Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Composites and little adjustments of the truth, indeed. I could barely concentrate on the contents of the article, because these two little words kept dancing around in my head: James Frey, James Frey ... At any rate, am I the only one on the planet who wishes the whole world would just shut up about its sexuality already?
“and they don't have an iota of a clue as to what they are arguing against. They have no experience and therefore "imagine" what it is they attack. They attack all BDSM as "sadism." They proudly show the world their ignorance with insults tinged with anger and hate and pronouncements of righteous judgement.”
Anonymous
I addresed the continually repeated argument which sadists always trot out ‘you are not allowed to hold an opinion because you have never tried it.’ I explained so even they can understand that it is possible to hold an opinion about something you have never tried, and for that opinion to be equally as valid.
So what do we get in reply?
The same argument (yawn) ‘They have no experience and therefore "imagine" what it is they attack’.
To follow this strange reasoning to its logical conclusion no murderer would ever be convicted. In this wacky world, only people who have murdered would be able to sit on a jury because only they have ‘experience’ of what it is like to murder.
And what about people who have been through sadism and regard it as abuse? Are they allowed to hold an opinion? What about the woman who saw her husband change from the loving life partner into the deranged torturer thanks to the malicious influence of sadism? Is she allowed to hold an opinion? Or is it only people who agree with sadism that hold any currency in this strange land?
There is a word for this. Its called Dogma.
“Clearly with the subject of BDSM there is too much to attempt to process for these two...better to simply insult, attack and try to emotionally "hurt" those who understand.”
Anonymous
I see so it my fault! Im just not clever enough to ‘understand’ your arguments so its not worth you troubling yourself to educate me. What arogance! You know what? There is an opinion that sadism is closly linked to narccism, I think you have just gone long way to prove it. A closed mind asks no questions, unthinkingly accepting that which it wants to believe. The blindness is all yours.
Next is the sympathy argument, one to pull at the heart strings this. Pity these poor misunderstood sadists who choose to abuse complaining about being ‘emotionally “hurt” because somone has have the temerity to question their warped lust. Ahh didums, what do you want? A benefit concert?
You really would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh!
“Example: if you are into torture you are fucked up.
I couldn't find "fucked up" in the DSM-IV TR. Is that a clinical term. What do people who engage in BDSM suffer from?”
Confused by the Hate.
Well confused you might try the ICD 10, which is a United Nations publication concerning the International Classification of Diseases and is accepted by the overwhelming majority of governments in the world.
You will find Sado Masochism listed there under ‘Mental and Behavioural disorders’
“F65.5 states Sadomasochism A preference for sexual activity which involves the infliction of pain or humiliation, or bondage. If the subject prefers to be the recipient of such stimulation this is called masochism; if the provider, sadism. Often an individual obtains sexual excitement from both sadistic and masochistic activities.”
Anyhow I wouldn’t use the DSM-IV TR as reference for anything. Ever since the gang of four took over the APA in an effective ‘coup’, the APA has lost all credibility within the psychiatric community, even in the U.S. They have been floundering ever since DSM effectively declassified Paedophilia as a mental disorder a couple of revisions ago, much to the horror of just about everyone. They soon did an about turn under the howls of protest, and have never really recovered from this debacle. There is a movement to set up a rival association for psychiatrists such is the exasperation many within the APA have for their leadership.
Spartacus,
You are just a pocket Einstein. Reading your emails delights me to no end...I laugh my ass off. I'd suggest you take a course in philosophy...so you could understand just why you're diatribes have nothing to do with deductive logic. As a matter of fact, you possess the amazing gift of just throwing completely illogical, non-relevant stuff out there in an attempt to, as always, attack what you don't like and don't understand.
You don't discuss you simply attack.
You state, "I addresed the continually repeated argument which sadists always trot out ‘you are not allowed to hold an opinion because you have never tried it.’ I explained so even they can understand that it is possible to hold an opinion about something you have never tried, and for that opinion to be equally as valid."
No body said that at all. Nobody said you aren't allowed to hold an opinion. Again, making stuff up that never happened in order to rightously attack. Since you are so into "mental illness," and the ICD-10 codes, look up persecutory delusional disorder.
Do you understand that actual sadists represent only a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the entire spectrum of BDSM? No. Why not? Because you don't know much about this entire, HUGE, field of play and intimacy. You just decide its all about sadism. *Boom* end of discussion. That's your conclusion...and no "discussion" can take place, because you're the decider of what we're talking about...er...make that what you are talking about.
And you're only opinion is that anyone that enjoys this as a piece of their life is mentally ill. And that is that. That is the end of it. Just continual "you're mentally ill" yada, yada, yada from you. Dude, that ain't an opinion...it's a judgemental conclusion made in advance without any experience...the soap box you built to yell from.
And here is the thing...no body is trying to change your mind about anything. Who cares? You have made it perfectly clear. You've stated your be-all-end-all conclusion about this subject. So, you're pushed to the side of being relevent to any discussion on this matter. You're done.
You go on to state, "To follow this strange reasoning to its logical conclusion no murderer would ever be convicted. In this wacky world, only people who have murdered would be able to sit on a jury because only they have ‘experience’ of what it is like to murder."
This statement is deranged, completely irrelevent...makes no sense...and only further proves your inane reasoning. I don't know why I use the word reasoning...no reasoning involved. Fortunately, you can use this type of idiocy to attack anyone about any subject at any time. (And then they turn their back to you and chuckle.)
Ok...go on...attack away, as we all know you will. I can't wait for the next act of yours...just what foolish, inane things will you state next time...ROFLO
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
