meep.

[fierceawakening]

someone remind me to just walk the hell away from the crazy.

i wasn't bothered at all, until i read that. disapproval based on ignorance really doesn't bug me much at all any more. even the "tops are nazis" remark, strange as it may seem, didn't bother me in any visceral way, as it was clearly so ignorant.

it was like saying, i don't know, "coffee

Comments

[lilairen]

Looking at a couple of those comments, I'm left with my usual, "And what does being treated badly have to do with BDSM again?"

Because the argument is "Healthy people don't want to be treated badly!"

And I just tilt my head and can't figure out where I'm being treated badly. I've been treated badly, I know what "treated badly" is like.

If my consensual stuff is being defined as "being treated badly", I'd like to speak up as a sexual assault survivor and verbal abuse survivor and say "Stop appropriating my traumas, jerks."

[fierceawakening]

Honestly, I'm not sure *anyone* wants to be treated badly.

But it seems whenever I say this, people are magnetically drawn to try and provide counterexamples. They seem to think that some people seek out actual abusive relationship structures because they want that... which makes no sense to me at all, and I've experienced abuse. (Which is not to say that my experience is everyone's, only to say that I have *no idea* what people are on about.)

Thinking one doesn't deserve better, I suppose I can see. Not being aware that anything else exists, too. Feeling one will never find anything else. Being afraid of what's not familiar.

But "wanting abuse" I simply cannot parse. I'm not sure if that makes my head-parser broken, or my experiences unique, or both.

[miz_evolution]

oh, I know folk who honestly WANT to be abused...most of 'em aren't into BDSM.

[shiva_dan]

That just seems... definitionally impossible to me.

Surely, by any sensible definition of the word "abuse", then whatever something is, it's not "abuse" if the person on the receiving end WANTS it?

I have heard people talk about fantasising about having things done to them that the person doing them *thinks* they're not consenting to, which raises kind of interesting (if squicky) questions about whether motivation or consequences has a more important role in morality, as to whether the other person in that fantasy would be an abuser. But those have tended to be... "NPC" fantasies, where they wouldn't actually want a real person doing it...

[miz_evolution]

"I’ve yet to meet a single human who is entirely mentally and emotionally stable. "

There is the truest statement EVER made...

and if one more person suggests anyone else examines...I will become VERY unstable.

[lilairen]

Meanwhile, because I'm loopy that way...

[fierceawakening]

oh kyooooot

[kawakiisakazuki]

On the other hand:

another icon!

[amblinwiseass]

lilairen's idea of course. I just happened to have an open Photoshop session and a few minutes to kill this morning.

Re: another icon!

[fierceawakening]

haha yay, I don't have to wander over to the compy with cs on it now :)

though that's not quite centered :)

Re: another icon!

[amblinwiseass]

So I'm lazy. :p

[amberlr]

That thread is really making my heart hurt. :(

[fierceawakening]

It's pretty much making me cynically amused.

I could be biased, but I think we, generally, say more nuanced things in more detail. Which would mean, I think, that undecided people are less likely to read 9-2's clever snark and think they know everything. So I actually think it's a win for us... and tbh, I think that's why it grates on these people so. Because they scream their heads off going "I KNOWWW THE NAZIS R BAD!!!" and the undecideds go "Hmm, I think you guys/gyns are jumping to conclusions..."

That's what I'm seeing over there, anyway. Too many of us made too much sense, so now the hardcore rads like Sam are bringin' in the big guns.

Foom.