Saying the role somebody takes in sex have to mirror, in any way, real life is like saying a child playing mirrors his real life. Or like an adult enjoying non-sexual role plays (in which he might be a demon lord, a fairy or a wizard) mirrors his real life.
Only when it comes to sexual role plays, it has to be different and politically correct?

Quod erat demonstrandum

I declared this discussion at an impasse because I raised several issues which were not resolved to my satisfaction. This isn’t to say anybody is obligated to resolve my issues, but I felt I was wasting my time trying to get answers to issues such as these:

The twisting of consent in the S/M scene is a huge can of worms.

I was told the problem is my misuse of language, that BDSM is all about consent.

The principle (of sadism) is… the common phenomenon of men being dominant over women. I say, that principle is in itself destructive to women and unhealthy for men. A woman who enjoys that is getting off on her own degradation. This is analogous to the Stockholm Syndrome, to my way of thinking.

This was found very offensive, and reflects my conflation of consensual and nonconsensual sadomasochism, I was told. I’m aware there is a difference, but remain skeptical of attempts to deny any link.

I didn’t imply there’s nothing wrong with female masochism, merely that I don’t blame women for it. It’s far more than a fetish, which is why I compared it to the Stockholm Syndrome. Women have written books about female masochism. These were serious books, not porn. Social conditioning convincing women pain is their lot is far from harmless; it’s a major part of how men have gotten away with dominating the world for so long.

…if it’s all playacting and no actual cruelty is involved, why call it sadism? What does that have to do with the definition? Surely you realize there are lots of men who really do get off on hurting women. Isn’t that why gonzo porn is so popular?

Those were from comments I made to respondents before the wave brought in by Gorgias a month ago, determined to defend BDSM on an entry prompted by the notorious Craigslist exposure of ardent sadists eager to torture the advertiser, over two years ago.

There’s nothing good about mastery of one human being over another.

Again, supposedly if people like playing those roles, I’m supposed to believe there’s no problem.

Subjective experiences might be equally valid, but the interpretations aren’t.

This in response to being told I have to believe in the testimony of the subjective experience.

What’s out of the ordinary about dominance and submission? BDSM is just the extreme expression of hierarchy for its own sake, which is the bedrock of most civilizations, to their great detriment. That kind of power is almost impossible to avoid abusing.

I was told I was missing the point and misusing my terms.

…the idea of one person being the master of another is anathema to me. That’s called slavery, generally, though you turn it into a spiritual quest. Another variety is called marriage, generally, at least in the traditional variety, where the wife is supposed to obey the husband.

…There’s a huge difference between being aware of one’s mental condition and perceiving it clearly. Human knowledge of objective reality is really quite limited. Perception and interpretation have a nasty habit of getting in the way. Virtually everything people learn to believe clouds their perception. You learned to believe pain is sublime. There’s nothing objective about that; your belief creates your perception.

The pain reaction has a survival purpose, to alert the organism to do something about what’s causing the pain. Pain can teach great lessons, but making pain sexual is a huge can of worms. You may think it’s part of your nature, but you may not realize how sexuality used to be viewed when women were property. Women weren’t supposed to enjoy sex. Those who enjoyed it too much got their clitoris chopped off. In some cultures women are still property, and in some cultures women are still mutilated to ensure sex is a painful duty, not something they’d seek out for pleasure. Humiliating and hurting women is extremely popular in pornography. You may not like being linked to this association, but these sick artifacts of male-dominated civilization define what sadism means to most people. You may not like the term, but your crowd isn’t so squeamish about it. Why is that?

Apparently that, combined with allegations from Jen based on her own experiences with a sadist, brought in the rest of the crowd, determined to explode the associations I was making, and explain why these issues are to be taken as made irrelevant by negotiated consent and safewords.

It begs the question, why should people believe BDSM has nothing to do with abuse when its practitioners embrace the terminology of abuse? Is the distinction real, or sophistry? Is the distinction between being submissive and subordinated real, or sophistry? The slaveowners of this country believed slavery was best for their subjects, whom they valued highly, but that was all in the eye of the beholder. The slaves knew better. What’s the point of using the terminology of such a horrendous institution to denote consensual kinky sexuality? What’s in it for you to use these terms, if their conventional meanings are so far from applicable?

There were attempts to answer this, but none alleviated my concerns.

Consent will never be a simple matter as long as rapists claim the woman consented, so her accusation was a lie, it wasn’t rape. It will never be a simple matter as long as men buy sex from desperate women who need the money and call it consensual. As long as men have power over women, consent to sex will be a huge can of worms.

I was told this is inapplicable to BDSM, because it’s all about consent.

I’m investigating the matter of people excusing inflicting pain on people. You can’t take this out of the context of the culture, which glorifies cruelty as macho, patriotic, kicking ass, showing that woman who’s boss, whatever. It’s been mainstreamed. I think the truth shreds you, you have no real answers to me or Jen. I think you’re a bunch of experts in sophistry, twisting language to make your theories work. I’m a hard scientist. I don’t respect much of what requires faith or twisting language to believe. At least there’s some recognition there’s a problem with the language. Some words aren’t worth reclaiming.

This got roundly denied and turned back on me, as if I’m the one twisting language.

You judge your consent, but I get to judge the implications. Isn’t the life of most prostitutes torture? Isn’t that relevant to this question of consent, twisting of which makes it seem so legit for the johns?

This was to respond to an aggrieved Renegade Evolution, miffed that I questioned her consent.

For a great many women, the life you’re describing here is no fantasy. It’s a trap which they’ve learned to accept as normal. In some cases, that’s part of the culture, and in others, it’s called battered women’s syndrome. Yeah, people with uncompromised agency can turn it into a game, but talk about playing with fire. It’s just hard for me to believe people can play with such concepts, with such pernicious hooks into our subconscious minds, without getting burned. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible, but I’m skeptical.

That was in response to a rosy description of submissive fantasies.

I’m suspicious of these attempts to reclaim sadism and cruelty. I can sort of understand turning them into a game, but I think those who play with fire may not even realize when they’re getting burned.

The idea that I’m trying to force women to conform to my beliefs is laughable. I’m observing how expectations of female masochism have been used against women from time immemorial. This makes me suspicious of the idea that a woman allowing a man to dominate or inflict pain on her, even as a game, is doing anything to empower herself. It might be fun, or a means of defiance of traditional expectations by turning them into a game, but it’s a dangerous game, and I wonder if these women should be so trusting. If a man gets mad and out of control, suddenly it’s no longer a game.

I think the entire culture is pathological, especially in these United States. Some of that is the pervasive sexism, some is the reckless arrogance of science for hire, and some is the mentality of empire. This is the context in which I see sadism and cruelty. As I said, they’ve been mainstreamed. Many people may not notice their influence unless it’s in their face, as when confronted with BDSM or Abu Ghraib; then they act shocked. Sexism is in itself sadistic and cruel. There’s no escaping these facets of the culture. I could see how my scorn could be called cruel. It isn’t meant that way, but it could come across that way. I see nothing but trouble coming from the mainstreaming of sadism and cruelty. Playing with that kind of fire can be fun, sure, but the stuff of hell on earth shouldn’t be underestimated or taken lightly. Fun isn’t always innocuous or without consequences, which can be extremely subtle and easily missed or denied. Traditionally, there’s nothing fun, subversive, or empowering for women in female masochism, but it has been a convenient means of training women to accept male dominance.

I was told my fire metaphor is stretched and inappropriate.

I’m still not getting the point of making the word sadism socially respectable. Do you not see potential hazards in that? In an ideal world, it should be possible to educate people not to confuse these forms of sadism, but this isn’t an ideal world. The people you’re trying to shun aren’t going to give up the word to you. In other words, your efforts to educate people can easily backfire by giving cover to the traitorous sadists, even though that isn’t the intention. You know the saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It’s all a problem of education, I’m told.

My point in referencing sadistic pornography is that it is a huge problem pouring gasoline on a epidemic of screwed up men abusing women. Why would you want to be associated with that, stuck with the task of disabusing people of the notion that sadism hurts people?

Not their problem, I’m told; people need to learn to use the language properly.

I think we’re at an impasse. When it gets to the point that people are throwing around wildly stretched analogies and can’t see why they’re stretched after I attempt to explain my problems with them, I start to feel the discussion is pointless. I don’t live in your world, and you seem indifferent to what your vocabulary usage evokes in me, basically saying that’s my problem, since I’m misusing the vocabulary. It’s as though you’re saying if I’m bothered by the language, I should find another word for nonconsensual sadism. Maybe you can understand why that makes me feel you people do have something to hide.

No, it’s my problem if I persist in misusing the language. I gave up. I made my case. I feel my concerns were evaded if not dismissed outright. This is their right, but it’s my right to note my impressions of how my concerns were not answered.

I would agree with this, though the way you word it is careening into a kind of solipsism I really don’t share.

Which of those things — the gentle stimulation or the pain — reveals, in your mind, how I really feel about him?

Oh, oh… I know this one, even though you were addressing someone else…

ehem…

What you’ve described is a situation in which two independent entities (which we have to assume are subjects, i.e. individual persons) can only be comprehended as objects, that is, we can only observe their behavior and actions, or in this case, we can only read your description of their behavior and actions. This is so because we ourselves are independent subjects and therefore only have access to our own first-person experiences as subject. You, Trinity, are also a subject, but you have a deeper understanding of the situation you have described since you had first-person (subjective) experience of that situation. Your partner, also, had independent first-person experience. This means that the action and behavior in which you both participated was understood (and when I refer to “understanding” I mean just about all forms of consciousness including emotional perceptions and even false beliefs, because these too shape our worlds) distinctly and separately by both of you, as it is for each one of us. I’m not saying that any perceived shared moments or feelings of togetherness with your partner were fictions or “imaginary” (in the common sense of the word, which is basically synonymous with “false”), I’m saying that due to the nature of human understanding (each of us being an individual person with unique subjective points of view), if it is at all possible to determine the nature of the experience, those involved are in the only position (that of the subject) to make that assessment, and that does not mean that the persons involved in the actions can not be mistaken. In short: I dunno.

For Luke, to sum up and rephrase (this is a tad graphic, so people may want to skip):

Consider something I did last weekend, with my partner. I had a cane in one hand and was using that on his nipple and chest. With my other hand, I was teasing his penis, which he was responding to quite positively.

(end graphic bit)

Now the question: Which of those things — the gentle stimulation or the pain — reveals, in your mind, how I really feel about him?

To my mind the whole thing together was the experience, which had to do with giving pleasure to someone who enjoyed pain.

If you see hatred, is it hatred of him, or is it misandry, or is it misogyny by some transmutation like “he was feminized” (I don’t buy this. I have played with feminization, and quite enjoyed it. This was not something I experienced in the same way)?

If I do something analogous to a woman (and I have done SM with women), is that misogyny?