Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Thanks for the complement Anony, I am glad that you enjoy my posts and have been able to find pleasure in something other than hurting others to satisfy your needs. See there is a whole world of fun out there that has nothing to do with abuse. I know that this is like trying to tell a believer that god does not exist but you see you can find enjoyment without hurting someone else. You should try it again, you might find its more fun than the mean and nasty world of sadism.
“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.”
Anony
Oh yes that’s right, sorry forgive me, I am mistaken. I don’t understand (that saying again). Sadism isn't about abuse at all is it? Oh no its about fluffy hand cuffs, gently doms, and afternoons of fun spanking subs. Hang on though, isn’t it about wifely contracts as well, isnt it about torture chambers, and cutting, and canning, and whiping? Isn't it about humiliation, and beatings to ensure rules are obeyed? Isnt it about abusers pandering to their ego’s by manipulating others to exhalt them to feed their narcissistic belief in their own superiority?
Nearly won me over there anony, but unfortunately I do know about this ‘whole field of play and intimacy’(sic). I see that the ‘fluffy hand cuffs’ brigade use the same argument to legitimize their abuse that the German cannibal used when he ate his victim. Exactly the same argument, the big lie that is ‘informed consent’. I see the oft repeated argument that abuse is some higher form of love, something us poor non abusers just aren’t able to understand. I see that sadistic relationships rarely last due to the manevolent influence that sadism wields because of the need to push the boundaries of abuse further and further, just so the abuser obtains their pleasure you understand. I could fill the page with the contradictions that are inherent in sadism, but then ‘sadists represent only a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the entire spectrum of BDSM’.
Really! So what part of this ‘spectrum’ of BDSM does not involve sadism? When I talk about sadism I mean bondage, domination and sado masochism. I use the word sadism because it is derived from the writings of the Marquis De Sade who wrote about bondage domination and torture. So please Anony, would you tell us what part of of the ‘spectrum’ of BDSM has nothing to do with sadism?
“And you're only opinion is that anyone that enjoys this as a piece of their life is mentally ill.”
Anony
I don’t doubt that there is anyone on this planet who does not suffer from some sort of ‘mental and behavioral disorder’, but I replied to ‘hurt by the hate’ when they equivocally stated that sadism is not listed in DSM IV TR. Actually it is, but there is a whole argument about the incomprehensible criteria within DSM that means that anyone can get it to justify any argument they like. I pointed out that DCM 10 states unequivocally that sadomasochism is a ‘mental and behavioral disorder’.
This is a fact not opinion.
“This statement is deranged, completely irrelevant...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.)”
Anony
This is simply your opinion Anony, I am merely questioning your defence of sadism. why do you find this so threatening? I don’t expect you to like it but it is a bit rich to pontificate about ‘irreverence’ ‘deranged’ and ‘inane’ statements (good use of a thesaurus by the way), whilst conveniently disregarding any awkward arguments. Instead of debating the matter in a mature and adult manner, you create a smoke screen of invective so anyone reading this thread is distracted by the whine of you venting your spleen at anyone who has the temerity to question your self serving dogma.
Is it that your logic dictates that the only outcome of any discussion has to support the BDSM lifestyle? If it doesn’t support the lifestyle then it isn’t logical? This seems to be the starting point of your argument. From there any discussion is meaningless because by your strange criteria, if an opinion doesn’t agree with your doctrine it is not logical. Why are you so intolerant of non sadists holding an opinion that is different from yours, why do you attack them for ‘idiocy’ simply because they question your arguments? Could it be that your argument is so poor that it falls apart like wet tissue paper when examined under the harsh light of criticism? No better to attack me than allow a real investigation of your assertions.
“Since you are so into "mental illness," and the ICD-10 codes, look up persecutory delusional disorder.”
Anony
That’s easy to find Anony, thanks for the diagnosis. Now where is Narcissistic personality disorder again?
>Oh yes that’s right, sorry forgive me, I am mistaken. I >don’t understand (that saying again). Sadism isn't about >abuse at all is it? Oh no its about fluffy hand cuffs, >gently doms, and afternoons of fun spanking subs. Hang on >though, isn’t it about wifely contracts as well, isnt it >about torture chambers, and cutting, and canning, and >whiping? Isn't it about humiliation, and beatings to >ensure rules are obeyed? Isnt it about abusers pandering >to their ego’s by manipulating others to exhalt them to >feed their narcissistic belief in their own superiority?"
Ad Hominem. Just all all into BDSM all really just sick sadists and abusers, so too all Germans are Nazis and all blacks lazy and all whites racist and...
What if someone is into BDSM that involves no pain or torture whatsoever? Is that still abusive and sick?
>I see that the ‘fluffy hand cuffs’ brigade use the same >argument to legitimize their abuse that the German >cannibal used when he ate his victim. Exactly the same >argument, the big lie that is ‘informed consent’.
Irrelevant. "Someone else uses a similar argument to justify something bad, so you must be wrong."
>This is simply your opinion Anony, I am merely questioning >your defence of sadism.
No, you aren't. Anony never really claimed to be defending sadism. He is attempting to speak about a spectrum of activites described by the (extremely general) umbrella term, 'BDSM,' and you are characterising what he defends as sadism, and than spouting off about how sadism is bad.
But you are sure that you are right, which in my experience is the source of half of all faulty logic in the world, at the least. Feeling good about being able to spot logical phallacies, Sparty? Turn that powerful lens inward, huh?
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
