Bondage Forums

"You're vile! You're flawed! You're foul!"
"Also cute and fluffy!"

These themes closely parallel Heff's favorite rant, with which I agree: we shouldn't tolerate fools. *shrug* but alas, the fools outnumber us.

BTW, nice ass.
--

My own personal observations and interactions with members here, -
I find that for the better part - most people here are highly intelligent, are much more (formally) educated than 'others' I have observed in several non-related groups & sites, and are that much more civil & considerate of each other.

To me, - the word 'geek' connotes more of a base, crude, carnival 'performer' type person who is involved with 'performing' more sensational, morbid and disgusting acts.
We are in this community because it is our preferences and our individual likes, not so much of 'performance acts'. I know there are people here who have formed long term friendships & relationships, and are quite serious and proud of that.

--

Thanks for the compliment, and the pic. A nice way to wake up.

The Hungry Tiger has also touched upon these themes, especially the idea that the BDSM community is somehow "persecuted," and the perverted consequences to which that belief leads. Ellison has also made some useful posts to this end.

Most of these are clearly grotesques of very good principles of human behaviour. That is, they are principles that have been taken to the logical extreme and in so doing, have become negative instead of positive influences.

We all know that ostracising someone can cause them pain, and that as a general rule, causing pain is Not Good (outside of the BDSM context, ;-) ).

Humans' tribal nature means also that for the sake of cohesion and collective survival, sometimes it is necessary to include someone we'd rather not.

Now, the context of the article wasn't clear - whether the events were supposed to be "a bunch of friends getting together" or something more official in the same manner, like a munch. If you have an official "all are welcome" policy, it is very hard to exclude people just because you don't happen to like them. On the other hand, if someone's behaviour becomes genuinely problematic or unacceptable in the context of the group, then exclusion may become necessary - the same tribal imperative that once promoted inclusion will then require rejection.

"Friends Accept Me As I Am" as described, is not a grotesque, but a learned behaviour that needs to be unlearned - it is learned through the process of exclusion; then when criticism is encountered again, it often sufficiently resembles the cruel exclusion from before that the same emotional state is triggered - and it is more hurtful because it comes from people considered close.

The grotesque version of FAMAIA is when the principle of loyalty is invoked. Friends are supposed to be loyal and supportive of one another. The grotesque of this principle is when that loyalty is used to expect someone's support even in the most foolhardy or harmful of endeavours. As a good friend, I usually sound a note of caution, but give my friend the space they need to do their foolhardy thing anyway, if they choose not to heed what I say.

Which leads us to YKIOK.

YKIOK's grotesque form is as described above, and takes the same structure as the grotesque FAMAIA.

YKIOK's healthy form takes the same non-judgemental advisory form as the non-grotesque FAMAIA: when someone wishes to embark on exploring in r/l a fantasy that is very likely to be harmful, we have a duty to sound the alarms and make sure that the person involved is aware of the potential risks, physical, mental and legal, before they do it. However, if after all that they are still determined to do it, then we are not our brother's keeper: they will remain our friend, and - if they survive - will continue to remain our friend.

On the subject of being non-judgemental, which of the following is seen as "blatantly bizarre": nappy-wearing as an adult; taking pleasure in being beaten with a whip; having sex while wearing an animal costume; wanting sex with someone much shorter than oneself; wanting sex with amputees; wanting to be denied sexual contact with the genitals? My point being: what is seen as "blatantly bizarre" by some, may not be seen that way by others, even if those others would say of it YKINMK

It's not applicable because it's not a parallel.

Incidentally, the GSF#3 is a simple extension of the grotesque friendship-loyalty complex. One is supposed to be supportive of one's friends, and this simply takes that to absurd lengths.

As for BDSM, it's no parallel, in the same way that one would not expect a criticism that a gay person only sees the world through a lens of gayness.

There is a different grotesque structure at work where people come to identify themselves solely through one characteristic - e.g. "I am gay therefore everything I do must have something to do with being gay" or "I am a BDSM slave, therefore I must have no hobbies or interests that are not directly related to that". This appears to be the BDSM grotesque being picked out here, but it is a different question.

Again, I am not convinced of the BDSM parallel here.

This grotesque, like the last one, is a consequence of the earlier fallacies: if "Ostracism is Wrong", and "A Friend Of A Friend Is A Friend", then omitting any friend from anything is wrong, because it may cause feelings of rejection in that friend.

A healthy form is, of course, to invite those friends who would a) enjoy the company and b) enjoy the event. The healthy form also enables other friends not to be left out, in the "Monday Morning At The Office Gossip" structure (i.e. you tell them all about the interesting bits later).

In general, I have only ever encountered the healthy form in BDSM. Because of the YKINMK structure, it is not to be expected that every friend of a friend will be interested in the same experiences; it is also not expected that every friend will be available.

The "incestuous" nature of BDSM as identified by the OP arises because BDSM is itself a very small subsection of society, and in any given catchment area there will not be a huge amount of people who fall into the category. Thus, it tends to be the same people at different events in the same area. Because some people are more mobile than others, there is also a "Small World" principle at work ("Small World" is a mathematical concept used to describe certain types of networks such as human relationship networks, the name being based on the common experience of meeting people in far-off places who happen to know someone we do).

The harmful effects of BDSM being "incestuous" can therefore be lessened in part by the Small World effect - but to an observer it might make it appear more incestuous.

Ta,

SnowdropExplodes
--
"Defeat was glory in such a struggle; victory indeed made us only a little lower than angels"

As a former organizer of social events for a BDSM group, I can honestly say there were people we would rather have excluded from our invitation list because of their lack of social graces or lack of "smarts". However, because we were an open group and could not specify that members were required to be graduates of the Miss Manners School of Social Graces, nor could we require them to meet certain criteria when it came to intelligence, they were invited to every event.

The only people we WERE allowed to exclude were the dangerous ones, people who had proven (through actions observed by the community at large) that they were unsafe to the rest of the community. (The process to have them removed from the group was rather involved.)

Simply being unable (for whatever reason) to manage socially is not a requirement for membership in any group I'm aware of, nor should it be.

But who decides what kink is okay, and what isn't? Who decides what is "blatantly bizarre and possibly harmful" and what is acceptable?

The people in the area I just moved from plays a lot harder than the people in the area I just moved to... hence, my style of play isn't entirely acceptable to the people here, but it's quite acceptable where I come from. Needles, knives, and other blood drawing instruments are all in good fun there - but here, no one plays that hard at a party. To me, my kink is perfectly acceptable, but to the people I've run into in my new area, I'm a freak.

If someone can tell me who decides what's acceptable, and what isn't, and who I apply to for that license to be OKAY... I'd really appreciate it

Can't fault this one. I'm one of those that has most of my friendships in the kink community and very little contact with my family. However, I agree with SnowdropExplodes - my life is filtered through the lens of being a mother, a daughter, a lover, bisexual, and kinky (among other things). When I discuss anything with anyone else, my point of view is going to be from there. I can't change that.