Comment "You have to pay for your pleasure"
This is my original commentary to an article at Medium.com about a BDSM-positive lady which wants to receive a pleasure and not to pay for that (November 2, 2019).
You have to pay for your pleasure because it is all yours. As well as the problems.
![Comment "You have to pay for your pleasure"]()
Image from Shutterstock
It’s amazing how people can confuse and mix the things up. The article is full of contradictions. That’s what I want to write about (not BDSM).
1. The explorations are always dangerous. Any of them. The further a person gets in his or her studies (and ideally where nobody has ever been before), the greater risk this person takes. It concerns literally everything - geographical discoveries (you can get frozen, for example), extreme sports (you can get crippled), scientific or humanitarian breakthroughs (you can go mad or commit suicide)... Even in meditation (which may seem safer), you can go so far that you can’t get back into your body.
The reward for risk is a very important inner feeling of satisfaction and not very important (from my point of view) pleasure to say to others: “I’ve been there and what I saw...”. Maybe to write a book about it... But you have to pay for your satisfaction and pleasure. Everything has to be paid for.
It seems like a respected author wants to explore her “dark side” and not to pay for it. It doesn't work like this. The price here is the risk of running into a real rapist instead of a “partner for violence”. Then you need not get involved in such relations. That’s so simple. If you are interested in this aspect of your “dark” side, talk to others, think for a while and observe if you want to go to BDSM at all, and then observe the alleged partner for a while also... Then, most likely, there will be no error like in any other relations. And the risk is ALWAYS there in any study.
2. The author also mixes up her personal relationships with other people and her relations with the state. There are “you and others” relationships. These are normal human relationships that are governed by tacit rules like “live and let others to live”. There are “you and your state” relationships which are regulated by law (Criminal code, for example). You cannot mix the two of them. They cannot be mixed. Put yourself in the judge’s seat. It will turn out that out of 10 defendants on black or white BDSM lady lawsuit 7 men acted by consent, but slightly overstepped some intimate blurred boundaries, and three of them tied her up and then cynically raped her. I would send the plaintiff to the hell.
When the author says, “Black women can safely participate in BDSM and hold space for those who have been harmed while holding their abusers accountable” - it is an utopia. And it’s not about the color of the skin. If you go to your exploration of whatever personally and consciously (that’s what the author propagates), you are responsible personally and be conscious about that. It is pointless to call on the state obligations to save you from the problems you incurred.
So if you and your partner like anal sex or BDSM, enjoy them and ignore that “until 2003, for example, anal sex was still a crime in 14 states, and it was through advocacy and activism that matter was taken to the Supreme Court and ruled unconstitutional.” Do you really need the Supreme Court permission for anal sex? It is silly to bring your personal matters to the public.
3. Interestingly enough, the author on the one hand claims that “we don’t want to draw any more negative attention or confirm any negative assumptions made about us”, and says right after: “Still, we can’t sit idly by and pretend that abuse never happens...”. The author even “... committed to expanding the discourse about what it looks like and how we can all do a better job of preventing it”. But the discourse will be about nothing. Why then to start it?
P.S. The “dark” side of the author’s sexuality exists just because the “light” one does. The name of the “light” side is the MORALITY. And it is a delusion, since there are many different moralities. That's why I am not a moralist.
P.P.S. Dear Reader! I am very much interested in your opinion on the subject of this article. Please, write a comment or ask a question if you want to clarify something.
Yours,
Igor Chykalov
..........
You have to pay for your pleasure because it is all yours. As well as the problems.
Image from Shutterstock
It’s amazing how people can confuse and mix the things up. The article is full of contradictions. That’s what I want to write about (not BDSM).
1. The explorations are always dangerous. Any of them. The further a person gets in his or her studies (and ideally where nobody has ever been before), the greater risk this person takes. It concerns literally everything - geographical discoveries (you can get frozen, for example), extreme sports (you can get crippled), scientific or humanitarian breakthroughs (you can go mad or commit suicide)... Even in meditation (which may seem safer), you can go so far that you can’t get back into your body.
The reward for risk is a very important inner feeling of satisfaction and not very important (from my point of view) pleasure to say to others: “I’ve been there and what I saw...”. Maybe to write a book about it... But you have to pay for your satisfaction and pleasure. Everything has to be paid for.
It seems like a respected author wants to explore her “dark side” and not to pay for it. It doesn't work like this. The price here is the risk of running into a real rapist instead of a “partner for violence”. Then you need not get involved in such relations. That’s so simple. If you are interested in this aspect of your “dark” side, talk to others, think for a while and observe if you want to go to BDSM at all, and then observe the alleged partner for a while also... Then, most likely, there will be no error like in any other relations. And the risk is ALWAYS there in any study.
2. The author also mixes up her personal relationships with other people and her relations with the state. There are “you and others” relationships. These are normal human relationships that are governed by tacit rules like “live and let others to live”. There are “you and your state” relationships which are regulated by law (Criminal code, for example). You cannot mix the two of them. They cannot be mixed. Put yourself in the judge’s seat. It will turn out that out of 10 defendants on black or white BDSM lady lawsuit 7 men acted by consent, but slightly overstepped some intimate blurred boundaries, and three of them tied her up and then cynically raped her. I would send the plaintiff to the hell.
When the author says, “Black women can safely participate in BDSM and hold space for those who have been harmed while holding their abusers accountable” - it is an utopia. And it’s not about the color of the skin. If you go to your exploration of whatever personally and consciously (that’s what the author propagates), you are responsible personally and be conscious about that. It is pointless to call on the state obligations to save you from the problems you incurred.
So if you and your partner like anal sex or BDSM, enjoy them and ignore that “until 2003, for example, anal sex was still a crime in 14 states, and it was through advocacy and activism that matter was taken to the Supreme Court and ruled unconstitutional.” Do you really need the Supreme Court permission for anal sex? It is silly to bring your personal matters to the public.
3. Interestingly enough, the author on the one hand claims that “we don’t want to draw any more negative attention or confirm any negative assumptions made about us”, and says right after: “Still, we can’t sit idly by and pretend that abuse never happens...”. The author even “... committed to expanding the discourse about what it looks like and how we can all do a better job of preventing it”. But the discourse will be about nothing. Why then to start it?
P.S. The “dark” side of the author’s sexuality exists just because the “light” one does. The name of the “light” side is the MORALITY. And it is a delusion, since there are many different moralities. That's why I am not a moralist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.P.S. Dear Reader! I am very much interested in your opinion on the subject of this article. Please, write a comment or ask a question if you want to clarify something.
Yours,
Igor Chykalov
Comment
✚ Add comment
Kindle Edition
Kindle Edition
