commented on SL Letter of the Day: A Painful Subject
There are 2 parts of the "dark kind of BDSM" that concern me:
1. You need to be ensuring that either partner can, at any time, revoke consent and end whatever it is that's happening. That's legally true for perfectly vanilla sex too: If you're going at it with somebody, and they say "stop", you're supposed to stop, right then and there, even if they previously consented to the activity 15 minutes earlier. That's why measures like safewords exist.
2. There are some kinks that cannot be justifiably satisfied, ever. There's no morally and legally justifiable way for a pedophile to completely satisfy their lust for prepubescent children. There's no morally and legally justifiable way for someone who gets off on killing innocent people to satisfy their kink (although that's an extremely rare phenomenon, it does happen, as a few high profile serial killers have demonstrated). And that sucks for whoever can't enjoy the sex they want, but it helps everyone else function.
commented on SL Letter of the Day: A Painful Subject
I'm with those who think this guy is no good for her.
What this guy definitely sounds like is the kind of guy who believes that there should be no concepts of marital rape or domestic violence. That is, he thinks that she is his to do with as he pleases, and when she said "I do", she consented to it. The key stated facts that lead me to this conclusion are: 1. He doesn't want a safeword, which every responsible dom I've ever come across believes is absolutely essential, and 2. he knows that the sex they're having is seriously hurting her, and yet he takes no steps to change what he's doing. Neither of those are the behavior of someone who has her interests in mind or wants her to be happy.
And I think she's decided to stay with him for much the same reasons that anyone else stays with abusers: Social embarrassment for having a failed relationship (and especially the reasons for it), fear of what the abuser will do if she leaves, the hope that things will get better if she says the right things or does the right things, financial costs that are too high, the belief that the abuse is partially her fault, the abuser's charming manner when not being abusive, etc.
At the very least, these are clearly sexually incompatible people (he has a need to hurt people in order to get off, she hates getting hurt), and that in and of itself could end it.
commented on Who's the Bigger Asshole: Richard Dawkins or the TSA?
The TSA is the bigger problem, and run by bigger assholes. However, Dawkins is also an asshole for thinking that the honey is in any way important compared to the people who have been kept locked up in a room without any kind of charges while their stuff is searched thoroughly, for the crime of being born with brown skin.
commented on SL Letter of the Day: OKStupid
On ChristianMingle, I'd expect more proposals for saddlebacking (engaging in heterosexual anal sex instead of vaginal sex to preserve her virginity).
commented on Church or Cult?
The "line" between a cult and a church isn't really a line, more of a spectrum.
My favorite way of telling which side of the line a group is on is the Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame (ABCDEF):
The idea is this: Rate some aspects of a group's behavior on a scale from 1-10, and get a score from 18 to 180. Typical organizations end up somewhere around 40, cultish organizations often score much higher than that.
And yes, by this definition, the church is cultish about a lot of things.
commented on SLLOTD: The Perfect Viking
@2 The Vikings that got written about by the Brits were the ones that showed up to rape and pillage. The ones that stayed home were more discreet and polite, at least by their own standards, and spent their time making totally awesome boats, being the best merchants in Europe, and writing those fun sagas for Wagner and Tolkein to crib from.
Oh, and Thor is the wrong god to pray to for this: Frey is more of a fellow who is known for spreading his seed around.
commented on Savage Love
@5 "Is it wrong to lie/mislead about my age? Not at the first meeting/flirtation stage."
Lying and claiming to be, say, 39 rather than 49 is no big deal. However, claiming to be 25 instead of 15 can create complications, especially if you end up in bed before you've discovered they're lying.
No mention of the Campsite Rule here?
commented on SLLOTD: Better Off Than Michigan
Sounds like one of my ex's, the only one I would not be happy to meet up with again. The tell-tale sign that I was fully justified in my wariness was that *her* friends were pointing out that she wasn't treating me well.
The threat that she'll "do something drastic" is an emotional manipulation tactic, pure and simple. What she's really saying, in a nutshell, is "I'm going to hurt myself, and it's all your fault!" But it's not you're fault, it's her fault - you didn't tell her to do it, you didn't want her to do it, you may have even taken steps to stop her, all you did was protect yourself by leaving an abusive relationship. And don't make any mistake about it, that's exactly what this is. If you think she's serious, then get one of her friends or family members to be physically nearby when you DTMFA.
commented on SL Letter of the Day: Single By Choice
One of the reasons she may be single: She may have treated those nice and interested guys badly when she rejected them (e.g. "Go away, you creep, I only date really good-looking guys!"). Word gets out among guys too, and if the word is "She's got ridiculous standards that no real man ever lives up to" no sane guy is going to go anywhere near that. Even the guys who do live up to those standards right now are going to guess that she'll leave in a heartbeat the moment he, say, starts getting older and less buff than he is now.
commented on Libertarianism Never Works in the Real World
@28 If you're going to quote Aleister Crowley, you need to understand the context behind the quote.
When Crowley wrote that, the prevailing moral statement among the people he was hanging around was "An ye harm none, do as thou wilt", which is intentionally archaic language for "Just don't hurt anybody". Crowley was putting forward a more sophisticated idea that you have a very specific purpose, and once you discover it you should pursue it to your fullest. In other words, it's not about anarchy, or hedonism, but about finding your true self and expressing it.
It's commonly misinterpreted by people who haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about to mean "Yeah, I can drink and smoke and screw and rob and steal, and it's all morally OK!"