Moral defects?

[ksst]

Yes I did. I was going to make my own joke, but it wasn't very funny so I deleted it. Hugs to you on your crappy day.

[Ozme52]

The mistake being made by those who misvalue their partner is the presumption that while the dominant is indeed the superior role, and the submissive is indeed the inferior role, those adjectives must be used with their positional definitions. Those adjectives have nothing to do with the value of the role nor our perceptions of worth.

The original post (OP) is filled with flaws imo, for the very reason that it is filled with words that have multiple meanings but uses them miscomparing the definitions.

Even more importantly, the OP presumes all dominants are men and all submissives are women and extrapolates those concepts into her discussion. Well, these orientations are, and should be, genderless. So how a dominant feels about one or the other gender outside of what we do in our community is kind of irrelevent imo.

[leo9]

Thanks for your replies!
The thing is though, what is also argued, is that it fuels sexism. Is it in any of your experience that Doms also see women outside of the scene as inferior? Does pornography that displays violence against women effect all women, even though they do not themselves participate, in that they are then treated differently by men who watch it?

There is pornography based on violence against women, and porn based on violence against men. The fact that one is considered normal and displayed in mass media, and the other considered weird and kinky, is a product of society's attitudes. If the existence of porn created those attitudes, both or neither of them would be widely displayed.

Take an example that nobody considers "porn": you can make a whole archive of Hollywood films where a woman gets spanked by a man. (These days, you can find such lists on BDSM sites.) But to find scenes where a woman spanks a man you have to go to explicitly "kinky" productions. Society created that distinction, the films didn't create it.

But of course these things work both ways, and once created, the films reinforce the attitudes that created them.

The fact that dominatrix images are becoming more common in the mainstream - even if usually used jokingly - I see as a healthy sign of the gradual retreat of male-dominated sexism.

And as Snark said, anyone can blame their crimes on pornography. People have blamed comic books, video nasties and the Internet for their crimes, anything to avoid taking responsibility. Some people also blame their crimes on the Bible, but nobody takes that as proof it shoudl be banned.

[leo9]

Violent porn would bother/offend me, because it is non-consensual.

No, that's the lie that the censorship lobby use. Most porn involving pain and violent treatment doesn't even play at being non-consensual, it is clear that the sub is offering him/herself to be hurt for the Dom/me's and the audience's pleasure.

If you look at the trailers for most of the sites that advertise on this forum, even when the script involves an unwilling victim, they always end with an out-of-script moment where the sub assures the organisers and the audience that she enjoyed it. That's not just to keep the authorities off their backs: it's because most of their customers, too, want to know it's only a game.

[ksst]

I have watched some of those and wondered what the out of context moments at the end were for. That makes sense.