Does BDSM Need Its Own Rights Movement?

[kılıç_mehmet]

But I can't change the mind of a mentality. I can't argue my position in such a way that a mentality understands it and modulates its own position to reflect new information. Mentalities don't have minds: you do.

Your position fits into a certain mentality that I come across whenever I deal with subjects relating to things such as these.
"I have the right to do whatever I want and you don't."
In your mind, it is unthinkable how I would even dare to oppose the freak invasion of public streets.
Perhaps it is time that the public took the fight to wherever you people hang out in.

And you know what, you might have a point there, if there was a subset of the community demanding that just having sex made you immoral and abusive freaks, no matte the context. Since there isn't, your analogy falls flat yet again.

Well, no. Regardless of whatever you do, going on about to inform people about it is the immorality. However I have said nothing about abuse and immorality of your doings. I merely pointed out their abnormal character.
Regardless of whether the deed is normal or abnormal, it is not moral to inform strangers about it just so you can feel proud.

There's a difference between "Here's the details of my sex life," and "You're telling pernicious lies about me and mine based upon your ignorance of these practices. I feel no need to be ashamed of them merely because you want me to." Robbing your side of the power to make us feel bad isn't a bad thing. The really sad part is that if your side had just... not began these lies in the first place, we'd probably have no desire to be quite as out about all this as we are.

No one is telling lies about you or whatever. What is with this ongoing victim mentality of yours?
If you really don't care about what is told in the public about you, then why really go on with this crap?
Our side began with nothing. We didn't even give a damn, at least until you began publicly flaunting your abnormal antics. So keep your antics where they belong, and we can all live in harmony.If you don't, I'm sure you'll be facing an equal force in the direction you applied force into.
In public, in the forms of men and women who are fed up with this freak fest that is infesting their streets.

You can repeat this as often as you want: repetition does not make it true. All you can really say is that you find it unsavory; I submit to you that the world need not bow to the things you dislike.

Well, I find it unsavory because the public does. Its not like I made this all up in my own mind.

You actually have no idea how widespread some of those examples are, and hence have no basis for saying they never happen. Rolleyes

Well, we call such cases "perversion" and the participants, "perverts".

People don't actually have the right not to be around things they dislike, Mehmet. I believe I've said this before; please don't bring imaginary rights into the discussion again.

Well they actually do. I use my right by not visiting those lovely clubs of yours where you get together to do whatever.
Similarly I also reserve the right not to see you in public with your freak clothes on.
You're breaking the public rule of conduct by moving in with your sexual scene into the public scene.
You're forcing everyone to see what you do in your private space, which is termed "private" for a reason.
If you were a public association, I'd not have opposed it, like for example, people who march against racism or who hold political rallies or whatever. They are open to public, and appeal to everyone, not just the members of a single scene. You on the other hand see yourselves above the public.

Equivocation, guilt by association, tainting the well. Rolleyes

I'm not tainting the well, you are.

And again, your opinions aren't somehow reality. You don't like that, I get it. Coprophilia isn't my deal either: the difference is that I'm not going out onto this limb where everything I find distasteful must be bad by definition. I'm not nearly arrogant enough to think that.

Does it matter if its your deal or not? Its a part of your scene, is it? You have to take the good with the bad if you associate with a certain group of individuals.
So take it. Here they are, being normal as ever.

Why do you keep doing that? Why do you keep using "weird" and "abnormal" as if they're inherent qualities that one can reliably detect in things? Those are subjective labels; they don't suddenly become fact because you decide they are.

And I am going to keep on using them because that's what they are. Weird and abnormal.
There are things that appeal to everyone, which are termed "normal" and things that are slightly out of the norm. You are beyond the term "out of the norm", and go into the extremes of weirdness and abnormality.
It doesn't just apply to you, so don't think that you're special or something.
If I ate only live bugs for diet, and out in the open for everyone to see, people would think that I'm weird, and abnormal. They would not treat me as they would treat a normal person. And similarly, you're not doing something that is considered normal by the public. This is why your practices are confined to a small marjinalized portion of society. But knowingly flaunting your abnormal differences only makes me think that you're crawing for attention.

My position is that normality has nothing to do with right or wrong: as demonstrated by the fact that you're not going around talking about how disgusting reading comic books is, despite the fact that it's not mainstream either.

Well, my position on normality has something to do with reality.
Reading comic books is not abnormal. Reading novels isn't abnormal. But reading tentacle hentai is. Similarly, watching action movies is not abnormal. But watching snuff movies is.
You got my point, I hope?

Transparent dodge: let's limit ourselves to vegetarians by choice, then. Are they immoral, because there's less of them than average? Thinking

Looking back at my posts, I have not termed anything "moral" or "immoral".
I used those terms only when they had something to do with overall society.
Vegetarians by choice, given that their numbers are less than average, are people that act out of the norm. However, their position is nowhere in the extremes. On the other hand, frutarianists, who only tend to eat fruits, are in my opinion, abnormal people, they are weird and tend to not fit in with the public wherever they are due to their extreme eating habits limiting their forms of association.
Vegetarians on the other hand are not so.
Similarly, whenever you are out there in the public with your alter-egos, and I think it would be correct to apply this word to it, people see you as the extreme, abnormal freaks you are. What exactly do you expect?
The immorality here is that you do this and then expect that they ignore you, you take away their rights to be offended by the sight you force upon them.
You are extremely self-righteous as you step on the most basic public forms of conduct.

How do you know? Our ability to track fetishes statistically is in its relative infancy; you have absolutely no way of knowing how widespread these things are beyond maybe the sixties or fifties, so you aren't in a position to be saying that at all.

Really, I'm sure that people like you existed in the antiquity, but as I also previously mentioned, they were most probably limited to certain cults and other assorted fraternities with religious undertones.
Given their extreme nature, I do not expect them to have ever found widespread following in any society on earth.

Fiat assertions aren't evidence.

If calling reality "assertion" will make you feel better about yourself, go ahead.

One could say the same of, say, slavery. Dodgy

I don't think so. IF I and a few people today were to advocate slavery, I'm sure we'd be under a lot of pressure. IF we were to stage a protest praising slavery, we'd be at best booed, and worst, lynched.
Just so you know.

See, that's my point: it's demonstrably true that what the norms are sometimes produce terrible, immoral inequality, that gets corrected over time. You're looking at the way things are now, and saying that because of the way norms are now, this clearly represents some move toward the correct position. But you have no way to say that, because we know for a fact that the norms don't only move toward moral positions!

Well, I don't think that you and your kind experience any kind of inequality anywhere, other than that you cannot talk a normal person into participating in whatever weird and abnormal stuff that gives you pleasure.

Oh, slippery slope fallacy now? Can't tell the difference between public and private spaces, or are you just being dishonest?

Well, it is you who cannot tell the difference between public and private space, as evidenced by your freak shows out on the streets.
That was the point of the discussion.

The public decency rules that allow us to legally be in public like that, or Mehmet-land rules, that don't? Thinking

Well, it rather depends on the laws of the countries where public displays of sexuality and sexually explicit material is legal or illegal, but in almost every country, public displays of sex and sexually explicit material(the stuff you people are wearing) are considered to be immoral and against public decency.
I'd really like to see you going out on the streets with your freak suit on and trying to interact with say, a kid. There you will experience the full force of the said public decency rules, and not in Mehmet land, but in your own country.

Public spaces and private spaces again. Rolleyes Context is important, and there's no social cue for that in public.

That was my point. Public and private space. Your freak shows belong to your private space.

It's not a matter of philosophy, I was just observing that my position is more detailed than what I espoused in your quote. I just didn't have time to sit here and work through every last detail of it.

I don't know what details are hidden in your position other than "fuck you I do whatever I want" and "I don't care about the public".

How about the fact that those weird costumes don't speak to the totality of the scene? Leather is a separate fetish, connected to, but not exclusive to, bdsm.

Well, it really matters little to me my friend. If you consider yourself a part of the scene, you take the good with the bad, and as it seems that those weird costumes are part of your scene, and so is the scat and watersports, along with the lot of the other weird and extreme stuff that I have read on the topic.

That's the thing: how deeply into this did you go before you decided what we are? You don't seem particularly interested in getting to know us, to the point that you won't even accept us as human, so I don't have a lot of confidence that you really have a full understanding- or anything close- in order to be making an informed determination.

Really, I have read into the whole BDSM thing and watched a couple of videos even before we had this discussion.
Besides, I do accept you as humans, its just that you do not wish to be seen by others as normal people, you wish to be seen as the abnormal freaks you are, having abnormal kinks and freakish fetishes.
You describe yourself with these kinks and fetishes, they form the basis of your identity as a "sexual minority". So when you appear before me as part of that scene, why would you expect me to treat you any different?
Same goes for me and anyone that defines itself as a member of a group, movement or scene.
Same goes for me. I am not being targeted by my enemies simply because they don't like me, I'm targeted because I'm a member of a group of individuals that have a politcal stance that is in opposition to theirs. I have accepted this while joining the group, and I deal with the consequences in my own way, without whining to others about it.

For example, you call us all leather clad freaks, despite the fact that you're talking to one who has never worn more leather than a watch strap, and who hasn't met a single leather wearer despite being in the community for several years. You've proven yourself happy to cherry pick the most extreme end of the spectrum of our behavior and treat that as the totality of the community, but that's not true; you're discounting the happily married couples who just happen to like wearing collars and spanking, or anyone else who doesn't fit into... well, the cartoon representations of the extreme end of all this, because anything else doesn't confirm beliefs that you already have.

Well, I call you leather clad freaks because this is how you represent yourself. I don't think that I can be any more clearer about this. It is the most visible part of your scene so I think it is only natural for me to define you with whatever you make yourself known.
Better yet, if you had not make yourself known to others, we wouldn't even bother with you!
You deem yourself part of that scene. You either accept the leather wearers, or you don't count yourself in the fucking scene.

The other things yes, dehumanization, no. See, this speaks to the profound ignorance under which you're operating; no matter what I do to my partner- and she can confirm this if you like- the understanding we both have is that I completely adore her. I worship the ground Luckie walks on, and when the play is over, she knows that.

Well, there is the abnormality. Bi-polar relationship.

You, on the other hand, just dismissed a person as human because he's wearing clothes you don't like. So tell me, Mehmet: when's the point at which that'll end, and you'll do even half the things I'd do for Luckie to bring her back up to normal? I mean, that's the only way I could be classified as hypocritical, is if the situations were the same.

Well, I didn't dismiss them as a human, they dismissed themselves when wearing those clothes. I don't need to treat others as anything else than how they treat themselves.

And I don't know what you're talking about, I don't know Luckie personally, and I don't know why you chose to share the identity of your partner with me. I am not going to ask you or her any personal questions about whatever that goes on between you, or whatever personal problems you or she has.
I'm concerned with the public and the public alone.

Dodge, again. It's interesting how dishonest you're being, here.

So let me ask again: in a hypothetical society where leatherwear is commonplace and bdsm is normal to the point of being blase, would that make guys like the ones in your photos normal, and you the freak?

Or will you insist that they would still be freaks, putting the lie to every claim you've made about social norms?

In a hypothetical society in which everyone wore that dress, yes, obviously I'd be in the same position that I advocate here. Public forms of conduct and public decency(in which scenario you produced, it is defined by wearing BDSM suits) come before anything else. I'd not go out in the public, publicly advocating something that people might find unsavory and indecent. I do not view myself above the public under any circumstances. You cannot get me to deny my own position with a reverse scenario, and one that is so hilarious such as this.
The public is a collective consciousness, it is the collective gestalt that is formed by the majority of the people that are in agreement over certain topics that are vital to its workings, and fringe groups do not have the power nor the right to change them at their whims and fancies.
This would cause nothing more than collapse and chaos. Society must have a base set of values and norms for it to function properly.

Answer my question above, and we'll see about that. More importantly, as I've reminded you multiple times, "what society thinks," is not the same as, and has in many cases been the exact opposite of, "what is right."

Society is the people, and the will of the people is realized whether you think it is right or wrong.
If you think that you are in a position to change things(though with your limited vision that is completely irreleavant to real social issues, and more concerned with individual issues, I think its rather unlikely) please do so.
Idealists and visionaries often times have done so, but by winning the hearts and minds of the public.

I'm not the one using norms to justify my position at all, Mehmet. What I'm saying is that using social norms here to determine the moral nature of a group of people means you aren't using facts to make your judgment at all. As I've said to you multiple times, if you're going to base what you think is right and wrong on social norms, then depending on where you are you're going to be supporting things that are outright immoral; geography does not determine morality.

Well you are, since you vehemently denied that your position in relation to society was abnormal throughout the discussion which must mean that you have another view of what is normal and what is not.
And given the fact that your norms are not based on what society thinks, but rather on what would suit your purposes, I'd say that you're doing exactly what I said in the post you quoted in response.

And well, I am using facts, the fact is that the public does not approve of public displays of sexual nature. The reason why the public does not approve of this is due to the immoral nature of these displays. You're publicizing whatever you do in your private moments to people that might not wish to see them. Is that so hard to understand?
Besides, I don't think that the opinion on public display of sexuality is anything but local.
It is in stark contrast with values that actually determine the workings of society.
Privacy, for example, meaning, not fit for the eyes of the public.

I hate having to Godwin, but, Nazi Germany, anyone?

Well, Nazi Germany, in my opinion, had a rather clean, and well working society, based on idealism, tradition and culture. However, it maintained this by the use of force. I would like people to see the advantages of such a society themselves, and regulate themselves accordingly. Meaning, laws would be there to enforce order, while social order would be conserved by strong morals and public vigilance rather than government involvement. The State would only be concerned with indoctrinating the newer generations with the set of moral and cultural values in schools to create clean and well-adjusted members of society.
That's all I have to say about this.