Protests: Fifty Shades as Glamorizing Domestic Violence

[Darkwind]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

I've never actually seen nor heard of 'punches' being used. Its not that kind of physicality. At worst, a crop or whip will leave a welt. I've never seen one render someone unconscious unless they were into auto-erotic asphyxiation, which really isn't part of the BDSM genre...

 

[September]

Well, if you ENJOY beating people, does that not make you abusive? What if said person could NOT find a partner to go along? Would they just remove it from their repertoire? I think not.

If you enjoy inflicting pain on others- (physical and/ or psychological) - that makes you sadistic... like me. There are plenty of sadistic people in the BDSM scene (mostly women) who enjoy dominating and inflicting pain on the masochists who enjoy it (mostly men)

BDSM helps us channel that energy into something consensual, legal (for the most part lol) and exciting. Both the sadist and the masochist play off each other's pleasures, desires, and fantasies to achieve mind blowing experiences in the dungeon, the bedroom or otherwise...

​

 

[ChrisL]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

What about female boxers? Is our characterization of these women limited to when it's for sexual pleasure? But not sport? I don't see that line myself. Getting hit's getting hit, as is consenting to it or not. Whether sexual or not is irrelevant.

Unsanctioned, uninsured fights are illegal. So, I suppose that for the sake of argument I would concede that if a woman were willing to enter int a sanctioned, and insured relationship where she was going to be beaten on I would have to be okay with that.

Right, but just because a person agrees to it and likes it doesn't mean they aren't fucked up on some level. Oh yes, beat me baby! Lol. How silly.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

I've never actually seen nor heard of 'punches' being used. Its not that kind of physicality. At worst, a crop or whip will leave a welt. I've never seen one render someone unconscious unless they were into auto-erotic asphyxiation, which really isn't part of the BDSM genre...

I concur, which I why I say there is a line. Sane people know where that line is.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, if you ENJOY beating people, does that not make you abusive? What if said person could NOT find a partner to go along? Would they just remove it from their repertoire? I think not.

If you enjoy inflicting pain on others- (physical and/ or psychological) - that makes you sadistic... like me. There are plenty of sadistic people in the BDSM scene (mostly women) who enjoy dominating and inflicting pain on the masochists who enjoy it (mostly men)

BDSM helps us channel that energy into something consensual, legal (for the most part lol) and exciting. Both the sadist and the masochist play off each other's pleasures, desires, and fantasies to achieve mind blowing experiences in the dungeon, the bedroom or otherwise

​

Sure, fucked up people might NEED that to be able to get off. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying it is a sign of mental/emotional instability or a rather poor understanding of love and affection. I would think that a lot of people who were sexually or physically abused as children would find this an attractive alternative because they relate abuse with love and affection. THAT is a fact.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

What about female boxers? Is our characterization of these women limited to when it's for sexual pleasure? But not sport? I don't see that line myself. Getting hit's getting hit, as is consenting to it or not. Whether sexual or not is irrelevant.

Unsanctioned, uninsured fights are illegal. So, I suppose that for the sake of argument I would concede that if a woman were willing to enter int a sanctioned, and insured relationship where she was going to be beaten on I would have to be okay with that.

Right, but just because a person agrees to it and likes it doesn't mean they aren't fucked up on some level. Oh yes, beat me baby! Lol. How silly.

who cares about fucked up? Frankly, I think a guy who likes to suck dick is fucked up on EVERY level, but so what? We have that freedom in this country.

 

[Darkwind]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

I've never actually seen nor heard of 'punches' being used. Its not that kind of physicality. At worst, a crop or whip will leave a welt. I've never seen one render someone unconscious unless they were into auto-erotic asphyxiation, which really isn't part of the BDSM genre...

I concur, which I why I say there is a line. Sane people know where that line is.

Yep, and take extraordinary precautions to ensure it never gets crossed.

 

[ChrisL]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

I've never actually seen nor heard of 'punches' being used. Its not that kind of physicality. At worst, a crop or whip will leave a welt. I've never seen one render someone unconscious unless they were into auto-erotic asphyxiation, which really isn't part of the BDSM genre...

Yes it is. That is included under bondage.

 

[Anathema]

A contract would offer some legal protection if she sued him.

As ChrisL pointed out.... I don't believe that women should have that venue available to them. Women properly exist as assistants to Men... to Serve and to Please. Nothing more.

 

[ChrisL]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

What about female boxers? Is our characterization of these women limited to when it's for sexual pleasure? But not sport? I don't see that line myself. Getting hit's getting hit, as is consenting to it or not. Whether sexual or not is irrelevant.

Unsanctioned, uninsured fights are illegal. So, I suppose that for the sake of argument I would concede that if a woman were willing to enter int a sanctioned, and insured relationship where she was going to be beaten on I would have to be okay with that.

Right, but just because a person agrees to it and likes it doesn't mean they aren't fucked up on some level. Oh yes, beat me baby! Lol. How silly.

who cares about fucked up? Frankly, I think a guy who likes to suck dick is fucked up on EVERY level, but so what? We have that freedom in this country.

So do I. I'm discussing the topic and expressing my opinion on people who enjoy abuse in one form or another. That is what this forum is for, correct? I never said it should be illegal. I said people who participate in this are fucked up, and it is not sex, nor is it normal to want to be abused or to want to inflict abuse on another human being. That is fucked up, no matter what you say.

 

[September]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

I've never actually seen nor heard of 'punches' being used. Its not that kind of physicality. At worst, a crop or whip will leave a welt. I've never seen one render someone unconscious unless they were into auto-erotic asphyxiation, which really isn't part of the BDSM genre...

Yes it is. That is included under bondage.

It'd be more under "breath play" :-D​

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

I've never actually seen nor heard of 'punches' being used. Its not that kind of physicality. At worst, a crop or whip will leave a welt. I've never seen one render someone unconscious unless they were into auto-erotic asphyxiation, which really isn't part of the BDSM genre...

And I was talking about something like this




Now to me, it's pretty clear that that woman chooses to be in that relationship and even participates in it; but what that jerk did goes beyond what any woman should be allowed to consent to .

 

[ChrisL]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

I've never actually seen nor heard of 'punches' being used. Its not that kind of physicality. At worst, a crop or whip will leave a welt. I've never seen one render someone unconscious unless they were into auto-erotic asphyxiation, which really isn't part of the BDSM genre...

Yes it is. That is included under bondage.

It'd be more under "breath play" :-D

Still, it involves bondage though.

 

[Darkwind]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

What about female boxers? Is our characterization of these women limited to when it's for sexual pleasure? But not sport? I don't see that line myself. Getting hit's getting hit, as is consenting to it or not. Whether sexual or not is irrelevant.

Unsanctioned, uninsured fights are illegal. So, I suppose that for the sake of argument I would concede that if a woman were willing to enter int a sanctioned, and insured relationship where she was going to be beaten on I would have to be okay with that.

Right, but just because a person agrees to it and likes it doesn't mean they aren't fucked up on some level. Oh yes, beat me baby! Lol. How silly.

who cares about fucked up? Frankly, I think a guy who likes to suck dick is fucked up on EVERY level, but so what? We have that freedom in this country.

Yep. Again, its that Conservative thing in Me. I don't need, nor want government telling Me or others what they can do as adults. As long as they are not harming minors or crossing a non-consenting line, stay out of My business.

I Myself am not into men. Who wants a hairy ass when the female form is just so enticing? Even those that many don't find attractive have that special quality that makes it much more than any man can provide.

But hey, that's just Me....I'm not about to make a law against someone else doing what they want in the privacy of their own home or club....just keep it away from the children.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

I've never actually seen nor heard of 'punches' being used. Its not that kind of physicality. At worst, a crop or whip will leave a welt. I've never seen one render someone unconscious unless they were into auto-erotic asphyxiation, which really isn't part of the BDSM genre...

Yes it is. That is included under bondage.

It'd be more under "breath play" :-D

More like masturbation. Anything ya do by yourself being that.

 

[Darkwind]

I wouldn't think it's a partisan thing. I think instead it's a tunnel-vision thing. People don't consider the bigger picture and only see the acts like Chris only sees some guy hitting some gal. She doesn't see the fact that the gal can tell the guy to stop at any moment as with "safe words" these people utilize. Nor she seem to see the reality of "abuse" not having a safe-word to make it stop.

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

I've never actually seen nor heard of 'punches' being used. Its not that kind of physicality. At worst, a crop or whip will leave a welt. I've never seen one render someone unconscious unless they were into auto-erotic asphyxiation, which really isn't part of the BDSM genre...

And I was talking about something like this




Now to me, it's pretty clear that that woman chooses to be in that relationship and even participates in it; but what that jerk did goes beyond what any woman should be allowed to consent to .

That's not sex. That's douche-baggery...

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I will say this though, there is definitely a line.

If a woman is willing to consent to being punched so hard that she is actually physically harmed, I would contend that that woman is mentally incapable of consenting to anything.

What about female boxers? Is our characterization of these women limited to when it's for sexual pleasure? But not sport? I don't see that line myself. Getting hit's getting hit, as is consenting to it or not. Whether sexual or not is irrelevant.

Unsanctioned, uninsured fights are illegal. So, I suppose that for the sake of argument I would concede that if a woman were willing to enter int a sanctioned, and insured relationship where she was going to be beaten on I would have to be okay with that.

Right, but just because a person agrees to it and likes it doesn't mean they aren't fucked up on some level. Oh yes, beat me baby! Lol. How silly.

who cares about fucked up? Frankly, I think a guy who likes to suck dick is fucked up on EVERY level, but so what? We have that freedom in this country.

So do I. I'm discussing the topic and expressing my opinion on people who enjoy abuse in one form or another. That is what this forum is for, correct? I never said it should be illegal. I said people who participate in this are fucked up, and it is not sex, nor is it normal to want to be abused or to want to inflict abuse on another human being. That is fucked up, no matter what you say.

I understand that. My point is that you are calling them fucked up, but if you went into a thread about gay marriage and called them fucked up , you would be crucified.

When I said that a person who thinks its okay to walk around naked in front of their children is fucked up , you went nuts

 

[ChrisL]

What about female boxers? Is our characterization of these women limited to when it's for sexual pleasure? But not sport? I don't see that line myself. Getting hit's getting hit, as is consenting to it or not. Whether sexual or not is irrelevant.

Unsanctioned, uninsured fights are illegal. So, I suppose that for the sake of argument I would concede that if a woman were willing to enter int a sanctioned, and insured relationship where she was going to be beaten on I would have to be okay with that.

Right, but just because a person agrees to it and likes it doesn't mean they aren't fucked up on some level. Oh yes, beat me baby! Lol. How silly.

who cares about fucked up? Frankly, I think a guy who likes to suck dick is fucked up on EVERY level, but so what? We have that freedom in this country.

So do I. I'm discussing the topic and expressing my opinion on people who enjoy abuse in one form or another. That is what this forum is for, correct? I never said it should be illegal. I said people who participate in this are fucked up, and it is not sex, nor is it normal to want to be abused or to want to inflict abuse on another human being. That is fucked up, no matter what you say.

I understand that. My point is that you are calling them fucked up, but if you went into a thread about gay marriage and called them fucked up , you would be crucified.

When I said that a person who thinks its okay to walk around naked in front of their children is fucked up , you went nuts

I did? Lol. That's news to me. I don't remember going "nuts" about it at all. I just said that is not abuse. Being nude is not abusing anyone. Sorry.

 

[Darkwind]

What about female boxers? Is our characterization of these women limited to when it's for sexual pleasure? But not sport? I don't see that line myself. Getting hit's getting hit, as is consenting to it or not. Whether sexual or not is irrelevant.

Unsanctioned, uninsured fights are illegal. So, I suppose that for the sake of argument I would concede that if a woman were willing to enter int a sanctioned, and insured relationship where she was going to be beaten on I would have to be okay with that.

Right, but just because a person agrees to it and likes it doesn't mean they aren't fucked up on some level. Oh yes, beat me baby! Lol. How silly.

who cares about fucked up? Frankly, I think a guy who likes to suck dick is fucked up on EVERY level, but so what? We have that freedom in this country.

So do I. I'm discussing the topic and expressing my opinion on people who enjoy abuse in one form or another. That is what this forum is for, correct? I never said it should be illegal. I said people who participate in this are fucked up, and it is not sex, nor is it normal to want to be abused or to want to inflict abuse on another human being. That is fucked up, no matter what you say.

I understand that. My point is that you are calling them fucked up, but if you went into a thread about gay marriage and called them fucked up , you would be crucified.

When I said that a person who thinks its okay to walk around naked in front of their children is fucked up , you went nuts

??

When did I do that?

 

[ChrisL]

What about female boxers? Is our characterization of these women limited to when it's for sexual pleasure? But not sport? I don't see that line myself. Getting hit's getting hit, as is consenting to it or not. Whether sexual or not is irrelevant.

Unsanctioned, uninsured fights are illegal. So, I suppose that for the sake of argument I would concede that if a woman were willing to enter int a sanctioned, and insured relationship where she was going to be beaten on I would have to be okay with that.

Right, but just because a person agrees to it and likes it doesn't mean they aren't fucked up on some level. Oh yes, beat me baby! Lol. How silly.

who cares about fucked up? Frankly, I think a guy who likes to suck dick is fucked up on EVERY level, but so what? We have that freedom in this country.

So do I. I'm discussing the topic and expressing my opinion on people who enjoy abuse in one form or another. That is what this forum is for, correct? I never said it should be illegal. I said people who participate in this are fucked up, and it is not sex, nor is it normal to want to be abused or to want to inflict abuse on another human being. That is fucked up, no matter what you say.

I understand that. My point is that you are calling them fucked up, but if you went into a thread about gay marriage and called them fucked up , you would be crucified.

When I said that a person who thinks its okay to walk around naked in front of their children is fucked up , you went nuts

They ARE fucked up. They are. If you GET OFF on hurting other people, you are fucked up. Just to be clear, I use "you" in the general sense, not you personally. I always want to make that clear because some people will think I am referring to their person when I am not.