ok, we all know that weird shit's out there, but the real questions is,
what's too far? even given consentual acts, what kind of play is taking 
things too far?

56 responses total.

        It's too far when one of the participants says "no" (or a safeword if
you're into saying "no" as a kink) or otherwise clearly indicates that they're
uncomfortable with the "weird shit".

        By and large, I don't think that anything, when two parties consent,
is ethically wrong.  If someone seriously wants to *die*, which is about as
extreme as it gets, the person assisting them isn't committing murder (in my
book), and if one person doesn't, another surely will.  

Spreading serious STD's.

Making babies who aren't really wanted or who'll start life with major
strikes against them.  (Can't afford to raise, fetal alcohol syndrome, &
various other things.)

Relationships across wide gaps in power or emotional strength.  (Bill &
Monica come to mind.) 

Emotionally below age of consent.

Substantial physical injury or risk thereof. 

Excessive social damage risk.  (One of you's the Pope, most incest, again
Bill & Monica, etc.) 

Excessive social disruption.  (Hanging by bungee cords under the Golden Gate
during rush hour, anyone?) 


Other than that, go ahead and substitute duct tape & dry lube for condom
and jelly. 

Anything that is mentally or emotionally damaging to either partner.

Rape

Small children

Death, or so much physical damage that one or both partners are seriously
compromised (A romp in bed shouldn't require a trip to the hospital,
especially not one that lasts for longer than the ER.)

Known spreading of STDs, or really, even unknow spreading of STD's.  If you
are changing partners in anyway, or have any doubts, you should be tested.
It is your duty to be tested regularily, unless you are in a mutually
exclusive relationship)

I agree with everything that's been said.

resp:1  I still have difficulties with the idea of assisted suicide, 
per se.  My opinion is death, too, is a life event, and should be 
experienced, but then, I have strong philosophy on life beyond the 
mortal frame.  That said, however, I do not believe in overextending 
the Hippocratic Oath, because it is senseless to keep the dying alive, 
especially when they are clearly worn out and vegetative.  I do not 
condemn families who "pull the plug," for if the person cannot bring 
goodness to such a family while barely alive, it is merciful to allow 
death to take its course.  (We cannot objectively tell if the person 
wishes to live trapped like that, but certainly, the family has rights 
here.)  Certainly a person's essence, or spirit, would be able to do 
more freed than trapped in such a way in a nonresponsive body.

resp:2 i-- what do you mean by excessive social damage risk when one 
is the Pope?


In my own philosophy, or IMHO, if you will, I do not believe the issue 
is so much with consent as it is with acceptance and bearing of 
consequences of any action, whether it is deemed beneficial or 
harmful.  In all the instances listed, there was someone affected who 
could not or would not give consent.  Many were instances of 'could', 
i.e., it was impossible to give consent, e.g., in cases involving 
children.

Even when consent is supposedly given, I still do not believe damage 
is therefore avoided, unless we are arguing that consenting parties do 
not believe they are damaged in any way.  It is a matter of 
perspective of course, although I wonder how issues should be regarded 
when one party has a paradigm shift, i.e., changes one's mind about 
actions taken. 

        Personally, I don't see the harm in any of these things so long as
there is consent;  we all know the risks for playing, and we know that social,
emotional, or health risks may be a part of any sexual relationship.  Usually
they're minor, but if they're major, and both parties enter honestly and
consensually, then it'd honestly seem to me no different than the freedom to
take a dangerous job, or invest in a risky stock, or choose a friend who may
be harmful.

        About discrepancies in social power - I remember hearing a lecture by
a couple of folks from one of the Ann Arbor rape crisis centers, about the
different types of rape.  One of the types they defined was implied coercion
due to a discrepancy in income or social standing.  Their argument was that
when someone was in such a situation, they could fear losing whatever income
or social standing they had by association with their partner, if they ever
refused sex, and that, therefore, all sexual contact between partners with
different incomes or social standings was rape (of course, it was always the
male raping the female, even if the female was the breadwinner, don't ask me
how that works out).  I had to say, it was one of the silliest things I've
heard in a long time, and really absolves people of responsibility for their
actions.

welcome to aa
<sigh>

        I feel raped by response #7.

On a related note, check out the domestic violence brochures. At least some
of the ones I've seen locally don't even make an effort to be gender neutral.
The victim is a "she" and the perpetrator is "he." Which completely overlooks
gay domestic violence and the existence of female on male domestic
violence.

        It's my understanding that while female-on-male domestic violence isn't
as common as male-on-female (and male-on-male and female-on-female being much
less common, though porportionally higher) it is severely underreported, and
is a significant problem, too.

to play the adversary's advocate:
yha, but men deserve it for all the oppression of women
seriously: there's the problem with a patriarchy that says men are stronger
tougher etc. than women, and that's if a woman is stronger and tougher
(at least in the viewer's eeys) than you, and said woman is not your mother
or near kin, you are not lonly less of a man, you might as well just renounce
your dick

Nobody deserves it.  Period.

And Greg just said what I was about to.

patriarchy? nah, damn, too many women buy into it.. I can remember 
morning talk shows where some hubby was being beat by his wife and the 
women couldn't believe it.. I mean, c'mon, patriarchy as far as a 
context like that?  No.  Morning talk shows are to a female audience.

Re: #5
I'd guess that you can imagine how much personal and social pain it would
cause for millions of good Catholics if the Pope got into an intimate 
sexual relationship.  It's a position with clear rules and he picked it for 
himself over nice alternatives - no excuses apply. 

I favor assisted suicide with constraints to insure that it really is 
voluntary & informed on the part of the wanna-be RIP.  Such constraints
are fairly incompatible with death via sexual experience.  Suicide by
HIV i'd rule out just on the basis of the difficulties & expense of the
years the person takes to die. 

Re: #6
Um, are you aware of how the sex industry gets most of its serfs?  Or
how bad a horny scumball boss can make the alternative for a barely-
scraping-by single mom who doesn't want to be his concubine?

On the flip side, there's nothing to prevent two good people from having
a sexual relationship across a very wide power/status gulf.  With the
understanding that the situation is (due to extremely frequent abuse)
almost as suspect as a paving contractor giving $10,000 in cash as a
personal gift to the Chairman of the County Road Commission. 


My impression is that F-on-M domestic violence is, in most places, de
facto more legal than lynching an unrespectful black man was a few
generations ago.  But the black community treated that victim's family
and friends *vastly* better than the male community treats F-on-M
violence victims. 

        Well, that didn't come out well at all. ;)

        I'm aware that people *can* abuse a relationship where they hold more
social or economic power.  The average man is bigger and more aggressive than
the average woman, too, and has more experience with fighting, and it's both
possible and fairly common for people to abuse that imbalance of physical
power.  However, it doesn't follow that because there is the potential for
abuse is abusive or even inherently problematic.

#13> Social effects don't just have an effect on one gender. So, yes,
"patrairchy" as far as that.
 
The underreporting of F>M violence is part of the same problem as the
prevalence of M>F violence: Violence is seen as a solution because it proves
who the stronger person is, and "might makes right."

        I was talking about this issue with a woman who's studied extensively
under a therapist who specializes in the issue, and it came to me that the
average battering case I've heard of, if what I've heard is accurate, isn't
as simple as a power struggle.  The average case includes an abuser who has
issues dealing with their emotions in one case or another (quite often it's
a "control issue", but that in and of itself is an oversimplification) and
when they lose control of their emotions they behave as most people do under
stress;  following a pattern that has worked well for them in the past under
another context.

I think you could go too far by manipulating your partner into trying 
something he/she isn't interesting in.  Anything from anal to BDSM is 
too far if you have to manipulate your partner into doing it with you.  
That's what I think.

where's manipulation stop and simple experinimentatoin begin

Experimentation is okey if both partners are willing.  if you have to 
bring your partner around to your way of thinking, then you are 
treading the knife's edge, so to speak, of manipulation.

        Experimentation is never simple, Greg.  You know this!

        I'm not so clear on the line you're drawing here, Julie, either.  There
are a lot of things that people might initially have an aversion to that, as
long as it's not a strict aversion, they might well enjoy if they try it. 
As long as there's no threatening, if one person talks another person into
something, or simply experiments with the understanding that in a healthy
relationship you can always ask your partner to stop, then what's the harm?
Where is the line you're drawing?

        Personally, I've found that riding in between what a person knows that
they like, and what they've fantasized about, but perhaps never really
confronted, is the best place to be.  You do have to be careful not to go into
really offensive or disturbing territory, but most of that has to do with
fetishism anyways, and assuming neither partner is a fetishist, you're
generally safe.

i know it' snot simple, mostly it was just a knee jerk reaction against
julie's statments.
i apologise, mostly because i currently have a prof who does nothing but
tell us what not to be, but never shows us what is an ideal.
if that makes sens
e
and i konw experimentation isn't easy, but let's face it, too many of us
would spend our nights watching a movie we've already seen instead of
going out and trying something new, and it can be quite a challenge
to pull someone from a rutt.

I am assuming, of course, that the people will discuss the possibility 
first, especially in the realm of fantasy.  The couple would have to 
agree that it was alright to say "no" or on a safe word so that if one 
partner began to feel uncomfortable they would both stop.  All I'm 
saying is, just assuming that the person is just shy and trying to talk 
them over when they've already said no is, IMO, crossing the line.  Jon 
and I have had this same discussion with regards to his occasional 
desires to have me be his Dom.  I am not really into that.  Jon is a 
gentleman and has not attempted to talk me around to doing it anyway.  
There have been times when I have suggested it myself jsut because I 
knew he liked it.  So, I would think that, once the suggestion was on 
the rug, the reluctant partner would have the opportunity to consider 
it after having already said no and might, later, say yes.

Re: #19-23
If it's just "manipulating your partner into trying something he/she isn't
interested in" (implying that he/she's already your sex partner and he/she
has no stronger objection than "not interested in"), then i don't see any
harm in it.  Manipulating him/her into letting you eat peanut butter &
jelly from between his/her toes is no worse than manipulating him/her into
mowing the lawn.

If you're pushing them into something that they'll regret later, then does
it really matter if it's BDSM or changing his/her last name to match yours?

heh.

        I concur with #25. 

        Moreover, in my experience, most people *don't* sit down and discuss
new things they'd like to try in bed.  It's too cerebral.  It's like trying
to convince someone they might like Thai food by describing how it's cooked
and what how the curries are made.  Though most people don't experiment worth
a damn, those I know that have do so by ... just doing it, and generally
don't talk about it at all.

resp:25 I think that may have been what I was trying to say.  Very well 
put.  I just don't think people should be manipulated.  And that goes 
for people you know as well as those you've just met, especially in the 
area of sex and regardless of whether its BDSM or eating peanut butter 
between their toes.  You should at least talk about it and find out WHY 
they don't want to.  Then you can make in roads towards settling their 
concerns.  If that doesn't help, give up and do something else.  That's 
my opinion.

Experimentation is good, but a little bit of planning can't hurt.  
Unless, instead, we are talking about mastering the art of nonverbal 
communication.  Sex, in general, is rarely a spontaneous thing.. the 
odds that two people that are together will be horny at precisely the 
same time is a bit slim, and sex either needs to be planned out loud a 
little bit, or the two need to learn how to accurately read and 
ascertain the other's signals.

In the case of experimentation, then, I think gradually introducing 
the 'kink' or whatever else you want to call it, is a good strategy, 
giving enough time for the parties to respond, albeit, not with words.

Does this make sense, then, or am I spouting gibberish?  I am applying 
what I have read regarding spontaneity in sex therapy/self-help to be 
more inclusive, and while I can't remember particular sources to cite, 
I believe it to be based somewhat on other's observations.

        It makes sense, but it's ... outside my personal experience.  Maybe
it has something to do with the people I've been with, but then again, it's
been fairly consistent with all of them.

        I don't know about the odds of two people being horny at the same time,
but the odds of two people being convincable if their partner seems to be so,
seems to be fairly high.  But, in thinking about it, it's difficult to be
absolutely sure, since many people are uncomfortable expressing sexual
interest in clear terms, and it's less common for one person to really clearly
initiate things in my book.  But then, perhaps I've had a long string of
nymphomaniacs.  I don't know.

actually..cybersex is a usefull tool...you don't talk about the fantisy you
kind of do it

my partners not always horny at the same time i am, but i know how to change
that.

well. is your partner a man.

maybe.

then it shouldn't be very hard to swing him over

are you callin my man a ho?!?

nope. jut a man

<laughs> Jon is fairly easy to swing over, too, oval.  It has a lot to 
do with the way men are wired.  If men were wired the way women are 
there would be lots less children and the human race would be a dying 
breed.

hmmm?  I don't think that's 100% the case.. gender roles depend on the 
society.  If one wants to be purely observant, well, I do believe men 
might behave differently if they bled out of their gential openings 
and bore children, part of the time.  Hermaphrodism doesn't really 
count, since genetics doesn't seem to be truly split 50/50, i.e., I 
haven't heard of any scientific case of a human that could impregnate 
and be pregnant.

So, obviously, since there are biological differences between men and 
women, it is not unreasonable that many societies often make some sort 
of gender roles.  American society isn't free of them, and I think, 
from an anthropological/sociological point of view, that isn't 
necessarily a bad thing.  The rules will likely continue to grow and 
evolve depending on how the society structures itself.

The society decides mores and folkways, too, which I believe, was the 
original focus of this discussion.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss