Enjoying torture is disgusting.

Claim this to a masochist, see what they say.

Hmmm, good point. I view consensual "torture" in a very different way. I don't think it is truly torture as the word is meant. But enjoying consensually being beaten or whatever is not disgusting, and I hope the description makes it clear enough that I wasn't intending to discuss BDSM.

Lord knows, I've made claims that haven't meant exactly what I wanted them to also.
This claim/detail fails to make the distinction your comment insists you want it to. As it stands, this claim is easily construed as BDSM negative, although I understand that no offense was meant.

That's a fair reason to object to it. I definitely have no problem with BDSM when everyone consents.

one person's torture is another persons pleasure on either side of the give and take fence

Geoffrey, that's not always true. Many people have been tortured against their will. That's torture, not pleasure.

As I said, I have no problems with consensual BDSM, but this isn't about that. It's about hurting people without their consent.

R: I love you dearly, but your testiness in your response to G indicates to me that you don't realize exactly what you have done. I hate to repeat myself, so I'll try and say this differently than I did earlier. Let me preface this by saying not one, not two, but three different people thought your description failed to make it clear you weren't including BDSM in your condemnation.

By failing to make that clear in the claim or description that you are talking about non-consensual torture, combined with your offhanded response to complaints about your claim, you are encouraging negative stereotypes and prejudices.

This faux-pas is as hurtful and serious as a claim stating "Homosexuality is a sin" instead of "Some Christians consider homosexuality a sin". If we run with this simile, how irate would you be if the author of this fictitious claim were to comment, "Oh, well, my definition of the words involved in this claim make me think I made this clear, the claim really isn't about what you think it's about, so I don't really have problems with homosexuals." I suspect your response might be "well, you may not have a problem with them, but now they certainly have a problem with you."


R: You may have no problems with people who practice consensual BDSM, but any of them who read your comments here will surely have a problem with you.

Ben, I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to Geoffrey, who seemed to be saying that torture is all subjective and that non-consensual torture isn't a big deal.

Also, I wasn't snippy in intent, so that's one of those issues of tone being unclear.

I have no problem with someone who disagrees because of BDSM reasons, although if it's potentially ambiguous I do think they should read the inspired by (as I do) to determine how it was meant, then disagree because of ambiguity.

You made your point clear, and I have no problem with your disagreement. I was clarifying for someone else who seemed to think torture was no big deal.

It is.

And I still mantain that calling consensual BDSM torture is a misuse of the word that should not be assumed. Unless the person inflicting things goes too far in a way that is not BDSM, it's just plain not torture. You can call it torture because that is sexier, and I am fine with that.

But, to me, this is like me posting a claim saying "rape is wrong" and someone complaining that I'm insulting people with rape fantasies who play-act rape. Playacting rape is not rape. It never will be rape so long as both parties consent. And that's not a reason to be okay with rape.

Three people misconstruing an idea is no guarantee that the idea was misrepresented. Study polls and you'll find that no matter how far-fetched an idea may seem, it will always find more than one backer.

I'd say its creepy.

I have to say that finding pleasure in torture does not undo the fact that it's torturous. I find sexual teasing sincerely torturous, but I still love it. Am I disgusting for enjoying my own torture? It's a grim possibility. As far as the original intent goes, I'd have to agree with that, however I can't get past my own interpretation and really agree whole heartedly.

I don't consider it to be torture. And to the extent you may argue it is, I'll argue that the word has two meanings. Even for those who enjoy pain, consensual pain and nonconsensual pain tend to be treated differently. And with the consensual pain they are able to stop anything that is a problem, I just don't view that as torture, and I don't care how whipped, flogged, or burned you are in the process.

Ok, but I was actually referring to a form of mental torture. Which I find much more excruciating. I get your point though.

oo, and how about self torture?

Basically if you consent and you have a way of setting limits, it simply isn't the same thing. Also, it's not the same if you feel there is no strong risk of death. With something like waterboarding it is fairly easy for there to be an accidental death because it is ridiculously dangerous. If you trust the person you are with, it is different.

hmmm, I have a new hypothetical. Let's say that the torturer, who has the consent, does so, but only really derives pleasure once the tortured says they're over the limit? Like, yea yea yea NO, and the no is the climax of their pleasure? Then the consent is withdrawn, temporarily. That would be actual torture wouldn't it? If it continued that way, just going over the threshold? Maybe I'm going off the deep end with this one.

If the consent were truly withdrawn, then that would be where the true torture starts. But real torture has several really bad elements. One is the lack of consent. Another is that you don't know how far it will go. Another is that you don't trust the person to not do permanent damage or to kill you, so you don't know whether this will have a lifelong effect.

You could start out consensually and betray someone and start torturing them, but the consent part earlier is really irrelevant once there is no consent and the other person has no control and no say in the matter.

ok, that's what i thought. i knew there had to be a crossover between the different meanings somewhere.