- Mariandl wrote:
The BDSM scene is a community defined by sexuality
- Mariandl wrote:
- an alternate sexuality where some of the rules of the vanilla world do not apply.
We may lay more rules over the top of our ordinary ones. But I don't know of too many rules that get flung out the window just because we're kinked.
- Mariandl wrote:
A new person joining the scene doesn't know the norms, and is trying to fit in. She may naturally assume that whatever happens when she arrives is usual and accepted in the community.
Every event I go to I have to read the rules before walking in the door. A few added sentences here or there might make a big difference to some of those newbies.
- Mariandl wrote:
That said, even knowing it's not ok for someone to walk up and touch you, won't necessarily protect you from unwanted advances. Unwelcome touching may sometimes take the form of a "sneak" attack, a "stealth grope" and the victim is so taken by surprise, she doesn't respond. I admire those to whom it has happened who have handled it with aplomb. Some of us to whom it hasn't happened may feel it is because of all the things we have done right. But maybe it just hasn't happened *yet.*
If you want to get rid of predators, then don't stand around wringing your hands. (You, generic, not you personally) If someone is willing to cross boundaries in this manner, then they need to be dealt with. This isn't an issue just for the kink community. It can happen anywhere at any time. The response should be the same as what happens out on the street.
Even as a member of a theoretically sexual minority group, I have the right to say where, when, and how my sexuality is engaged in. If I don't tell you you can do something, you can't. That's pretty simple.
- Mariandl wrote:
Unwanted attention can be experienced in vanilla situations, but there is even more scope for it in the BDSM context because of the nudity,
- Mariandl wrote:
the atmosphere, which can be sexually charged and because of the views of some people that subs, in general, owe deference to doms, in general.
It most certainly isn't *unless* that's stated in the party or event rules from the beginning and all parties are aware of and agree to it.
- Mariandl wrote:
People who believe the latter are not necessarily foolish or misguided, nor do they necessarily have "larger issues." They just have a different view of how BDSM is done.
No means no. Sub does *not* equate to free target. And at events where those two things are clearly spelled out from the beginning those people that believe that subs generally owe deference to doms in general are going to have to adjust their behavior *at* *that* *event* if they wish to participate there.
Just like I would have to adjust my behavior if I was at one of *their* events where such behavior was expected.
Those beliefs, alone, don't make someone a predator. Inappropriate *usage* of those beliefs may indicate that someone has issues with boundaries.
- Mariandl wrote:
No does not necessarily mean no in a BDSM context.
- Mariandl wrote:
If it did, we would not need safewords; we would just say, "no" when we needed to. We can agree that consent is key (and Lady Bitch certainly exposed some of the complexities of consent in her post; it's not as simple as it looks) but lots of us like to play even with this fundamental concept too: the "consensual non-consensual" scene or the "fantasy rape" scene, or the "brat who needs to be subdued" scene..
*HE* has the right to ignore my no if he chooses.
No one *else* has that right.
- Mariandl wrote:
I get a strong sense that you feel victims of predatory behaviour get what they get because they have turned off their brains and are overly influenced by their fantasies.
However, I *do* believe that we, as a community, have done a disservice to subs and newbies by promoting the idea that they need protection, that it's "just the way it is", or that "some people have different beliefs about what sub/dom is".
We need to step up and take the hit for not having educated them in the first place. If someone needs to be "protected", we haven't done our jobs to educated them and in teaching them how to protect themselves.
Because *we* will not always be there *to* protect them. We can't be in the bedroom when their partner crosses the line. We can only be at public events and socials. In the end, it is *THEIR* lives that may be on the line. And *they* need to be able to protect themselves.
- Mariandl wrote:
Yet it is our fantasies that brought most of us here in the first place. Many of us have rape fantasies; few of us would enjoy actually being raped. This kind of distinction has confused a lot of really great minds (Freud, for example). It's not surprising it could confuse some ordinary people. Ignorance is not the same thing as stupidity.
Things like rape fantasies, blood play, breath play, knife and gun play...all of those things are edge play for a reason. They're *dangerous* and take a great deal of preparation.
Whips and floggers are dangerous too. Just a different kind of dangerous. *Everything* we do has consequences. It's not a game. Even kneeling at another person's feet can have huge emotional effect if you're not prepared.
It's my belief that people should not be playing together until the appropriate level of trust is reached. So you *know* that you're going to be safe. Most people disagree with that, from what I've seen of people meeting and playing on the first or second date.
Even *I* have broken my own rules about it. I was lucky in the men that I chose to break that rule with. Not everyone will be that lucky. That's why education is so important. And stressing that people shouldn't be playing the night they meet someone.
