I believe that it can be bu that it isn't necessarily. Sex with a sex worker is not an expresion of love and trust. Sex motivated by lust is not...Thundering Cloud wrote:I feel like we may be engaged in a debate over semantics on this point. I consider sexual activity (in many circumstances) to be an expression of love and trust.
Look at this statement and then tell me who is setting up this false dichotomy?The purpose of "BDSM relationships" is not different from the purpose of any other intimate relationship ... You seem to have this idea that "BDSM relationships" are in some category all their own, with completely different motives and goals from other intimate relationships.
Look at this statement by "Clouds"
And explain to me why "Clouds" may believe that everything in that list pertains to BDSM and not to all healthy relationships in general. Your comments mirror this logic, that is why I am presenting it.IN BDSM, among the serious practitioners I have known, it is considered unskillful and unacceptable
* to harm another (regardless of consent or ignorance),
* to take what is not negotiated,
* to fail to develop control and awareness,
* to fail to communicate honestly,
* to undertake risk without informed awareness or mindfulness to avoid harm,
* to use intoxicants while negotiating or practicing with others,
* to fail to address consequences, whether intended or accidental.
Comparing BDSM to homosexuality is not valid. Homosexuality does not take activities "popularly" recognised (even by a child, ie not via socialisation) as negative: inflicting physical pain, domination, humiliation, torture, restraint, beating, etc... and attempt to define them as expressions of love and tenderness. Homosexuality is the expression of love and tenderness (through sex as well) between people of the same sex.Would you suggest to a gay man that "normal" heterosexual sex is good enough, and that he should either learn to like it or be celibate? After all, if the purpose is ultimately the same, why add the ethically questionable aspect into the equation, right?
Bzzzzzzt... Wrong!Please do not take this the wrong way... but I have not seen much indication of your understanding this particular issue. Which is mainly why I have taken the time to reply -- I understand this topic by virtue of experience better than most on this forum (including yourself, I have come to suspect) are able to understand it by means of speculation. From what I gather, you have not felt nor explored a desire for BDSM firsthand. Am I right on this?
Excellent! Now we are using Buddhist theories of emptiness to justify desire! Buddhism bent to the service of ego-centred desire.If you understood BDSM-related desires, you would not have such difficulty separating particular actions (those falling under the heading of "domination", for instance) from particular motives (such as aggression, or a need to take advantage of another person). I do not get the feeling that my point about the contextual dependence of the wholesomeness of actions has quite been grasped, so I will try to explain it more clearly here. Given any specific action or behavior, there exist circumstances and intentions in context of which said action would be loving and skillful; likewise, for any specific action or behavior, there exist circumstances and intentions in context of which said action would be debasing and unskillful. No specific describable action has the intrinsic quality of being skillful nor of being unskillful. I think that understanding this may be the crux of the matter for you. You do not apparently understand how causing physical pain can possibly be an act of love or kindness. You see such actions as having an absolute nature, independent of their context. In your view they are intrinsically unwholesome no matter what, and this view is what seems to be hampering your understanding. In a Buddhist context, I would suggest that you do not entirely see the emptiness of specific actions. Intent is far more important.
The only thing you will do during this attempt is expose more of the weaknesses in your logic. But hey, knock yourself out trying!If you think that BDSM has a fundamentally different basis and purpose than more typical expressions of romance, then that is your delusion. I will do what I can to break it.
In closing I am not asking you to relinquish or abandon anything. In your previous post you asked:
And my answer was a pretty clear example of how one can utilise their compulsions in a postive (in terms of Buddhist ethics and practice) manner. I advise you to read the accounts of lives of the Mahasiddhas to see where this approach to practice originates from.My point is that blind aversion and blind indulgence of the desires one has are both counterproductive. The key is to avoid both extremes. Now, for someone who feels strongly compelled toward BDSM (and not at all toward "normal" romance), how would you advise going about this?