Hideous News Items Should NOT Be Confused With S/M or D/s

Two recent news items have sent ripples across the National Football League. They have also spawned ignorant and upsetting comments from people who simply do not understand the topics at hand.

We can find no shortage of news copy about Ray Rice, running back for the Baltimore Ravens, who was suspended initially for two games and subsequently for an indefinite period of time. The disciplinary action came in response to an altercation with his then-fiancee, now wife, Janay Palmer. The couple have a two-year-old daughter, Rayven.

In a widely circulated tweet, Janay Rice told the world, "I woke up this morning feeling like I had a horrible nightmare, feeling like I'm mourning the death of my closest friend. But to have to accept the fact that it's reality is a nightmare in itself. No one knows the pain that the media & unwanted options from the public has caused my family. To make us relive a moment in our lives that we regret every day is a horrible thing. To take something away from the man I love that he has worked his ass of for all his life just to gain ratings is horrific. THIS IS OUR LIFE! What don't you all get. If your intentions were to hurt us, embarrass us, make us feel alone, take all happiness away, you've succeeded on so many levels. Just know we will continue to grow & show the world what real love is! Ravensnation we love you!"

A blog of this sort is not the proper forum whereon to debate the actions (or inactions) of National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell, the motives of Ray and Janay Rice, or the frequency of domestic assault by professional athletes. Rather, I wish to address various pundits whose responses to Janay Rice's tweet reflect a profound ignorance of what is commonly lumped together as BDSM.

Some people have (soberly?) observed that Janay Palmer was the fiancee of Raymell Rice at the time of the incident, and has since become his wife. Their argument is that this was effectively an issue between "consenting adults," and that since she has not pressed charges, the matter should be treated no differently than anything similar that might arise in an S/M relationship.

Sadly, they miss the point completely. The couple quarreled; cameras clearly caught some sort of disagreement as they walked to the elevator. One might speculate -- as did a commentator on National Public Radio this morning -- that the running back did not wish to strike his fiancee in the hallway, where they would be visible, but perhaps assumed he could do so with impunity once the elevator doors were closed (i.e., that he did not realize he was still on camera). This, too, is beside the point. The issue is that a 200-plus pound man struck a woman in the head and caused her to suffer a concussion. She was "out cold," unconscious.

Countless victims of abuse have remained with their abusers; this is a well-known fact. Moreover, many suspect our legal system gives "All-Pro" athletes a clear advantage (cf., the O. J. Simpson murder trial). We cannot hope to know why Janay Palmer Rice tweeted. What we do know is that this was clearly not an example of "rough sex." A boxer who suffered similar injury might well feel the effects years later. This was nothing less than a brutal assault, and must be recognized as such.

A second case has arisen -- one that is in many ways even more disturbing. Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson has been indicted on charges of child abuse; he apparently punished his four-year-old son with "switches" -- i.e., tree branches. For some perverse reason, the Peterson case has apparently invited comparison to "flogging" or "caning." This is again hopelessly off the mark. One might suggest that a parent who would inflict a beating of this magnitude on a four-year-old child has a "sadistic" streak, but such depravity is decidedly not part of the lifestyle.

Bottom line: One may argue that some sadists are psychopaths and sociopaths, and one can surely find psychopaths and sociopaths who are also sadists. However, let us describe these two tragic incidents properly -- as egregious examples of abusive and uncontrolled violence.

Frightening "Fantasies" (?) in the News!

I think the article below speaks for itself. Clearly, a line must be drawn somewhere. Where does "role-play" end and the issue of "consent" begin? Where -- if anywhere -- does "fantasy" overstep its bounds? And, of course, where and how does "freedom of speech" enter into the equation?
*****

NY "cannibal cop" trial to spotlight violent sex fantasy subculture
10:51am EST
By Chris Francescani
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York federal trial of accused "cannibal cop" Gilberto Valle due to start on Monday promises to highlight an online subculture where people trade violent sexual fantasies.
Sex crimes prosecutors, First Amendment defense attorneys and sexual behaviorists said they had never before heard of a suspected conspiracy to commit a violent sexual crime begun on a website for violent sexual fantasy role play.
"It's the perfect alibi," said former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor Linda Fairstein, who is not involved in the Valle case, which is being prosecuted in Manhattan by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
"A case of this magnitude, and of this nature, may make case law," Fairstein said.
Opening arguments were expected to begin Monday afternoon.
Valle has pleaded not guilty to conspiring with New Jersey mechanic Michael Van Hise to kidnap, cannibalize and kill a Manhattan woman.
Valle has said he was merely engaged in online fetish role play and never intended to commit a crime. Federal authorities contend he took real action outside the role play websites.
Investigators say Valle compiled an online dossier with the names and in some cases photos or physical descriptions of more than 100 women, and discussed targeting some of them for kidnap and murder.
They say he met one woman for brunch, improperly accessed a police database to get information on another, and engaged in surveillance of a third, a high school senior of whom Valle wrote to a fellow fetishist that "she is the most desirable piece of meat I've ever met."
Prosecutors have also said Valle searched online for homemade chloroform recipes so he could "knock out" a Manhattan woman and deliver her to Van Hise.
The pair also discussed "slow cooking" the woman to keep her alive as long as possible, prosecutors contend.
Defense attorneys for both men have said the goal of role-play is to make it as realistic as possible, enhancing the thrill.
"You draw on your real life to make it as real as possible, but it's fantasy," Van Hise's attorney Alice Fontier told a judge recently.
Sex crime investigators have been monitoring chat rooms and fetish websites for child molesters since the advent of the internet. But violent sex fantasy role playing sites present a new level of legal complexity.
"Everybody is concerned about individuals whose sex fantasies reflect a dangerous mindset," said Martin Klein, a sex therapist who has testified in state and federal sex crimes cases. "The problem is the people that are actually dangerous - their fantasies tend to look very, very similar to those of healthy people. On the Internet, the line between imagination and behavior has gotten really very thin."
(Additional reporting by Elizabeth Dilts; Editing by Daniel Trotta and Eric Walsh)
© Thomson Reuters

Resuming (as the New Year rolls in!)

For the first time since forever -- or so it seems -- I am pleased to add some content to this blog. I hope to see a few "followers" join in!

(1) First off, the Museum of Modern Arts presented a Pier Paolo Pasolini film retrospective that featured his 1964 opus, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. I mention this primarily because the director's name is more explicitly connected to Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975). Salò is loosely based on de Sade's work (the subtitle), and reset (in a brilliant twist) to 1944. It follows the depraved orgies of four fascist libertines who have fled north to the area still nominally controlled by Mussolini at the time.

Despite all the "controversy" -- the film is still banned in many countries -- the work nevertheless garnered considerable critical acclaim. This fact, in turn, invites a reconsideration of de Sade's original.

(2) BBC Radio's "Hard Talk" program recently rebroadcast its October interview with Dr. Brooke Magnanti, a research scientist with an unusual career path. She had run out of money while completing her doctoral studies, so (to pay the bills) she became an escort -- and blogged about her "work" under the pseudonym, Belle de Jour. Eventually, she would publish several books under that pen name, although her most recent title, The Sex Myth, came out under her own name. Suffice it to say that she appears to have done quite well as an author!

(3) Finally, I note that the Harvard's Committee on Student Life has officially approved another student organization -- Harvard College Munch. The group is billed as "an informal lunch or dinner meeting for people across the kink community." I suppose this means recognition as an alternative lifestyle, or perhaps alternative lifestyles. Let's stay tuned.

In closing, let me append that it feels wonderful to blog again, although I make no promises as to how regularly I shall do so. Please feel free to contact me with questions and ideas for topics to discuss. Happy New Year!

Subs, Bottoms, Or Simply Victims When We Fly?

The situation at airline "security" these days revisits the D/s or S/M metaphor yet again. Of course, I trust that readers recognize the key difference: our participation in the "security-play" is clearly not consensual. Thus, we are subject to Domination or Topping by airport "security," even though we do not wish to play!

That said, however, isn't it an absolutely marvelous abuse of power? They run their scanners and get a free peak at our bodies! Apparently, the outlines of the penis, scrotum, and breasts are quite clearly visible, and I understand that pubic hair may actually be discernible to the trained eye!

I do not object as much to the pictures, even though some of these will, almost inevitably, find their way onto the Internet sooner or later. The real issue is the exposure to radiation, which can be a daunting proposition for one who has already had a melanoma. Sunscreen, alas, won't do us much good.

Of course, we may simply refuse the visual scans. In that case, we are welcome to be groped and fondled instead. The stories abound; the crotches of nuns have been fingered, breasts have been squeezed, and one poor woman who had undergone a mastectomy had that missing breast "examined" most thoroughly.

Are these assaults truly for our "security"? Perhaps. However, I suspect they are also a raw abuse of power, which must stiffen the pricks of various people in positions of authority. This is NOT D/s and it is NOT S/M. It is instead raw sadism on the part of those who seek victims, rather than partners.

The Differentiation Between Sex And Play

A discussion of this sort might almost arouse suspicion of a Clintonian equivocation. Essentially, "play" may involve any amount of activity which includes sexual content, while "sex" clearly refers to some sort mutual involvement, whether coital, oral, anal, or otherwise (or any combination thereof).

Where does one draw the line? Through such techniques as hypnosis and hyperempiria, many people become more open to suggestions (assuming these suggestions are agreeable). There are many documented cases -- to say nothing of videos circulating along the Internet! -- which establish that a small group of women can actually have orgasms just from the verbal instructions (i. e., the suggestions) of the voice delivering them. Now, if a practitioner, using hypnosis or hyperempiria, begins talking to a woman (who is fully clothed and stretched out on a reclining chair), and she has an orgasm, is it not somewhat unreasonable to claim that the two have been "sexually involved"? Presumably, most people would agree that such a completely verbal exchange does not constitute "sex."

We may now extrapolate. The fact that a woman -- or, we may similarly infer, a man -- has an orgasm does not mean that she (or he) has necessarily "had sex." In that case, if there is no orgasm, it should be even less likely that "sex" has been enjoyed.

What, then, is meant by "play." Pure play may involve a fetish (e. g., breast-play, medical-play, even water-play) between two people who are not otherwise sexually engaged. I respectfully submit that situations of the sort described below are indeed "play," rather than "sex":

(1) A woman with a urine fetish expressed a desire that a man with some interest in water-play accompany her to a park. By arrangement, they sat facing each other across a short distance on park benches. The woman wore a very short skirt and white underwear. The man could easily be able to watch her urinate; the wet garment revealed precisely what was happening as she slowly released some fluid from her bladder. The mission accomplished, the two returned to their automobiles and drove back to their respective homes, highly aroused.

(2) A woman wanted to be spanked on her bare bottom. An accomplished spanker obliged this request most thoroughly, and afterward rubbed some salve into the buttocks. She got dressed, they chatted for a while, shared lunch at a nearby eatery, and went their separate ways.

(3) This next activity simply takes the matter a little further. The couple engaged in medical-fetish, with the male "doctor" providing a very thorough "examination" to the female "patient." The latter became so highly aroused that she easily climaxed during the "internal" portion of the exam. Perhaps -- in a variant of the same hypothetical story -- she enjoyed several orgasms. Thereafter, she got dressed, and the "play" was over.

The last example above is essentially no different than the others, save that nudity is introduced into the equation, along with one or more orgasms. However, we can scarcely argue that nudity equates to sex; nude beaches and camps all over the world provide ample testimony to the contrary. Why, then, maintain that the third scene is "sexual," when the only support for this position is the orgasm -- something which might also have occurred simply from the spoken word (i. e., a form of conversation)? And, if one orgasm leaves us within the realm of "play," we have surely opened the floodgates; two, or three, or four orgasms ought not change the equation.

Of course, one might insist that anything "sexual" in nature constitutes sex. Nevertheless, I prefer to believe that there is a clear line of differentiation here. I also believe that one may remain honestly monogamous -- i. e., have sex with only one person -- while nevertheless enjoying "play" with one or more other people.

American Politics: D/s or S/M??

This is certainly a rather tricky issue, but one worthy of reflection. Based on the definitions established earlier within this blog, I should prefer to suggest that there is something quite different at play here. In other words, if asked whether the political realities we confront today suggest D/s or S/M, I should simply answer as though this were a "yes/no" question: No!

I believe that there are some rather cruel, mean-spirited people in power at present -- both Democrats and Republicans (not that there is really terribly much difference). The real "power," of course, is manifested by the financial elites and the "big" corporations (e. g., "big" oil, pharmaceuticals, etc.). Clearly, these people are intoxicated by their "power," and by the "control" it enables them to exert. To this extent, the situation suggests D/s. No less certainly, they show a callous disregard for the pain they inflict; indeed, it seems to arouse them. To this extent, they seem "sadistic." However, the issue of "consent" is lost in the descriptions above, and thus I feel that while a label like "control-freak" or even an adjective like "sadistic" may apply, we are dealing with a completely different "relationship."

I recall hearing rumors of how certain politicians would amuse themselves by watching films of the Vietnam war -- i. e., they would observe the effects of napalm bombs dropped on civilians. I wondered whether the sight of the poor Vietnamese running for their lives with their skins on fire stiffened the pricks of these individuals, and if so, what sort of psychopaths were running the country at the time. If the accounts were indeed true, one might argue that these were vile, sadistic people, but here we must not confuse such behavior with a consensual relationship. Worse still, of course, was the cruelty of the Roman Emperor, Nero -- but again, he simply tortured and murdered victims.

On the other hand, perhaps the American people have voluntarily given up control. Perhaps we are simply -- and consensually -- permitting our representatives and senators to sell out our nation to the "banksters," or giving control of our destiny to criminals, frauds, liars, and selfish thieves. In this case, one might argue for the D/s relationship. However, the analogy is once again hopelessly far-fetched. We may indeed have given up "control" (assuming we actually had any!), but most people are completely ignorant of the long-range consequences of contemporary policies. Most are similarly unaware of the implications of these obscene debts, and equally ignorant of many of the behind-the-scenes machinations.

In sum, then, while one might argue that control has been voluntarily surrendered, the perception proves an illusion; while one might suggest titillation (sexual or otherwise) by the infliction of pain, the analogy is flawed. In a true D/s relationship, it is imperative that both parties fully understand the dynamic between them. Any pain inflicted in an S/M relationship must be arousing and fulfilling for the Bottom as well as the Top. Thus, I must politely maintain that such adjectives "cruel" and "sadistic" are not completely synonymous, and that for the purposes of this forum, our political leaders neither Dom us nor Top us; they merely abuse us!

Cerebral Domination and Covert Hypnosis

A blog of this sort is perhaps not the best forum for a discussion of hypnosis. Nevertheless, the notion of "covert hypnosis" -- which some authorities identify as "conversational hypnosis," and which is certainly quite similar to the "indirect hypnosis" of Erickson -- invites comparisons.

The reader should of course be aware that there has never been a documented case in which someone was truly hypnotized against his or her will. That said: when a subject has been hypnotized, he/she is more open to suggestions, assuming those suggestions are agreeable.

This past semester, I once again engaged in some personal work with one of my students. During the course of a few months, I have led her to change certain destructive behaviors -- e. g., to stop smoking and consuming alcohol. I also helped her reverse course considerably in school, with the result that her grades were far better than she had initially feared they might be. Finally, I have encouraged her to address a couple of major personal problems which she had been ignoring.

A colleague, aware of my involvement with hypnosis, suggested that much of my success was due to skillful application of Ericksonian techniques. He referred to "covert hypnosis," a notion I actually find somewhat distasteful.

I felt somewhat more comfortable with commentary from the other direction. A friend who knows of my work with cerebral Domination maintained that I have been "Domming" this student, even though the Domination was surely on a very subtle scale (and, for obvious reasons, without bondage, discipline, nudity, etc.)

I suppose I might throw this one open to discussion. Have I been practicing cerebral Domination (as I prefer to believe) or covert hypnosis?