ok all you freaks! Come on out, let us humiliate you, you know you like it. Just kidding. I would love to hear what you all think about parents who openly participate in domination and submition, bondage and discipline, sadomasochism and other fetishes. What effects do you suppose it has on children if they know about these activites? Do you think the children are predisposed to such activity if they are raised ina home where it is known to go on between the parents? Can parents who are involved in such activites rasie children with good societal morals?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
BDSM
- Thread starter hokeshel
- Start date
Werbung:
Okay, I'm game. Well, while I wouldn't specifically identify this as a predisposition or specific urge, I'd be open to the experience. I already know my personality tends me towards being switch/submissive (since I am slightly machocistic)
This would be like asking "do you think the children are predisposed to being gay if they're raised in a home..." Why? Not because I'm dismissing the question, but because it requires a complex answer considering at least the following:
- Keeping in mind the distinction between predisposition and behavior, to what extent in an individual can we consider engaging in BDSM behavior a manifestation of a predisposition? For example, I would do it as a novel experience or as a way to explore intimacy and trust in a relationship, but I would not consider it a cornerstone of my sexuality or mutual interactions.
- We generally assume that one cannot really consider something unless they are exposed to it first, and in this case, were can say that knowledge of BDSM behavior opens one to the possibility of engaging in the behavior but as to whether and how it actually influences them would require a case-by-case multifactorial analysis covering all domains of life from within and without. One's perception of it could be positive from experience/knowledge/reflection, others could be negative, etc.
- How does the BDSM practice manifest anyway? I've outlined one way of looking at it below.
I don't see why not. The way I saw BDSM (and the way it is increasingly being explored in popular media...notably House) is as part of a reciprocal facet of relationships. Ideally, in a consensual environment, it is an act of control and trust. Of course, prima facie, it does appear to blur the lines between consent, and I do think that there'd be cases where BDSM is manifest in what one could call an abusive relationship (this can reflect the cases of "wife who always returns to wife-beater").
Perhaps the reason why this can be such a controversial topic is because our liberalist axiology has given rise to misconceptions. Proper consideration to the values of submission/domination with regard to our individualistic ideal (I am master of my own domain)
Of concern to me, presuming mutual benefit, is the possible medical dangers of some of the practices. For example, the heavy sadomachocism
(drawing blood, strangulation, torture, prolonged contortion/confinement) can be somewhat dangerous and the trauma can cause varying degrees of physical injury. However, for me, it is a matter of making them aware of the potential problems and up to them to mediate their conduct afterward.
I believe that most injuries result from instances in which 1)people are playing with these risky techniques having not been properly trained and without sufficient access to medical assistance. 2) people have gotten involved with an abusive partner who uses the mutual bdsm relationship to carry out the abuse. I think it is important for people interested in these activities to read and to get involved with a bdsm community so that they may learn the facts. More later.
I completely agree. With all high-risk activities, knowledge, access to assistance and caution are all valid concerns. I also see you differentiate between people who engage in BDSM from the abusive subset.
Looking forward to the more later. How come nobody else has replied yet!?
What do you mean by "openly?" I mean, if the parents are bedecked in leather and spanking each other while using nipple clamps at dinnertime on the table, then I'd say I'd be opposed to that. Then again I think parents should be discrete about their sex life in general, at least do it behind a locked door. Walking in on one's parents doing the act, in whatever shape or form, can be pretty traumatic to a child. If not emotionally scarring, then definitely under the "I don't want to see that sh-t!" category.
Fair enough. The basic principle I'd want to adopt there is "appropriate management of behavior" which, for the sake of cohabitation in a broader social context, supervenes to some degree on everything else.
And some children can be quite sensitive. I do remember feeling rather traumatised by things that were completely harmless but had the vague semblance of something that may have reminded me of something negative...you get the idea. It's a complex thing to navigate so obviously care should be taken...in which direction I'm not entirely sure.
And some children can be quite sensitive. I do remember feeling rather traumatised by things that were completely harmless but had the vague semblance of something that may have reminded me of something negative...you get the idea. It's a complex thing to navigate so obviously care should be taken...in which direction I'm not entirely sure.
By openly, I mean that there are people who have dominant/submissive roles and act that way around their children and/or out in public. There are people who have dungeons in their home with all of their kink supplies, crosses, tables, whips etc... There is also a large amount of bdsmers who make their own outifts and toys.
There are many people who live this way. I wrote a paper on it in one of my social work courses; I interviewed many practitioners. My paper was solely from the bdsm standpoint so, I didn't get any feedback from nonpractitioners. Hence the interest.
I could swear i responded to this thread. I think someone is eating my posts.
I dont think any sexual preference should be public knowledge. I just feel somethings should be kept private and not open for public speculation. I dont think my sexual habits should be considered when someone views me as a person. I have so much to me then mere sex habits.
These people have let this become who they are. They are now defined by there sexual nature/perversion. I think anything that does that is unhealthy.
I dont think any sexual preference should be public knowledge. I just feel somethings should be kept private and not open for public speculation. I dont think my sexual habits should be considered when someone views me as a person. I have so much to me then mere sex habits.
These people have let this become who they are. They are now defined by there sexual nature/perversion. I think anything that does that is unhealthy.
(Palefrost- I think you're right about the eating posts thing...it could be a board restoration issue.)
The funny thing is that your post seems contradictory. By this, I mean that the grounds for your criticism of people who allow their sexual preference to be known relies on the presumption of normative practice of values, which you're also implicitly criticising.
In order to make such a bold assertion, of course, I did take a few liberties, so I'll explain:
These people have let this become who they are. They are now defined by there sexual nature/perversion.
The question as to who does the defining must be raised here. The most convenient way to explain this is through Erving Goffman's sociological model of stigma- the relevant phenomenon being that a stigma becomes the defining feature of the person to the exclusion of all else (even though a person usually has "much more to them than mere sex habits"). This is applicable due to our perception of sex and sexuality.
My counter to this is the claim that societal suppression is what exacerbates the "pathological" perception and thus nature of such things. I do not think it productive to think of sex as having some inherent taboo other than to consider it in the framework of the part that it plays in our lives- physical, emotional and relational. Thus (me being idealistic), our assessments should be directed more towards simply how healthy and conducive to productive living in a broader social context something is, rather than to the current standards it might offend...since those are dynamic and should be.
The funny thing is that your post seems contradictory. By this, I mean that the grounds for your criticism of people who allow their sexual preference to be known relies on the presumption of normative practice of values, which you're also implicitly criticising.
In order to make such a bold assertion, of course, I did take a few liberties, so I'll explain:
These people have let this become who they are. They are now defined by there sexual nature/perversion.
The question as to who does the defining must be raised here. The most convenient way to explain this is through Erving Goffman's sociological model of stigma- the relevant phenomenon being that a stigma becomes the defining feature of the person to the exclusion of all else (even though a person usually has "much more to them than mere sex habits"). This is applicable due to our perception of sex and sexuality.
My counter to this is the claim that societal suppression is what exacerbates the "pathological" perception and thus nature of such things. I do not think it productive to think of sex as having some inherent taboo other than to consider it in the framework of the part that it plays in our lives- physical, emotional and relational. Thus (me being idealistic), our assessments should be directed more towards simply how healthy and conducive to productive living in a broader social context something is, rather than to the current standards it might offend...since those are dynamic and should be.
Many bdsm practitioners do not consider it to be just sexuality. They, in fact, say it is a part of who they are, it is how they relate to other people. Many compare it to being homosexual, just another diffrence that they feel they shouldn't hide. Lifestylers will often refer to people who just want to explore it a little in the sexual sense as "wannabes". But, they tend to agree that there is generally an underlying sexuality in much of what they do. Interesting.
This is what i mean. You can include gays in my generalization. I dont think its healthy to define yourself based on your sexual preference, its so one dimensional.
I'm not asking anyone to think as i do on this subject im just stating my beliefs.
When i see gay people carrying on because they are gay or a person dressing up in the whips in chains just for the sole purpose of demonstrating that is what they are "into" I dont see the point. I feel sorry for them. It a cry for attention. Its the most interesting thing about them and they are just trying to work it. I'm not asking them to hide it. I just think it boring and doesnt need the bells and whistles.
Ah okay, I see what you mean, and I think you're right. I am generally not a big supporter of doing something for the sake of engaging in identity politics, as opposed to doing something because you actually like doing something...because that to me tends to defeat the purpose as well as exacerbate the skew of cultural perception. And this too can be applied to just about anything- hence the common terms "hacks" and "posers".
I think you'll find very few people who "openly practice" bdsm in front of their children. If you read discussion boards you'll find lots of threads about how to prevent your children from knowing about your interests. Most people take great care to keep their interests, and their gear, out of sight when the kids are around. In our sexually repressed culture doing anything less can, and has, led to removal of children from the home.
Werbung:
louisgodwin
Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 13
They can, but they need to be wary of where they keep their leather mask, whips, handcuffs, spiked dog-collars, etc. Kids can use those thing as blackmail, you know. You'd never be able to ground them again.
