|
|
|
|
I'm bothered by bondage and sadism and masochism. I think it is because sex, for me, is about being nice to people. Anything which approaches cruelty, involves pain or coercion seems to me a perversion of an instinct (sex) that need not have any downside.
The Mormon guy whose appeal for advice appears in another thread seemed to be completely inexperienced and I worried that if he did what he was considering, and became a slave and got together with a Master, he would never learn how two lovers can achieve ecstasy by being nice to each other. I think it might make it hard for him ever to discover sexual love.
I was a *very* late developer and was (I think) extremely lucky that my early experience didn't include anything that hurt me or my partner in sex (I sadly didn't ever have a male 'partner' involving commitment to each other).
I'm starting this thread partly because I read the 'Story of Tim' by Jack Rowan on the IOMFATS site and, despite being disturbed by it I stuck with it to the end. I wrote to Timmy and the author about it but didn't really have anything back to assuage my worries.]What do other people think?
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
these people who find themselves getting into BDSM are the ones who in school were bullies or kids who had a mean streak in them that couldnt be resolved except thru an act of cruelty. Ive known several of these people and they are al the same. Now, Some of you are going to come along and say how its consenting adults and its another expression of love, blah blah blah. Bull Shit!!!! Most of these people seek out weak vulnerable kids who have no experience in life and humiliate them and abuse them and call it love and they pervert the very nature of love. I could go into a real diatrib about this, but I wont becasue it upsets me to no end.
Anthony.... you are 100% correct in how you feel. These people are monsters, even to the point that some of the slaves never survive the ordeal. When a boy becomes to old or is no longer a thril some are even sold off to human trafficers and wind up castrated and in Saudi Arabia.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
As I stated before in another post I've never been comfortable with the whole M/S thing, I guess if consenting adults are into to it, so be it, none of my business. The same hold true with Bondage (BDSM), its not my cup of tea as you Brits are fond of saying, but far for me to judge what consenting adults do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
That story also disturbed me. However I both read it and hosted it because I see the purpose, sometimes, of re-enacting an abusive situation while deeply in a role of trusting someone. Note the word "sometimes".
It portrays someone who, normally, would be far to young to be in such a relationship, and who enters it willingly, knowing always that he can leave it. That story is a love story, albeit an unusual one, and one not to everyone's taste.
The thing we who are perplexed by master/slave BDSM matters need to understand is that the participants have a very different view of what "being nice to each other" is from our own. That is as hard to understand for us as for a heterosexual man to understand why a man wishes to have sex with a man.
I have some very good friends, husband and wife, who are master and slave. While I don't profess to understand her need to be caned, nor his need to cane, I understand that it meets their needs and can work out that they are, in their different manner, being nice to each other, and that they do reach ecstatic heights from their roles.
But I do not choose this for myself. I can get as far as mild bondage and understand why that has an appeal (it allows things to happen that I would not normally feel able to suggest and prevents me form objecting unless I choose to use a safeword), but I am not in to giving or receiving pain. But others are.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Roger, I can't let that one go. It's perfectly reasonable to feel that the BDSM scene is inappropriate, but by no means all of the participants are as you say. I'm sure that some are precisely as you paint them, though.
There is a huge difference between abuse, a thing we can all recognise, and a loving, albeit weird, relationship
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy....you know I have respect for your views. All of the "masters" I have ever met, when they were looking for a new slave, they wernt looking for 30 year olds. They look for young, 18-19 year olds, who have no experience. I have seen some of these boy humiliated to the point that it made me sick. A boy who is made to service all of the masters friends at a get together. And it gos on and on. Yeh there are people into mild bondage for fun and games, but these arnt those people.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
I have got to respect your position as well, I don't know anyone into that scene, but what you described, well sounds unhealthy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I am not going to disagree about your experiences. They are wholly valid.
All I am saying is that this area has many facets. There are appalling people and there are good people.
This is why I am pleased that you have taken all the step you have taken to seek to ensure that our young friend is aware of the very real risks he could run.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
You started this thread with the very sensible objective of discovering how one advises a young, inexperienced and naïve virgin in his first experience of BDSM.
For all I am even handed in my posts, my advice is first "do not do this thing." I advise it because the main challenge is finding a person you trust sufficiently to dominate you. They do not come with references, nor in catalogues.
The only quasi-safe way is to explore this side of yourself with a trusted, long term friend who has similar interests. And yet that is not without risks.
What one does not do, I hope, is meet someone online and wander over to their place in the naïve hope that they will be everything in the flesh that they say they are online. That is an act of incredible idiocy.
"Naïve virgin slave seeks master for domination fun" is not a contact advert that should ever appear. "Experienced master seeks naïve new slave" should never be answered.
There is no advice other than "With someone you have known in person for ages and whom you will trust with your life."
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Ah, no. You started this thread to split it away from advising a lad on his first experience. My bad!
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
Timmy,
LOL do you talk to yourself often??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I can accept that between consenting adults pretty much any behaviour is acceptable, even if I would regard personal involvement is such behaviour as repulsive - provided, of course that the boundaries of absolute consent are never exceeded.
Nonetheless, my view is - and has always been - that anyone attracted to such activities should find a partner (by which I mean a fellow-practitioner, not a partner in a long term relationship) who is already equally attracted to the activity in question. That's not impossible, nor even difficult to do; even in the largely rural are in which I grew up in pre-internet days, I knew where to go if I had interests of that kind. (In case you're wondering, I didn't, because I hadn't.)
As I think I've said before, I feel that such things belong on the equivalent of the old-fashioned top shelf at the newsagents, where the sexy magazines were, and in some places still are to be found. Those who wanted them (among whom I confess I was numbered) knew where to find them, but they were not thrust in the face of genteel old ladies or young children.
So, echoing Anthony's sentiments, I have never been happy about Jack Rowan's 'Story of Tim' being hosted on a site which is intended to be supportive to confused teens. I've got no inherent objection to the story; it's well-written, and the relationship in the story is non-abusive, but it does paint a rather idealistic picture of BDSM. It's a bit like setting up a drug stall in a club frequented by young people; those who want drugs already know where to get them, and overt marketing cannot do other than draw in people who might otherwise remain drug free. I had a longish on-board exchange with Timmy at the time when the story was first posted; anyone interested should be able to track down the thread. I don't intend to revisit the argument; I was unable to convince Timmy then, and I don't think I could convince him now. It's his site, and I accept the status quo, though I still don't approve.
I am reminded, even as an almost-atheist, of a relatively-modern prayer which I always felt had a message for the whole world: "Lord, grant me the strength to change those things I ought to change, the serenity to accept those things I cannot change ... and the wisdom to know the difference!" I think I'm trying to be wise!
But, in the final analysis, an older adult with an interest in domination, seeking by long distance e-mail exchanges to recruit a teenage virgin (albeit technically an adult) to be the submissive partner in a live-in M/S relationship is about as likely to be beneficial to the younger partner as bungee jumping without a rope. Roger is absolutely right to be concerned.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. I think Cossie has the heart of it: the site is to help young people and to introduce them to BDSM, in my opinion is likely to do more harm than good.
I think even reading about some things can be bad. When I grew up most pornography (meaning writing about any sex, not just bad sex) was illegal. It was before the trial of 'Lady Chatterly's Lover' - it's almost hard to believe that such things were illegal. Anyway, when pornography did come my way, I read it. I could take Henry Miller and the Olympia press but then I came across 'Last Exit to Brooklyn'. I found it deeply unpleasant, to the extent that I felt sullied by it. The only good outcome was that it put me off the thought of drugs although maybe I would never have been tempted by them anyway.
On 'The Story of Tim', I read about Iomfats' doubts; I read the story; it's clever, well
written, captivating and perverse. (And not in the way gay people are
sometimes called perverts.)
Do you know the poem by Cavafy:
/What things are dangerous
Said Myrtias (a Syrian student
At Alexandria: in the reign
Of the Emperor Constans and the Emperor Constantius;
In part a Gentile, but of Christian inclination):
"Strengthened by contemplation and study,
I will not fear my passions like a coward.
My body I will give up to pleasures,
To the enjoyments that are dreamed about,
To the more audacious erotic desires,
Lascivious ardours of my blood, without
A single fear, because whenever I will -
And I shall have the will power, fortified
As I shall be by contemplation & study -
At critical moments I shall find again
My spirit as ascetic as before"
/ ?
When we were at university together, in the 1950s, a great friend found
this written out on my desk and
added [Who does he think he's kidding?]
Reading the story of Tim sullied me. I am ashamed that it got me excited. I
wish I could forget it. Just as I wish I could forget 'Last Exit to Brooklyn'.
I don't think it should ever be necessary to be cruel, even if the
motive is to bring about catharsis. Surely there is no arguing that in
the story David's motives were much more than that - I'd say that was
not even a main motive. The implication at the end was that the
sadomasochism would continue happily ever after.
/Sir, say no more.
Within me 't is as if
The green and climbing eyesight of a cat
Crawled near my mind's poor birds./
[Trumbull Stickney - quoted by Auden as Trumble]
Anthony Camacho
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
acam wrote:
> ...Surely there is no arguing that in
> the story David's motives were much more than that - I'd say that was
> not even a main motive. The implication at the end was that the
> sadomasochism would continue happily ever after.
The first point in this part of your response would be great to take up with Jack Rowan, but he seems to have dropped out of sight. Really only the author can impute accurate motives to a character
The last sentence: well, is that actually a problem? If (and here it is) it is consensual then there is surely no problem? Or should we support the judgment in R v Brown (http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/UKlaw/rvbrown1993/ refers}? I support Lord Mustill here.
Jack wrote another story that I would not go near. I read it in order to see if it was appropriate, and it was not. It illustrates Roger's points about predators and people who go too far very well indeed. David and Tim appear in it.
I'm interested in "sullied". I'd like to explore that with you a little.
As a generalisation, people declare they are "shocked" by something, often when they are in some way titillated by that thing. You went a step further, admitted titillation, and expressed a negative emotion about that. You (probably) are not interested in BDSM in real life, but you foind it interesting in a story. I see nothing sullying in that. The arousal is simply an expression of interest while not necessarily wishing to participate.
I see that as a normal reaction, a healthy one. It is the same as not needing to be ashamed of finding a substantially younger, perhaps unlawfully young person attractive, perhaps erotic. That is not sullying either. It is simply what it is - the mind being attracted. And we use our minds and make decisions every day about whether to act on the impulses or not.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I think that it may be desirable to clarify the relevance (or lack of relevance) of the case of Regina versus Brown. Apart from that, I don't want to intrude upon any dialogue which may develop between Timmy and Anthony.
The legal system of England and Wales is ancient and complex. The courts do not make new laws, they interpret the law as it exists, applying precedents established in earlier cases. So, as Lord Templeman observes in the Brown case, situations may arise in which the judges of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords find themselves called upon to decide an issue by applying legal precedent, whereas Parliament, if addressing the same issue, would be able to sound out contemporary expert opinion and to take account of such considerations as the public interest. If, as has happened many times, Parliament considers the ultimate judgemant of the courts to be socially undesirable, its remedy is to pass an Act amending the law. Thereafter, the newly-enacted legislation will supplant the legal precedents. Cases usually begin in the lower courts or in statutory tribunals whose decisions do not establish precedent. Cases of dispute pass to the High Court, presided over by a single judge. Decisions of the High Court establish binding precedents within that Court. If the matter is still disputed, it proceeds to the Court of Appeal, presided over by three Lords Justices. The Court of Appeal is bound by its own precedent decisions, but not by those of the High Court. Some cases then proceed to the House of Lords, where they are heard by five Law Lords. The House of Lords is not bound by precedents set in the High Court or the Court of Appeal. It will normally follow its own precedent decisions (which are binding upon all other Courts), but it can in appropriate cases review or re-interpret its own previous decisions. At all levels in the higher Courts, an odd number of judges preside, and the decision is by majority vote. Dissenting decisions do not have any precedent value. Finally, in ordinary circumstances these Courts cannot address anything other than the charges or contentions upon which the case before them was based. They cannot, for instance, decide that although the appellant/respondent is not guilty of the crime with which he is charged, he IS guilty of some other crime. The above is obviously an over-simplification, but it will serve to put what follows in context.
There are only two points I wish to make.
Firstly, Lord Mustill expressed a dissenting opinion. Some will no doubt find it more attractive than the majority opinions, but only the latter have any legal force.
Secondly, the conviction upon which the appeal before the House of Lords was based related specifically to charges brought under the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861, and the only point of dispute was whether consent by the victim constituted a defence under that Act. Three of the Law Lords, following appropriate precedents, considered that consent was NOT a defence. The appellants, and others, had been found guilty on additional charges, but those guilty verdicts were not under appeal. End of story?
Not quite. Lord Mustill raised the legitimate, if unsuccessful, proposition that the 1861 Act was never intended to apply in the circumstances before the Court. He also observed, with implied disapproval, that the 1861 Act had been used simply because the prosecution could find no legislation under which to proceed against even more dangerous and distasteful actions carried out by the accused. But his review of the law and his conclusions are confined, as they had to be, to the relevance of consent as a defence under the 1861 Act. In short, Lord Mustill's judgement is concerned with the perennial legal question of whether an action is necessarily lawful simply because there is no specific law prohibiting it. It is not, in essence, concerned with what actually happened in Bolton, and it is certainly inappropriate to see in his judgement any kind of support for sado-masochism. It is, in fact, clear from observations in his judgement that the the appellants had been part of a substantial and well-organised group into which juveniles had been deliberately lured.
I do not therefore see how R. v. Brown can be regarded as relevant to any general discussion of sado-masochism; it is concerned wholly with the basic legal question of how a relatively archaic statutory provision ought to be interpreted.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
R v Brown was really about what the moral majority decided to interpret the law as. They decided, broadly, to convict men engaging in private (and to me unpleasant) acts to which they had each consented "because not doing so might encourage others to do what they had been doing."
I find it hard to believe that anyone would be encouraged to nail his penis to a tree (or have another person do so for him) by Brown et all not having been convicted.
Had this been a boxing match instead of an "all male S&M act" (hmm, is there a difference?) then consent would have applied. After all, two boxers consent to have seven bells knocked out of themselves when they enter the ring.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... to believe what they wish, but to establish truth it is necessary to consider evidence.
I suspect that you are influenced by the remarks at the end of Lord Templeman's speech. I'll return to them in due course, but the fact remains that a majortity of the Law Lords dismissed the appeals after a very comprehensive review of the legal authorities and precedents. Law Lords cannot make decisions on a whim; they are obliged to justify their conclusion by citing the legal basis upon which it was formed. All three concurring Law Lords did so. Yes, it is sometimes possible to develop alternative views; that's why there is an odd number of judges. The majority view prevails.
In many respects, the legal position in relation to a particular action, issue or interpretation can be viewed as a line in the sand. Cases which test the question may be seen as attempts to move the line to the right or to the left. Regardless of the decision, the line moves one way or the other. The next case may claw back a little of the movement, or it may move the line even further in the same direction but, in general, once the line starts to move in a particular direction it is unlikely to return to its starting point.
In R. v. Brown, the question before the court was whether consent was a defence against charges under two sections of the 1861 Act. That was the ONLY question the Law Lords could address. The question of what constitutes consent - an entirely different question - had not been argued in the lower courts and could not be considered.
In the course of the reviews of authority and precedent, the correct question was considered in great detail, and the origin and nature of some circumstances in which consent WAS a defence were explained at some length. Clearly, there must BE exceptions; a surgeon commits an offence against your person with his first incision, so if consent was not a defence in those circumstances no surgery would be performed. Similarly, participation in many sports is regarded as implicit consent constituting a valid defence. So if a player breaks his leg as a result of a legitimate tackle in a soccer pitch, the other player involved in the tackle is not guilty of an offence under the 1861 Act - but as recent cases have shown, a player who loses his temper and lashes out at another player IS liable to a charge of assault. Boxing is admittedly the sport which is probably closest to the line - but nevertheless there IS a line, and bare-knuckle fights are on the other side of it. I haven't attempted to research the authorities, but presumably boxing is 'within' because it is regulated by comprehensive rules and is seen as a test of skill rather than brute force, in which injury of an opponent is not an integral element of a competetive bout. By contrast, bare knuckle fights cannot be won on points; the expectation is that the bout will continue until the loser is physically unable to continue. Whether that line is in exactly the right place does not have much relevance to sado-masochism. I don't know whether the point has ever been tested in the Courts, but it seems logical to presume that a boxer who injured an opponent with a foul punch would be guilty of assault, because implied consent would extend only to injury caused within the relevant set of rules.
Turning to the specific facts of the case of R. v. Brown, they were not recited in detail in the judgements because they were not of themselves relevant to the question before the Court. However, enough is mentioned in passing to make it clear that some at least of the submissives had been lured into the group while well under age, and that drugs were used to suppress the submissives and heighten the pleasure of the dominants. It is implied that even more was left unsaid. One can almost hear the Law Lords wishing that they had been asked to define the nature of consent. But they weren't. This was no harmless activity between consenting middle-aged adults, nor was it a love-based relationship as portrayed in 'The Story of Tim'. This was a group of older men who resorted to entrapment and exploitation, and the drug references suggest that there was no protection - or at least no reliable protection - by the use of safe words.
If the appeal had been allowed, the line in the sand would have shifted. It's not helpful to make trite use of gruesome examples; they are irrelevant. But the shift WOULD have encouraged others to believe that entrapment and exploitation of young adults by older males, and even the use of pain suppressive drugs, was acceptable as long as the sumbmissive, even if subject to psychological manipulation and mind altering drugs could be induced to say yes, and dissuaded from making a complaint afterwards. I'd suggest that what happens in those circumstances should not, on any reasonable interpretation, be regarded as proper consent.
But, as I have already shown, although the Law Lords clearly viewed the facts of the case with revulsion, they acted entirely properly. It is possible that if the case had simply involved a group of friends of similar tastes without the overtones of exploitation they might have found differently; we will never know. In all probability they would never have had such an opportuinty, because in scenario just mentioned it is unlikely that a prosecution would have been brought in the first place.
So far as I can see, Lord Templeman's remarks at the end of his speech are unsurprising, given the facts of the case. I don't see how that invalidates anything I have said above. If there was an issue beyond the basic legal question, it was not a matter of applying the will of the so-called 'moral majority' but of preventing erosion of the legal protection available to young people.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd have to think a long time before I could get my head completely straight around all this. Timmy might wait till next year for a reply if I did and so I'll try a provisional response.
Some of it, too, is just a question of my own squeamishness or sensibility. For example: at university I had sex with an older man (33) who was (I thought) very cynical about the relationship, saying that sooner or later I would want presents from him and so on. I didn't ever want them and when he gave me presents I was less inclined to visit him as a result. I seriously considered that it brought me nearer to prostitution. I was ashamed of it. I think I was sullied by it. Perhaps I am still too sensitive about such things. I do think that what the motive is can make the difference between acceptable and unacceptable sex (& not just sex). In many ways I've behaved outrageously and am not bothered by other people knowing: however I don't ever talk to my friends or family about that particular episode.
I think perhaps I ought to have stopped reading "The Story of Tim" as soon as I realised I would find it distasteful. I'm not ashamed of being titillated by it but maybe I am a bit ashamed of going on reading - but I was curious. (Not a defence, m'lud.)
I think my friend was right: anyone who thinks he can indulge in something (whether it is outrageous sex or shoplifting) and then restore himself to the state of innocence where he began is kidding himself. It is a serious problem for an innocent and/or naive person how far to experiment so that he doesn't become somebody he would regret to be.
Of course maybe when I'm eighty I'll begin to regret the drugs I haven't taken and the orgy invitations I've turned down. Am I a nicer person by ducking those experiences?
How can one tell?
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I think you are getting closer to understanding yourself.
You can not be sullied, though, by things you read. You may sully your reputation by things you do, but not by reading things.
When reading, we all read in part as a critic, and in part to enjoy. You allowed yourself to explore and enjoy something that you would not, in life, entertain. That's ok. That's fantasy. I enjoyed it too. I'm sure as hell not going to play in that yard, though.
The man at university was a fool for allowing you to feel demeaned by his presents. That was his loss, not yours. But they were very different times. Perhaps he feared blackmail. His self image, his frailty, his problem, his loss.
[Updated on: Sat, 17 November 2007 23:36]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
