The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: alaric89 on February 10, 2014, 05:26:29 PM

Title: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 10, 2014, 05:26:29 PM
Libertarians Are Not Libertines (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UhU1A_swhs#ws)  I kind of thought the argument turned out to be against homosexuality. I don't think just being gay would make anybody a bad parent, so I strongly disagree on that. He brings a good point though, there has to be a line somewhere in how whacky behaviour the liberty movement should except for it to thrive. Where would a reasonable libertarian draw the line?
 I kind of have my little crusade against people who need to dominate their lover. I decided that if someone wants to submit to the will of someone in private it is not my problem, but slapping or yelling at your sub in public and it is. Also someone imprisoning another, even concentually, and I have a problem. Especially if the "guardian" won't let anyone talk to the charge.
 I happen to know that these are hard subjects to discuss, but anyone who wishes to do so is welcome to chime in. I would like easy answers and I don't have any.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 10, 2014, 06:46:47 PM
Oh, you bet I'm dangerous! hehe.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 10, 2014, 07:14:00 PM
I take it this guy would not agree with me about physical and emotional health depending on a balanced indulgence in the eight crucial sins (http://flamingfreedom.com/2013/12/17/episode-2013-december-16th/).
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: sillyperson on February 10, 2014, 09:39:43 PM
Pot, polyamory... many libertarians are libertines
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 11, 2014, 02:55:04 AM
The key word is "thrive". Alturnative lifestyles don't produce a lot of children who grow up into successful adults, do they? I have read that lifestylers are more stable mentally but I don't know their track record on parenthood. Penn and Teller showed a lesbian couple who had happy children, but they seemed almost vanilla except for the penis lacking thing.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 11, 2014, 03:07:57 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/della-wolf-is-b-c-s-1st-child-with-3-parents-on-birth-certificate-1.2526584 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/della-wolf-is-b-c-s-1st-child-with-3-parents-on-birth-certificate-1.2526584) Liz Zish, my alturnative facebook friend, who likes to be dominated, so she cools my hatered for pussy assed "tops" a little- shared this on facebook. I am pretty sure we will probably come to the conclusion that judgemental people suck.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: marie4u on February 11, 2014, 04:45:24 AM
no i dont think so... people have authrity to do anything they want. and being a gay is not a bad thing.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 11, 2014, 03:27:24 PM
You inspired a topic for last night's show!

(http://i.imgur.com/ltUXvLG.png) (http://flamingfreedom.com/2014/02/11/episode-2014-february-10th/)

Download the episode (http://flamingfreedom.com/media/archives/Flaming.Freedom.2014.02.10.mp3)
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 11, 2014, 05:55:37 PM
Well goody. The download link on this page doesn't work though. I linked this thread from that video on youtube so it would be nice if it did.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 11, 2014, 06:19:42 PM
Well goody. The download link on this page doesn't work though. I linked this thread from that video on youtube so it would be nice if it did.

The link is to this thread where the discussion is happening and the video is at the top. Are you saying you wish it linked directly to the video?
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 11, 2014, 06:39:00 PM
I linked to this thread from the video. It is currently on the top comment. When I tried to direct download on your post it didn't work. 
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 11, 2014, 09:47:40 PM
I think I know what you're talking about now and I've made it link directly to the download instead of going to the Flaming Freedom post with the download.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: John Shaw on February 12, 2014, 11:00:59 AM
I would generally avoid exposing children to the Dom/Sub thing.

Not because it's morally wrong, but because it's fetishizing the initiation of force, which would really fuck up a kid's perspective if someone's trying to raise them without violence.

"Say Billy, you know how we don't hurt one another and that's real important? I'd like you to meet mummy and daddy's friends Spikytitsling Whipsalot and Nutcracker McTakesthepeg, they beat on each other for fun and then fuck."

Again, not making rules for human behavior here, just thinking about who I'd hang with if I had kids around.

"Mummy and daddy are all about the NAP but hang out with people who beat on each other for fun." Is a far more complicated topic to have to explain than the 'rubbing peepees together' conversation.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 12, 2014, 11:41:21 AM
Well said. Do you think my view on not really wanting to see it is reasonable? I don't want to see somebody slapping their spouse around. Concentual or not.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: John Shaw on February 12, 2014, 11:55:25 AM
Well said. Do you think my view on not really wanting to see it is reasonable? I don't want to see somebody slapping their spouse around. Concentual or not.

I probably wouldn't hang out with people who do that. I wouldn't say I have the right not to have to see it.

If I ran a bidness I would probably tell spanky people who came there to knock that shit off, unless it was a BDSM club or some shit.

"Listen, you slap each other around and people here in libertopia might misunderstand what's going on and fuck you up for not being NAPpy, and you can't really blame them. And if some white knight blows another hole through my ceiling I'm gonna make you pay for it, or gank the repair costs out of your wallet after someone plugs you."
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 12, 2014, 01:33:37 PM
I would generally avoid exposing children to the Dom/Sub thing.

I think the vast majority of dom/sub types would agree with you. Most kids are traumatized just imagining their parents in sexual situations. I think the issue here is exposing kids to their parents doing anything sexual. These are things people do in private whether there's kink involved or not.

I probably wouldn't hang out with people who do that. I wouldn't say I have the right not to have to see it.

I hope you mean if they do it in front of you. Doing kinky things in front of people who don't care to see it sounds like a very specific and not very common fetish. You might be hanging out with kinky people and not even know it because, like most people, they do their sexy time in private.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 12, 2014, 04:39:48 PM
Does Michael W Dean have that fetish?
Does everybody in a gay parade have that fetish?
Do those religious people who believe womaen infurior have that fetish?
Rare my ass. Derrick J is the only libertine type I know of who I have never heard mention his lifestyle unless asked about it. I think libertines by definition have to be loud about it. A quiet gay couple who do nothing but maybe hold hands in public, (or any couple who keep happy fun time to themselves for that matter) are not really libertines at all are they?

Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: John Shaw on February 12, 2014, 07:21:26 PM
I hope you mean if they do it in front of you. Doing kinky things in front of people who don't care to see it sounds like a very specific and not very common fetish. You might be hanging out with kinky people and not even know it because, like most people, they do their sexy time in private.

Expose me to it. Yes. I have friends who do whatever in their private time. But if some character shows up to a house party with some other character on a leash they probably won't get invited back.

For instance:
(http://lenoirauteur.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/channing-tatum-gimp-this-is-the-end.jpg)

This sort of thing is not acceptable in our home.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 13, 2014, 08:03:07 PM
Okay, first fallacy is that you switched from people doing these things in front of other people or even their children to just talking about it in an appropriate place, e.g. on a show about liberty clearly directed at adults.

Does Michael W Dean have that fetish?

Like me, he's got a podcast and we talk about controversial things. We can talk just about stuph that most people already know all about and agree on if you want us to be boring.

Quote
Does everybody in a gay parade have that fetish?

Exaggerate much? Everyone... or maybe a few people who chose to be on floats? Were you actually there or were you seeing just the floats that the mainstream media decided to show on TV for controversy (translation: ratings)?. What about the marching bands? Various activist groups? The school groups (I used to march with those)? The massive numbers in the audience? The last several times I attended Prides, I didn't even watch the parade. They bore me. What about all the others like me who weren't even in the audience for the parade? You saw it on a float on the news != "everyone". Good grief.

Quote
Do those religious people who believe womaen infurior have that fetish?

I don't even... ask them. I don't fucking know. I haven't seen any connection.

Quote
A quiet gay couple who do nothing but maybe hold hands in public, (or any couple who keep happy fun time to themselves for that matter) are not really libertines at all are they?

You'd like that, wouldn't you? To make people feel ashamed of being libertines so you can pass your stifling baggage on to future generations.. You think it's not healthy. I disagree. I want a more libertine culture. I'm not at all interested in doing sexy time in public but I am going to speak my mind.

You've got nothing to back up your stifled notion of sexuality but "It's always been this way and it's supposed to be this way." May the best ideas win in the marketplace of ideas.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 13, 2014, 08:05:28 PM
If your idea of "dangerous" is "people doing things I don't think they should be doing because tradition", then yes, we're dangerous.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 14, 2014, 03:05:59 AM
At least we agree that a gay person isn't nessesarily a libertine right? That was the main place I disagreed with the video. Michael W Dean yelled at his wife to prove himself the badass when I called in to the Freedom Feens, remember? That forced me and Neema to submit by proxy. It was very uncomfortable, at least for me.
Why do you not see the similarity between people who have a dom/sub voluntarily relationship for religious reasons and every other relationship with the same dynamic?
I would say I am more the libertine of us two if you are going to simply define it as unusual sexually. I would like to have a sexual partner who is completely equal in responsabily and accountability to me and I am not exactly beating women off with a stick, where men who use women like kleanex often are.
Look at the recent turn Quantum Vibe took. After years of establishing a sexually even society, the writer had the heroes execute a man for "wife beating" a crime that shouldn't exist in that world. That writer seems to know his stuff but I find this contradiction odd.
Maybe we should define libertine in the first place, but please don't get all pissed off when I just try and hold everyone to the same standard.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 14, 2014, 08:56:29 AM
At least we agree that a gay person isn't nessesarily a libertine right?

I don't think they are but you just implied that everyone at a gay pride event is not just a libertine--they're all the specific kind who want to exhibit dom/sub behavior in public.

Quote
Michael W Dean yelled at his wife to prove himself the badass when I called in to the Freedom Feens, remember?

I don't remember that. Was I there? I don't listen to many podcasts. I don't reall know the details of Michael's situation beyond what he and I have specifically discussed either here or on podcasts that we were both on (either his or mine).

Quote
Why do you not see the similarity between people who have a dom/sub voluntarily relationship for religious reasons and every other relationship with the same dynamic?

I've explained these things before at length but, like a typical troll, your memory seems to span minutes before you're on a rampage and asking the same questions again. THAT is what pisses me off so much. You know what I think your problem is? You're projecting. Sexuality is not black and white. It might be that for you. Maybe you are succumbing to societal pressures to see anything but the missionary position as taboo, and of course the only alternatives to that you're noticing are people who are way over on the opposite side of the spectrum and completely out-of-the-closet about it (like adult-oriented podcast hosts). So you project Michael Deen and his wife (I guess? I don't know much about his lifestyle.) onto anyone who's sex life is not as boring as yours. I don't think libertine is defined by sex but that seems to be the part you obsess over.

I feel I'll regret this but I'll attempt to RE-answer you. They don't even seem similar to me. For one, in the huge, vast majority of BDSM relationships, the context is rather limited and just looked at as role-playing; a game. It's often just in the bedroom. If it goes outside the bedroom, it's still role-playing. I think the most important part is that one is done out of a sense of duty to tradition and pressure from a judgmental society (conservatives) vs. one that often requires people to act on their desires DESPITE pressure from society (judgmental folks like you) because it's taboo and non-traditional.

A lot of people, mostly conservatives but libertarians included, try to draw a clear line between us and other animals, but we are animals. Dominance and submission are behaviors that are influenced by our biology. Men do tend to be more sexually dominant and are more likely to attempt to initiate sex, in a relationship or out. I believe that a man sometimes feels sexy when he's exhibiting "manly" traits like being more physically powerful. I beleive that a women sometimes feels sexy exhibiting more "feminine" traits like being more desirable and actively pursued by a man. That's IN GENERAL.

Conservatives try to make sense of everything through the context of tradition and religion. They assume everyone's the same and try to make it so--whatever it takes to shore up a shaky faith-based belief. Libertines try to find a healthy balance of satisfying our animalistic desires in a civilized society by recognizing that everyone is different and incorporating open communication and consent. It's the libertarian path to a more civilized society.

Quote
I would like to have a sexual partner who is completely equal in responsabily and accountability to me and I am not exactly beating women off with a stick, where men who use women like kleanex often are.

Shocker. Sounds like you're buying into feminist bullshit. I don't see the big deal though. Aren't you in a happy marriage? By the way, yet another false dichotomy alert--you can have equal responsibility and accountability in a libertine relationship. You get EXACTLY what both partners want in exactly the context they want it.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 14, 2014, 09:44:20 AM
I am working on my second divorce. Who the hell is projecting? You are the one telling me what I do. Why do you get so worked up about it?
 We are not going to get anywhere by generalizing and demonizing anyone. You seem to think religious couples never have good sex lives. Why is that?
 If it makes you feel any better a Amish couple who pushed their sexual beliefs on everyone (even if she taught the kids how to make butter in one of those dildo ina bucket thingies) wouldn't be invited back to my lunch buffets more then once either, so I wouldn't just be being a dick to the BDSM couple with the girl wearing a saddle and a horse tail buttplug (even if she was giving children pony rides) when I didn't want them there.
 If there is a feminist who wants woman truly equal and accountable at work or during a divorce I haven't heard the US version of it. Oddly enough Norwegian feminists do fight for mens rights, but they are usually leftists.
 I don't remember discussing libertines with you before. Until this thread I didn't know you considered yourself one. I kind of thought after seeing my old Santorum thread you understood I wasn't prude. I just don't like to dominate or be dominated, how and where I stick this into that or lick there after she has been marinating in a sauna has nothing to do with dominance.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 14, 2014, 11:00:26 AM
This is actually based in reality. Cracked covered it. The olympians are horn-dogs.

http://www.theonion.com/video/olympic-village-tour-see-where-the-athletes-live-t,35266/ (http://www.theonion.com/video/olympic-village-tour-see-where-the-athletes-live-t,35266/)
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 14, 2014, 11:24:08 AM
Why do you get so worked up about it?

Because you are judgmental about people into BDSM based on misconceptions, then I attempt to explain and it always seems to fall on deaf ears. You don't have an excuse to be ignorant anymore.

Quote
We are not going to get anywhere by generalizing and demonizing anyone.

What I just said. The hypocrisy in that statement boggles my mind.

Quote
You seem to think religious couples never have good sex lives. Why is that?

Only religions that attach a bunch of guilt to completely natural sexual desire. To the extent that a particular religion doesn't do that, I think there's potential for good sex lives. Most of the mainstream ones do that though.

Quote
If it makes you feel any better a Amish couple who pushed their sexual beliefs on everyone (even if she taught the kids how to make butter in one of those dildo ina bucket thingies) wouldn't be invited back to my lunch buffets more then once either, so I wouldn't just be being a dick to the BDSM couple with the girl wearing a saddle and a horse tail buttplug (even if she was giving children pony rides) when I didn't want them there.

This is such a straw man and a ridiculous comparison. Religious people try to control the behavior of others; not libertines. Have you or anyone you know had guests show up like that to a lunch buffet? The only place I've seen something like that is somewhere it was appropriate, e.g. a specific section for it at Pride in San Fran or a kinky leather bar. And a naked horse-woman giving kids pony rides? Tell me when and where you saw that because those folks ARE fucked up and I guarantee the broader BDSM community wouldn't be tolerant of that shit.

Quote
I don't remember discussing libertines with you before. Until this thread I didn't know you considered yourself one.

Maybe we haven't used that word but I feel we've discussed it at length. I feel that we all have different desires and that it's not only acceptable but healthy to act on our desires as long as everything is consensual and no one is harmed. That's what I mean by libertine. The libertarian in me says consent is a must but my personal attitude is I won't engage in harm, even if it's consensual. Even if someone expressly wants me to engage in anything I think is harmful to either of us physically or emotionally, I wouldn't do it. But I would make those judgments based on reason and evidence and do my best not to be biased by some bullshit guilt simply because it's taboo or not traditional. I feel like the judgmental guy in the video is guilty of exactly those sorts of biases in his judgment of libertines.

Quote
I just don't like to dominate or be dominated, how and where I stick this into that or lick there after she has been marinating in a sauna has nothing to do with dominance.

That's fine. Don't do it. But you have a judgmental attitude about a whole spectrum behaviors of other people based on what appear to be some of the most extreme cases.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 14, 2014, 11:54:59 AM
Does Sex Affect Athletic Performance? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0CRvOJqwzE#ws)
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 14, 2014, 11:57:50 AM
I haven't judged lifestylers of any sort even once on this thread, in fact I stated I don't judge them at all. I say be open and honest about it and try not to surprise people because it can be misunderstood. You are the one judging people Dale. Personally I know many religious couples who couldn't be happier with sex lives that compete with porn stars. They just don't have to cover themselves with latex to do it.
(http://m.cdn.blog.hu/pa/parafilia/image/ponygirl2005.jpg)
Who wouldn't want a ride?
(http://bolstablog.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/amish-woman-churning-butter.jpg?w=200&h=300)
You bet your ass there is a husband getting a hell of a handy.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 14, 2014, 12:47:00 PM
I haven't judged lifestylers of any sort even once on this thread, in fact I stated I don't judge them at all.

Can you even hear yourself thinking?

First, the title of the thread:
Quote
Are libertines DANGEROUS?

I kind of have my little crusade against people who need to dominate their lover.

Sidenote: The word "need" seems loaded in this context. A preference != a need necessarily. And sometimes someone desires (or needs) to be dominated and the "top", as you call them, can just be trying to accommodate someone else's needs.

someone imprisoning another, even concentually, and I have a problem.

Quote
...my hatered for pussy assed "tops"...

Now I need to find out what your definition of "judgmental" is. Thinking someone's lifestyle might actually be dangerous? Having a problem with completely consensual behavior? Calling someone a pussy for their preferences? Having a personal crusade against them? Help me understand what YOU mean by "judgmental".
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 14, 2014, 01:35:14 PM
 When you grow up constantly trying to survive because the head of the household needs to dominate the rest of the family you have a tendancy to get itchy hands around want-to-be alphas. A little hang up I have. I am not judging, but anyone for any reason will be called out if they try and dominate anyone around me. Try and dominate me, they might get hurt. I almost always give a warning, because I know I have a problem. I have never continued beating someone after they submit thank goodness.
 I suck at team sports, because I have hurt people on my own team if they got lippy, and bring the whole team down. A good team needs an alpha.
 Some people are holding back monsters and trying to be a good person. I fucking hate it. Many will have these problems til peaceful parenting becomes the norm. I am sure I would have jail time had I ever lived in my home state as a adult. In Norway my horrible temper is nothing but embarrassing because people just find it clownish, and I am never aggressive first.
 I hope in a free society someday all this sort of thing will be a non issue. There will never be a reason to question if domination is some sort of force by intimidation or a lifestyle game of loving concentual submission. To be honest though, since I see a lot less of the dom/sub dynamic in Scandinavia where spanking has been illegal since '79 (I have seen women openly wearing dog collars too, so who knows) I think equality between lovers will be a by product of creating a better human through peaceful parenting. Since I have no frame of reference for BDSM and gays I don't really know what will happen. I do think watching someone openly "punish" another person or treat them like a farm animal, even if the slave/beast of burden moans with pleasure, will look repugnant to this more peaceful thoughtful and empathetic person, as would a gay top unconcerned with respecting their lover as a equal.
 If It seemed I was agreeing with the video that was not my intention. I put a disclaimer on the first comment. I did want to discuss the video and let it be known some stupid assed shit was being spread by some "libertarians".
 One more thing Dale. If the lifestyler "tops" don't want guys like me to lump you in with religious zealot and traditional conservative chauvinists (with willing submissive partners who would defend their lover to the death, hate to break it to you but quotes from a sub and a mentally broken submissive wife sound earily similer) you should have a little humour about it, and not use a paragraph of insults to explain it. "Look, my lover needs and craves my dominance. he/she would be depressed and unhappy without strong loving guidance and the security it makes her/him feel. It is not easy all the time but we are a perfect match and I am terrified anything bad would ever happen to them." Not slap them on the ass and say "Bitch get me a sandwitch!"
 Saw enough of that crap as a kid thank you very much.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 15, 2014, 05:58:39 AM
 Now that we agreed that libertines are a-ok- although I still find people who need to dominate their lover repugnant, and always will no matter how special they think their paticular case is, Lets discuss why we can't just ignore cases of people silently in gags on leashes. If Dale is right and this stuff is natural and swell, people would simply not notice when someone IS being mistreated.
Cases in point:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/04/castro-kidnapper-suicide-jail/2768207/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/04/castro-kidnapper-suicide-jail/2768207/)
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case)
 Just looking at weirdness and noting how cute it all is doesn't help people being victimized. Someone dramatizing a terrorist attack better damn well both give warnings to the surrounding people and respect the reaction they might get if they aggressively push back when questioned, or except defensive moves from people who don't know and understand what is going on. A libertine who respects other peoples POV would have a easier time.
 If libertines wish to live in a free society they wouldn't want total exceptance of aggressive behaviour without question either, if only to stop their own rights from being violated. Passivety of the bystander is some seriously evil shit. Lets not normalize it.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 15, 2014, 10:42:24 AM
Look, I get why you have personal issues with this based on your background. It's called a trigger. When someone has a trigger due to some traumatic experience from their past, they have to avoid certain situations. I get that. But think about this. Maybe yours is not the most objective viewpoint on this subject and maybe it never will be. I don't know if I can ever say something that will get you, specifically, to look at the subject objectively and rationally. Every time you bring up this subject, and you do a lot, it feels like an energy vortex that's going to suck up my time and energy pointlessly. Each time, I know I'll have to repeat everything we've already discussed (a couple of years now?). All progress seems to be lost each time and we have to start ALL OVER AGAIN as if you're still a total noob to this subject.

That perfect example of a straw man that you just posted is exactly what I'm talking about. I feel like I'm back to explaining the difference between consensual activity and aggressive violence. And you picked such an extreme case--I too would seriously question such a practice even if it were completely consensual (and not involving pedophilia!). Making this comparison is offensive in the same way that comparing homosexuality to bestiality as if the two are in any way comparable.

As far as this horror story that you're fabricating, as if it were some common occurrence that people ignore crimes because it might be consensual play, most BDSM people just aren't that stupid. And the ones who are deserve whatever happens. There have been cases of people walking in on private BDSM sessions and it typically does result in, at a minimum, a lot of embarrassment for all parties involved as everyone has to confirm that it is, in fact, completely consensual. I would expect a criminal who's trying to abduct or rape someone to maybe try to pass it off as a consensual activity. This is why it's such a straw man. People into such activities are well aware of how important it is to establish consent clearly beforehand and anyone who doesn't get that would be ostracized by the broader BDSM community and deserves to be perceived as a criminal.

Such an investigation by bystanders is totally appropriate and the depth of the investigation should be proportionate to the severity of the situation. If someone is bruised, naked, and in chains in a basement, that justifies a pretty extensive investigation. Hell, even if the alleged victim claims it's consensual, if they've been abducted involuntarily for a long enough time, they may be suffering Stockholm syndrome. If I knew someone who wanted to engage in a lifestyle that extreme (dom or sub), I'd first try to talk them out of it because it sounds really unhealthy. Failing that, I would say to make a video explaining exactly what they're consenting to that can somehow be dated--maybe uploaded as a private YouTube video, and tell several friends who can corroborate the story BEFORE they turn themselves over to the person. That is, if they care at all about their "master" not going to prison.

I don't want to imply that I don't care about convincing you what's wrong with what you're doing. I just don't think this conversation with you can ever be productive.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 15, 2014, 11:37:27 AM
 Dale I don't disagree with most of your last post, why are we arguing?
 I can't see what I fabricated. Those news stories are very real. Crowds ignoring blatant crimes happens all the time. Crowds usually hate the hero who tries to do something in fact.
 I started this thread because I wanted YOUR opinion on the video, Shaw was just a bonus. I did not want to bring up that top/bottom thing again at all, it only makes me feel like a weirdo. Most people think relationships need the dominant/submissive dynamic. I think when humanity evolves to the next leval perhaps based on upbringing alone, people will love having total equal cooperative relationships with friendly competition. Maybe we really are just smart monkeys who need to rule or be ruled, I don't know. If I ever meet a chick who wants to stand beside me in a cooperative I might make a video saying how swell it all is. As of now I only see that sort of thing in some science fiction movies.
 BJ as a bi sexual you probably switch back and forth without really noticing, like SL&A Antigone and Stephanie Murphy do. I can not even speculate really, but you folks are probably more evolved in a way.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 15, 2014, 01:03:56 PM
Dale I don't disagree with most of your last post, why are we arguing?
 I can't see what I fabricated. Those news stories are very real.

Sure. And there are stories about people trying to marry their dogs, but that has no bearing on marriages between consensual adults. They are two different things. If someone brings up bestiality in a discussion about homosexuality, they're going to piss me off. Do you get that?

Crowds ignoring blatant crimes happens all the time. Crowds usually hate the hero who tries to do something in fact.

I don't doubt that happens for various reasons. I need an example. What you suggested is there's a danger people will ignore a crime because they think it's consensual BDSM play. Can you try to remember that this is a thread about whether libertines are DANGEROUS.

Maybe we really are just smart monkeys who need to rule or be ruled, I don't know. If I ever meet a chick who wants to stand beside me in a cooperative I might make a video saying how swell it all is. As of now I only see that sort of thing in some science fiction movies.

You keep equating two very different things and forgetting how key the notion of consent is. It's like a socialist who sees a voluntary relationship between an employer and an employee as exploitative and therefore morally unacceptable. Do you feel that way as well? Do those sorts of consensual relationships make you feel "icky"?

Do you not understand that we allocate responsibility sometimes in a mutually beneficial way? I let my vet "dominate" me by telling me what to do to my cat because I want him to take on some of my responsibility. Is that an abusive relationship? Should I take full responsibility for becoming a total cat expert so I can take care of my own cat even if she needs complicated medications or surgery? No thank you.

I don't like driving. For me, it's a luxury when I can just ride along and let someone else drive (unless they're just a really bad driver!). I even prefer the back seat when there are more than two people. Some people prefer to always drive. They feel insecure when they're not in control. Are they exploiting the riders?

A loving relationship is complex and can be loaded with all sorts of dom/sub dynamics. Even the most traditional relationships are rarely one-sided. How many traditional housewives get angry and say "get out of MY kitchen!" Maybe the husband is insecure if he's not always driving the car and the wife is insecure if she's not in control of the kitchen. They're both abdicating control in certain areas in exchange for not having to be responsible in certain areas. As long as these arrangements are consensual, they can be very beneficial to both partners.

Deja Vu. I feel like I've said this before in some manner, and I'll probably be doing it again. Ugh.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 15, 2014, 01:59:44 PM
I am tired of trying to not argue with you Dale.
Funny you mentioned beastiality. I wouldn't use it as a comparable example because those people don't bother me, however the guy that posted the video in the OP just tried that shit on me. Unlike you, he is going to get both barrals of my troll fu. Why don't you help me out on youtube instead of beating a dead horse here. I don't like dominating people. Live with it, call me a switch I don't give a fuck. We are on the same side dude.
Pssst check out the comments on the video on the OP.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 15, 2014, 03:07:31 PM
I'll read the comments but I haven't been able to leave comments on YouTube ever since Google "fixed" them. It's very frustrating. People are WRAWNG on the Iternets!
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 15, 2014, 03:30:51 PM
BTW, I just perused the first page of comments in that video and I have no desire to have a discussion with that guy. His beliefs seem too much like a religion. He makes a lot of declarations that have no basis in objective reality that he appears quite married to. That sort of conversation is not going anywhere.

The exception I'm inclined to make about such debates is if there is a reasonably substantial audience for the debate who isn't just as biased as him. Though he is beyond hope, much like Ken Hamm and the creationism debate, the hope is that onlookers will be swayed by the substance of my argument in comparison to the lack of substance in my opponent's. In other words, I have no desire to fluff his traffic and speak primarily to his adoring fans on his site.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 16, 2014, 03:31:38 AM
I don't blaim you. I think he has some thoughtful subscribers worth reaching, and I am a skillful troll if I don't say so myself.

FYI as of late I can only comment on youtube via my Google chrome browser. I Use IE for most browsing and Chrome for youtube and facebook. Seems to be the least buggy solution for me.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 16, 2014, 11:00:35 AM
I use Chrome and it isn't helping. Oh well.
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: sillyperson on February 16, 2014, 08:13:59 PM
I don't blaim you.
... but do you blame him?
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: dalebert on February 26, 2014, 04:23:09 PM
BONER POLICE (Trailer #2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m79daNHOFc#ws)

Full movie is on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbHSlSOcUag)
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 28, 2014, 03:08:57 PM
 Peter Schiff is now stumbling around on the gay thing. God dammit, where does the fear of gays come from? The only gay guy that ever tried to pick me up was pretty nice about it, hell I was flattered. Simple "thanks for the beer but I'm straight." End of story.
 Being a member of the drama club and the varsity heavyweight wrestler in high school I found myself being early on the defending gays thing, not that the gay bashers really wanted a piece of me. "I don't have a problem with them, why don't you shut up." was about all it took. Later on I found out some of the gay bashers were gay, and probably appreciated my POV.
 I don't know. I really wish the gay lobby could try a little humour, restraint, and maybe understanding that they are feared for some reason, with their activism. Normalize homosexuality by being normal. Passing anti discrimination laws or acting entitled sure as hell isn't the way to go though.
 I, at this time, don't have a problem with libertine types. I only vaguly remember being freaked out about people who like weird sex. I will say that folks who were cool about it by showing themselves to be good people helped me along though. The angry ones did not.
http://www.schiffradio.com/?gclid=CJ7GlYyKwroCFa57cAodpEgAxw (http://www.schiffradio.com/?gclid=CJ7GlYyKwroCFa57cAodpEgAxw)
Title: Re: Are "libertines" dangerous?
Post by: alaric89 on February 28, 2014, 03:33:56 PM
God Created Gay People Too | Jesse Ventura Off The Grid - Ora TV (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li_QgSN9FJI#ws)
Maybe wrestlers in general find themselves defending people they don't really understand.