene.
It is just in my nature, they knew that too. I'm probably 1 of the last people you would show that too. So what does that tell you.
As someone who has been on the scene a while now it tells me that you have no respect for people and to steer massively clear of you.
Massive red flags that you need the need to intervene when no one has asked you to.
‘To be one of the last people to show that to’ also tells me you’re a someone who wouldn’t consider that you’re barating I’d peoples choices is actually damaging to someone’s mental health.
You would be someone I would massively avoid. It’s that simple. "You don't understand my perspective. I had vanilla sex with that girl and she had a seizure. She gets into this bdsm because she doesn't have any from it. That makes me feel guilty. You're not my type anyway. I don't need to normally I have just met 2 broken, mentally unstable women off here. The rest I have met have been sane and no problem. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant. I don't think they did though. That stuff is the lowest of the low! You wouldn't see that kind of thing on Jeremy kyle or a pornstar because it is batshit crazy! Maybe you’re just watching different porn? As for Jeremy Kyle, who cares about that. This is a scene between two consenting adults. And that’s not really you’re business unless one of them makes it you’re business by raising a concern. I've seen the owner of a club moan about being judged for having tattoos in society. How do you think society would judge a young girl with slut carved into their thigh? What world are you from.
Trust me, that scene broke my relationship with the person who did the carving. I’m bell aware of what went on between the two of them.
But you are talking about opinions. I personally used to walk around with the word slut around my neck every day. I don’t care it’s a word I love and feel is uplifting. You may deem it derogatory. That’s the opinion you are entitled to. What you’re not entitled to do it push that opinion onto other people. Which is what you are doing.
More motive to mutilate for themselves then. Yeah, a landslide majority consider it derogatory and always will. Only on sites like this it is embraced.
I don’t understand why you’re bothered by whether or not someone thinks the word slut is derogatory or not.
They made their decision to do that scene with no thought of the consequences to other people. But they both consented freely to the scene. And the consent is the key part of this debate. Because it can have massive implications on the rest of their life something like that. You are still not grasping the defence of consent.
No I am. I totally understand the defenct of consent. You’re not grasping the actual consent part.
I personally consent to being referred to as a slut by the person I have given my consent to via negotiation and communication (not just any old so and so) and if you don’t like it you know where the door is. No one asked for you’re opinion on how I prefer to be referred to.
No one asked for you’re opinion on the particular cutting scene you have a gripe with.
I'm entitled to my opinion. If I see something morally wrong and somebody vulnerable, conflicted and possibly needing help I will intervene.
It is just in my nature, they knew that too. I'm probably 1 of the last people you would show that too. So what does that tell you.
As someone who has been on the scene a while now it tells me that you have no respect for people and to steer massively clear of you.
Massive red flags that you need the need to intervene when no one has asked you to.
‘To be one of the last people to show that to’ also tells me you’re a someone who wouldn’t consider that you’re barating I’d peoples choices is actually damaging to someone’s mental health.
You would be someone I would massively avoid. It’s that simple. You don't understand my perspective.
I had vanilla sex with that girl and she had a seizure. She gets into this bdsm because she doesn't have any from it. That makes me feel guilty.
You're not my type anyway. I don't need to normally I have just met 2 broken, mentally unstable women off here. The rest I have met have been sane and no problem. "I’m well aware that you had sex with her. But that doesn’t give you a right to have an opinion on anything else she does with her sex life. She had a seizure that’s nothing new for her. She’s found a coping mechanism that she discusses with the people she does bdsm with. I would never want to be you’re type. Trying to use you’re toxic masculinity to get me to pipe down isn’t going to work because you’re opinion of whether I’m you’re ‘type’ Is irrelevant because I never consented to that. What you deem broken and damaged is something that someone else seems beautiful. Your toxic masculinity is stagnant on this post. You’re opinion of bdsm is based of one scene that you didn’t like because you had sex with the girl in the scene. Move along. She has not responsibility to you and you have none to her. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant. I don't think they did though. That stuff is the lowest of the low! You wouldn't see that kind of thing on Jeremy kyle or a pornstar because it is batshit crazy! Maybe you’re just watching different porn? As for Jeremy Kyle, who cares about that. This is a scene between two consenting adults. And that’s not really you’re business unless one of them makes it you’re business by raising a concern. I've seen the owner of a club moan about being judged for having tattoos in society. How do you think society would judge a young girl with slut carved into their thigh? What world are you from.
Trust me, that scene broke my relationship with the person who did the carving. I’m bell aware of what went on between the two of them.
But you are talking about opinions. I personally used to walk around with the word slut around my neck every day. I don’t care it’s a word I love and feel is uplifting. You may deem it derogatory. That’s the opinion you are entitled to. What you’re not entitled to do it push that opinion onto other people. Which is what you are doing.
More motive to mutilate for themselves then. Yeah, a landslide majority consider it derogatory and always will. Only on sites like this it is embraced.
I don’t understand why you’re bothered by whether or not someone thinks the word slut is derogatory or not.
They made their decision to do that scene with no thought of the consequences to other people. But they both consented freely to the scene. And the consent is the key part of this debate. Because it can have massive implications on the rest of their life something like that. You are still not grasping the defence of consent.
No I am. I totally understand the defenct of consent. You’re not grasping the actual consent part.
I personally consent to being referred to as a slut by the person I have given my consent to via negotiation and communication (not just any old so and so) and if you don’t like it you know where the door is. No one asked for you’re opinion on how I prefer to be referred to.
No one asked for you’re opinion on the particular cutting scene you have a gripe with.
I'm entitled to my opinion. If I see something morally wrong and somebody vulnerable, conflicted and possibly needing help I will intervene.
It is just in my nature, they knew that too. I'm probably 1 of the last people you would show that too. So what does that tell you.
As someone who has been on the scene a while now it tells me that you have no respect for people and to steer massively clear of you.
Massive red flags that you need the need to intervene when no one has asked you to.
‘To be one of the last people to show that to’ also tells me you’re a someone who wouldn’t consider that you’re barating I’d peoples choices is actually damaging to someone’s mental health.
You would be someone I would massively avoid. It’s that simple. You don't understand my perspective.
I had vanilla sex with that girl and she had a seizure. She gets into this bdsm because she doesn't have any from it. That makes me feel guilty.
You're not my type anyway. I don't need to normally I have just met 2 broken, mentally unstable women off here. The rest I have met have been sane and no problem.
I’m well aware that you had sex with her. But that doesn’t give you a right to have an opinion on anything else she does with her sex life. She had a seizure that’s nothing new for her. She’s found a coping mechanism that she discusses with the people she does bdsm with.
I would never want to be you’re type. Trying to use you’re toxic masculinity to get me to pipe down isn’t going to work because you’re opinion of whether I’m you’re ‘type’ Is irrelevant because I never consented to that.
What you deem broken and damaged is something that someone else seems beautiful. Your toxic masculinity is stagnant on this post.
You’re opinion of bdsm is based of one scene that you didn’t like because you had sex with the girl in the scene.
Move along. She has not responsibility to you and you have none to her. "Toxic masculinity? it's called common sense and living in the real world. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant. I don't think they did though. That stuff is the lowest of the low! You wouldn't see that kind of thing on Jeremy kyle or a pornstar because it is batshit crazy! Maybe you’re just watching different porn? As for Jeremy Kyle, who cares about that. This is a scene between two consenting adults. And that’s not really you’re business unless one of them makes it you’re business by raising a concern. I've seen the owner of a club moan about being judged for having tattoos in society. How do you think society would judge a young girl with slut carved into their thigh? What world are you from.
Trust me, that scene broke my relationship with the person who did the carving. I’m bell aware of what went on between the two of them.
But you are talking about opinions. I personally used to walk around with the word slut around my neck every day. I don’t care it’s a word I love and feel is uplifting. You may deem it derogatory. That’s the opinion you are entitled to. What you’re not entitled to do it push that opinion onto other people. Which is what you are doing.
More motive to mutilate for themselves then. Yeah, a landslide majority consider it derogatory and always will. Only on sites like this it is embraced.
I don’t understand why you’re bothered by whether or not someone thinks the word slut is derogatory or not.
They made their decision to do that scene with no thought of the consequences to other people. But they both consented freely to the scene. And the consent is the key part of this debate. Because it can have massive implications on the rest of their life something like that. You are still not grasping the defence of consent.
No I am. I totally understand the defenct of consent. You’re not grasping the actual consent part.
I personally consent to being referred to as a slut by the person I have given my consent to via negotiation and communication (not just any old so and so) and if you don’t like it you know where the door is. No one asked for you’re opinion on how I prefer to be referred to.
No one asked for you’re opinion on the particular cutting scene you have a gripe with.
I'm entitled to my opinion. If I see something morally wrong and somebody vulnerable, conflicted and possibly needing help I will intervene.
It is just in my nature, they knew that too. I'm probably 1 of the last people you would show that too. So what does that tell you.
As someone who has been on the scene a while now it tells me that you have no respect for people and to steer massively clear of you.
Massive red flags that you need the need to intervene when no one has asked you to.
‘To be one of the last people to show that to’ also tells me you’re a someone who wouldn’t consider that you’re barating I’d peoples choices is actually damaging to someone’s mental health.
You would be someone I would massively avoid. It’s that simple. You don't understand my perspective.
I had vanilla sex with that girl and she had a seizure. She gets into this bdsm because she doesn't have any from it. That makes me feel guilty.
You're not my type anyway. I don't need to normally I have just met 2 broken, mentally unstable women off here. The rest I have met have been sane and no problem.
I’m well aware that you had sex with her. But that doesn’t give you a right to have an opinion on anything else she does with her sex life. She had a seizure that’s nothing new for her. She’s found a coping mechanism that she discusses with the people she does bdsm with.
I would never want to be you’re type. Trying to use you’re toxic masculinity to get me to pipe down isn’t going to work because you’re opinion of whether I’m you’re ‘type’ Is irrelevant because I never consented to that.
What you deem broken and damaged is something that someone else seems beautiful. Your toxic masculinity is stagnant on this post.
You’re opinion of bdsm is based of one scene that you didn’t like because you had sex with the girl in the scene.
Move along. She has not responsibility to you and you have none to her. Toxic masculinity? it's called common sense and living in the real world. "No. It’s not common sense when you assumed i wanted to be your ‘type’. And living in the real world. Well you could argue that that’s subjective to each and every individual in the world. Everyone’s ‘world’ is different. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant. I don't think they did though. That stuff is the lowest of the low! You wouldn't see that kind of thing on Jeremy kyle or a pornstar because it is batshit crazy! Maybe you’re just watching different porn? As for Jeremy Kyle, who cares about that. This is a scene between two consenting adults. And that’s not really you’re business unless one of them makes it you’re business by raising a concern. I've seen the owner of a club moan about being judged for having tattoos in society. How do you think society would judge a young girl with slut carved into their thigh? What world are you from.
Trust me, that scene broke my relationship with the person who did the carving. I’m bell aware of what went on between the two of them.
But you are talking about opinions. I personally used to walk around with the word slut around my neck every day. I don’t care it’s a word I love and feel is uplifting. You may deem it derogatory. That’s the opinion you are entitled to. What you’re not entitled to do it push that opinion onto other people. Which is what you are doing.
More motive to mutilate for themselves then. Yeah, a landslide majority consider it derogatory and always will. Only on sites like this it is embraced.
I don’t understand why you’re bothered by whether or not someone thinks the word slut is derogatory or not.
They made their decision to do that scene with no thought of the consequences to other people. But they both consented freely to the scene. And the consent is the key part of this debate. Because it can have massive implications on the rest of their life something like that. You are still not grasping the defence of consent.
No I am. I totally understand the defenct of consent. You’re not grasping the actual consent part.
I personally consent to being referred to as a slut by the person I have given my consent to via negotiation and communication (not just any old so and so) and if you don’t like it you know where the door is. No one asked for you’re opinion on how I prefer to be referred to.
No one asked for you’re opinion on the particular cutting scene you have a gripe with.
I'm entitled to my opinion. If I see something morally wrong and somebody vulnerable, conflicted and possibly needing help I will intervene.
It is just in my nature, they knew that too. I'm probably 1 of the last people you would show that too. So what does that tell you.
As someone who has been on the scene a while now it tells me that you have no respect for people and to steer massively clear of you.
Massive red flags that you need the need to intervene when no one has asked you to.
‘To be one of the last people to show that to’ also tells me you’re a someone who wouldn’t consider that you’re barating I’d peoples choices is actually damaging to someone’s mental health.
You would be someone I would massively avoid. It’s that simple. You don't understand my perspective.
I had vanilla sex with that girl and she had a seizure. She gets into this bdsm because she doesn't have any from it. That makes me feel guilty.
You're not my type anyway. I don't need to normally I have just met 2 broken, mentally unstable women off here. The rest I have met have been sane and no problem.
I’m well aware that you had sex with her. But that doesn’t give you a right to have an opinion on anything else she does with her sex life. She had a seizure that’s nothing new for her. She’s found a coping mechanism that she discusses with the people she does bdsm with.
I would never want to be you’re type. Trying to use you’re toxic masculinity to get me to pipe down isn’t going to work because you’re opinion of whether I’m you’re ‘type’ Is irrelevant because I never consented to that.
What you deem broken and damaged is something that someone else seems beautiful. Your toxic masculinity is stagnant on this post.
You’re opinion of bdsm is based of one scene that you didn’t like because you had sex with the girl in the scene.
Move along. She has not responsibility to you and you have none to her. Toxic masculinity? it's called common sense and living in the real world.
No. It’s not common sense when you assumed i wanted to be your ‘type’.
And living in the real world. Well you could argue that that’s subjective to each and every individual in the world. Everyone’s ‘world’ is different."No, you said you would avoid me and it was redundant because I would never message you anyway like I haven't. No, some of that stuff is not conducive to the real world. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Yes privy with accurate information and current data, not outdated cases and theories. Also much of this can be and is continually discussed on the scene. As someone who’s not interested in the scene you wouldn’t be aware of these things. And it actually comes across as scaremongering on you’re behalf. No, you are mistaken. Look it up. Good, I don't want vulnerable and naive people to be taken advantage of. Sweet Christmas just stop. BDSM and the law is discussed regularly. At munches, workshops and events. I know several lawyers, barristers and judges who are all part of the BDSM scene. Those involved keep themselves more up to date than you can imagine, our lives, careers and our families depend on our knowing the law. Vunerable and naive people don't need to find BDSM to be taken advantage of. Go and worry about them on a thread about multilevel marketing or something. Maybe by you but not near me it seems. I have seen something recently which I think I think constitutes a crime. But did the people who actually consented to the scene. The individuals (top and bottom) think it was a crime. It doesn't matter whether they did or not. If you have the thread you would of grasped that. No I’ve read the whole thread, and because people speak I also know what scene you’re referring to. Neither person involved considered it a crime. But you’ve got you’re opinion and you’re obliviously going to follow it. We will always disagree but the bdsm community it informed. Yeah and I'm telling you they are naive. If I had evidence, I blow the whistle too. Mmm if you say so. You haven’t tried to understand the scene so you do you’re thing and we will all do ours. I probably wouldn't need to because stupid people fuck up constantly and it will catch up with them in the end. Just a matter of time. Pretty much. Life has its ways. Ignorance is not a defence of the law either. No one has said it is. That’s why it is something that is regularly discussed in the community. You said neither person involved considered it a crime and that shows ignorance. I beg to differ. If they’re both consenting and know the consequences that’s not ignorant. I don't think they did though. That stuff is the lowest of the low! You wouldn't see that kind of thing on Jeremy kyle or a pornstar because it is batshit crazy! Maybe you’re just watching different porn? As for Jeremy Kyle, who cares about that. This is a scene between two consenting adults. And that’s not really you’re business unless one of them makes it you’re business by raising a concern. I've seen the owner of a club moan about being judged for having tattoos in society. How do you think society would judge a young girl with slut carved into their thigh? What world are you from.
Trust me, that scene broke my relationship with the person who did the carving. I’m bell aware of what went on between the two of them.
But you are talking about opinions. I personally used to walk around with the word slut around my neck every day. I don’t care it’s a word I love and feel is uplifting. You may deem it derogatory. That’s the opinion you are entitled to. What you’re not entitled to do it push that opinion onto other people. Which is what you are doing.
More motive to mutilate for themselves then. Yeah, a landslide majority consider it derogatory and always will. Only on sites like this it is embraced.
I don’t understand why you’re bothered by whether or not someone thinks the word slut is derogatory or not.
They made their decision to do that scene with no thought of the consequences to other people. But they both consented freely to the scene. And the consent is the key part of this debate. Because it can have massive implications on the rest of their life something like that. You are still not grasping the defence of consent.
No I am. I totally understand the defenct of consent. You’re not grasping the actual consent part.
I personally consent to being referred to as a slut by the person I have given my consent to via negotiation and communication (not just any old so and so) and if you don’t like it you know where the door is. No one asked for you’re opinion on how I prefer to be referred to.
No one asked for you’re opinion on the particular cutting scene you have a gripe with.
I'm entitled to my opinion. If I see something morally wrong and somebody vulnerable, conflicted and possibly needing help I will intervene.
It is just in my nature, they knew that too. I'm probably 1 of the last people you would show that too. So what does that tell you.
As someone who has been on the scene a while now it tells me that you have no respect for people and to steer massively clear of you.
Massive red flags that you need the need to intervene when no one has asked you to.
‘To be one of the last people to show that to’ also tells me you’re a someone who wouldn’t consider that you’re barating I’d peoples choices is actually damaging to someone’s mental health.
You would be someone I would massively avoid. It’s that simple. You don't understand my perspective.
I had vanilla sex with that girl and she had a seizure. She gets into this bdsm because she doesn't have any from it. That makes me feel guilty.
You're not my type anyway. I don't need to normally I have just met 2 broken, mentally unstable women off here. The rest I have met have been sane and no problem.
I’m well aware that you had sex with her. But that doesn’t give you a right to have an opinion on anything else she does with her sex life. She had a seizure that’s nothing new for her. She’s found a coping mechanism that she discusses with the people she does bdsm with.
I would never want to be you’re type. Trying to use you’re toxic masculinity to get me to pipe down isn’t going to work because you’re opinion of whether I’m you’re ‘type’ Is irrelevant because I never consented to that.
What you deem broken and damaged is something that someone else seems beautiful. Your toxic masculinity is stagnant on this post.
You’re opinion of bdsm is based of one scene that you didn’t like because you had sex with the girl in the scene.
Move along. She has not responsibility to you and you have none to her. Toxic masculinity? it's called common sense and living in the real world.
No. It’s not common sense when you assumed i wanted to be your ‘type’.
And living in the real world. Well you could argue that that’s subjective to each and every individual in the world. Everyone’s ‘world’ is different. No, you said you would avoid me and it was redundant because I would never message you anyway like I haven't. No, some of that stuff is not conducive to the real world."What is and isn’t conducive is subjective. Everyone experiences the world independent of each other. Two people can (and do) experience the same event differently. You’ve looked at my profile before. You’re opinion of me is irrelevant. I would avoid you because your attitude to my lifestyle is derogatory and rude. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"So let me get this right. Man has consenting sex with a woman. The woman has seizure during their sex. Woman discovers BDSM, enjoys it, finds a coping mechanism to avoid seizure during scenes. Man feels guilty that the woman has found BDSM. Man feels woman is vulnerable or naive because she has epilepsy. Man hates against all BDSM because of this. Have I got that right? " Completely correct | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Completely correct" Wow. Ableist, sexist, white knight complex. Yeah OP. Don't get worked up by this guys issues. You do what you want to, be as vanilla, sprinkles or downright filthy as you want to be as long as you learn how to do it in ways to minimise risk. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"So let me get this right. Man has consenting sex with a woman. The woman has seizure during their sex. Woman discovers BDSM, enjoys it, finds a coping mechanism to avoid seizure during scenes. Man feels guilty that the woman has found BDSM. Man feels woman is vulnerable or naive because she has epilepsy. Man hates against all BDSM because of this. Have I got that right? " No, woman also has a history of domestic abuse and worse. Also an ongoing court case which if they found out could let another lunatic escape justice. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"No, woman also has a history of domestic abuse and worse." She has committed domestic abuse? (Or the word we can't say or murder if it's 'worse' but domestic abuse can involve both of those too) Because that is the only reason that it would ever be a concern of yours about what she does. (There is a whole host of psychiatric evidence to show that bdsm can actually be a safe and effective way of coming to terms with the trauma of DV and worse) "Also an ongoing court case which if they found out could let another lunatic escape justice." If what was found out? Her involvement in BDSM? Involvement can potentially cause problems with some cases but i have witnessed a domestic violence case, (which involved previous history of bdsm for the female submissive, which the defence did try to use against her) the guy still got done for it. I'd love to know what other lunatics have escaped justice because of bdsm in your opinion. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" Club O&I Twisted Decadence Subversion Anti-Christ Torture Garden Non of these are underground clubs. All of them have rules. All allow sex " I only ever went to clubs that allowed sex. " There is a considerable crossover between the kink and swinging scenes and in my opinion the best events embrace that. " Ceasars was one that did it well | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"So let me get this right. Man has consenting sex with a woman. The woman has seizure during their sex. Woman discovers BDSM, enjoys it, finds a coping mechanism to avoid seizure during scenes. Man feels guilty that the woman has found BDSM. Man feels woman is vulnerable or naive because she has epilepsy. Man hates against all BDSM because of this. Have I got that right? No, woman also has a history of domestic abuse and worse. Also an ongoing court case which if they found out could let another lunatic escape justice." I'm assuming she wasn't vulnerable when you had sex with her? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"So let me get this right. Man has consenting sex with a woman. The woman has seizure during their sex. Woman discovers BDSM, enjoys it, finds a coping mechanism to avoid seizure during scenes. Man feels guilty that the woman has found BDSM. Man feels woman is vulnerable or naive because she has epilepsy. Man hates against all BDSM because of this. Have I got that right? No, woman also has a history of domestic abuse and worse. Also an ongoing court case which if they found out could let another lunatic escape justice. I'm assuming she wasn't vulnerable when you had sex with her?" I knew about the epilepsy but not the other stuff till after. And when I met her again I didn't even try to have sex with her. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"So let me get this right. Man has consenting sex with a woman. The woman has seizure during their sex. Woman discovers BDSM, enjoys it, finds a coping mechanism to avoid seizure during scenes. Man feels guilty that the woman has found BDSM. Man feels woman is vulnerable or naive because she has epilepsy. Man hates against all BDSM because of this. Have I got that right? No, woman also has a history of domestic abuse and worse. Also an ongoing court case which if they found out could let another lunatic escape justice. I'm assuming she wasn't vulnerable when you had sex with her? I knew about the epilepsy but not the other stuff till after. And when I met her again I didn't even try to have sex with her." FFS, let it go! Ok, it's not for you, we get it, now let the rest of us enjoy it. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"So let me get this right. Man has consenting sex with a woman. The woman has seizure during their sex. Woman discovers BDSM, enjoys it, finds a coping mechanism to avoid seizure during scenes. Man feels guilty that the woman has found BDSM. Man feels woman is vulnerable or naive because she has epilepsy. Man hates against all BDSM because of this. Have I got that right? No, woman also has a history of domestic abuse and worse. Also an ongoing court case which if they found out could let another lunatic escape justice." Then maybe you should drop it incase it hinders the case | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
