RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment

RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

HisPet21 -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/12/2011 5:05:49 PM)
quote: You were making a relevant point until you claimed that the opposite were all serial killers. That is totally inaccurate. True. Hence the use of hyperbole. The OP seemed to be asking why respectable members of the BDSM community don't abuse their subs to the point of insanity. My response is this: Because they wouldn't be respected members of the BDSM community if they did. Those kinds of people---the ones who DO abuse people to that degree---go to jail.

reydrx -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/13/2011 9:43:08 PM)
...go on. You were going somewhere with your critique, why did you not finish making your point? quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady You were making a relevant point until you claimed that the opposite were all serial killers. That is totally inaccurate.

SailingBum -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/14/2011 1:59:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Suleiman I have been thinking about the infamous Stamford Experiment (I apologise for not providing a link, but I'm sure you can find a wikipedia reference if nothing else) and how it applies - or does not apply - in the context of S&M, particularly with regards to "no limit" slave fantasy and "inescapable" contracts for long-term service. Those familiar with the experiment in question have no doubt seen its analysis in relation to police brutality and excessive force. Given the current political climate, such discussion is thick in the air. But in all my years, I have never seen any attempt at viewing the experiment from a context of S&M, even though that is essentially the dynamic that was created. I therefore present you with this question, for debate: What is it, in our community, that allows us to engage in such behaviors, without descending into the same depths of barbarism? Do you credit the hypothetical code of honor that dominati and submissives are expected to cling to? Would you instead say that it is our self-awareness of the greater ramifications of the act? Is it simply that we police ourselves, and anyone who goes too far risks ostracism and censure from the greater community at large? Obviously, I should add, I do not include those occasional denisons of lurid headlines, where some deranged person has held anoter captive. I am directing the subject, for the moment, to our actual community and the consenting practice, as the subjects of the original experiment had themselves consented, knowing ahed of time what the perametersof the experiment were to be. I've never seen or heard of a either a no limit or no escape contract. Ive heard ppl talk that smack but I strongly suspect once they start cutting off your body parts or whatever the no limit contract ends up in the fire. So based upon the flawed premise I dont see how anyone could relate that study to BDSM. "without descending into the same depths of barbarism" Some of the thing ive done have been well .... It all depends on your audience. I ve not looked at the study if the OP was too lazy to put up a link. Ive got better things to do than his research. His OP was not very well thought out in the first place. BadOne

ResidentSadist -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/14/2011 3:52:01 AM)
quote: I therefore present you with this question, for debate: What is it, in our community, that allows us to engage in such behaviors, without descending into the same depths of barbarism? Do you credit the hypothetical code of honor that dominati and submissives are expected to cling to? Would you instead say that it is our self-awareness of the greater ramifications of the act? Is it simply that we police ourselves, and anyone who goes too far risks ostracism and censure from the greater community at large? Having pushed the edge of acceptance from the greater community at large, I made it my social art and skirt the very fringe. My BDSM exposure and circle of friends crosses over outside the greater politically correct community and into the depths of barbarism, including dark illegal and immoral sexual acts and/or illegal enterprises. I told you that to tell you this. Even in circles where illegal acts and immoral practices by average BDSM standards are common place, they "police" themselves and call each other out to 'court', or intervention, among a committee of like minded friends. The risk of ostracism or censure from their small community may be a small factor for some, but I think it is more the spirit of helping your like minded friends live a better life, with less problems, is at the core when someone modifies their behavior. To me, it appears that personal quality of life is a stronger motivation for behavior than an innate code of honor or fear of community reprisal. Nice post btw.

lelloy -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/14/2011 7:19:19 AM)
I don't believe No-Limits exists anywhere, however the question is still relevant. A large proportion of people participating in Sadomasochistic acts are doing so with people they trust or even love. Similar to sex, if you get a bad reputation you're far less likely to find partners and so even casual players have encouragement to follow a certain standard.

David519 -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/14/2011 12:16:56 PM)
It is an interesting thread but I think its completely irrelevant when applied to the context of BDSM, simply because this is a social experiment, and not a lifestyle, or a "kink". We do not take the roles we do because someone tells us to. Behavior is like this is evident in many different groups. As humans we are leaders, or followers, sheep or wolves, or some combination of all of those. Take the military for instance. For most of the career I would obey orders from individuals whose leadership abilities, or intellect, or whatever, I had absolutely no respect for. I would do so even if I knew the outcome would be bad. Why? Because it was what I was ordered to do. I endured verbal and physical abuse that I wouldn't tolerate today, why? Because that's what good sailors (even dominant ones do). Things are different outside of structured environments, and thank god, there's no way I could go back to that. Its the same thing in this situation. Someone higher on the food chain gives you a role, you play it. This was a college class, so presumably the participants depended on the people handing out assignments for marks...and there is the power position. I'd like to see what happened if you took 24 people off the street, or an older demographic.

Wheldrake -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/14/2011 1:02:04 PM)
One aspect of my submissiveness is a fascination with the idea of being incarcerated, so I've always found the Stanford Prison Experiment (or imaginary co-ed versions of it, anyway) to be very hot fantasy material. As a result, I've thought about it a fair bit. One thing that drives me up the wall is that the experiment is often presented as some kind of definitive proof that power corrupts, in the sense of always leading to brutality. However, that interpretation ignores the fact that the experiment involved a specific group of young men from a specific time and place, and was set up in a specific way. Would the outcome have been the same with a more diverse group of participants (in terms of age, sex, and/or even socioeconomic status), or just with a different mix of personalities? I strongly suspect that it wouldn't have. In fact, the BBC (or maybe it was Channel 4) did run their own version of the Stanford Prison Experiment a few years back, with a group that included men of varying ages, and as I recall things didn't get anywhere near as intense as they did in the original. So I suspect that one reason BDSM relationships don't generally devolve into brutality is that power is not really as corrupting as facile interpretations of the Stanford Prison Experiment make it out to be. It's also true that serious BDSM interactions tend to take place one-on-one or in small groups, so there's less potential for the kind of totalitarian groupthink that apparently set in during the experiment. And finally, as others have pointed out, the power that dominants wield over submissives is generally quite limited anyway. Not many of us are in relationships that we couldn't escape from if we really wanted to.

Muttling -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/14/2011 1:41:48 PM)
As was mentioned previously, there was a LOT more to the Stanford experiment than the OP realizes. Read the details instead of relying on the media to educate you. The media is here to sell a story, not be purveyors of truth. Here's a couple of good links.... http://www.prisonexp.org/ http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2011/julaug/features/spe.html http://www.angelfire.com/or/sociologyshop/frozim.html

GotSteel -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/14/2011 6:03:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep Maybe people who consensually participate in BDSM and power dynamics, and who have already kind of come to terms with the whole "it's not 'the norm' but whatever" issue have kind of diffused the allure of abusing someone? By creating a way to express it in a healthy, "safe" way? I think that emotionally caring about the person on the other end of the leash really changes things as well.

ControlImYours -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/15/2011 1:43:27 PM)
I don't see a connection between BDSM and the Stamford Experiment. BDSM is inherently a sexual based activity conducted between 2 or more consenting adults (1 if really imaginative but that really doesn't work in context) looking for some sort of gratification. As I see the Stamford Experiment was a social experiment, "sex", was never a part of it. I don't think any of them "got off" on what they did, there enjoyment was on a mental and purely sadistic level, maybe in the same way as a bully will bully. But thinking about it now, the question kind of doesn't make sense as surely to conduct it on a BDSM level, you are entering into it with defined roles, maybe the only way for it to be an experiment would be to reverse the D's and s' roles? Wouldn't that be interesting?

kalikshama -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/15/2011 2:08:55 PM)
Good links brought me to more good links: http://www.prisonexp.org/links.htm#iraq http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/21/zimbarbo.access/ (CNN) -- The pictures of Iraqi prisoners being abused and humiliated at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison have been chalked up to aberrant behavior by a "few bad apples." But is this an aberration -- or does this spring from a dark side inside most human beings? ...O'BRIEN: In your study, was there a handful of sort-of bad apples in the group of these college students who were prison guards, who basically brought everybody else along with them? ZIMBARDO: No, see that's what's been happening -- from Bush on down, we're saying it's a few bad apples, it's isolated. But what's bad is the barrel. The barrel is the barrel I created by my prison -- and we put good boys in, just as in this Iraqi prison. And the barrel corrupts. It's the barrel of the evil of prisons -- with secrecy, with no accountability -- which gives people permission to do things they ordinarily would not.

LillyBoPeep -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/15/2011 3:03:37 PM)
Maybe the secrecy and the lack of credibility on part of the victims is more important than anything. In the BDSM "community," people make friends and build credibility if they participate with others. Most of the people I know of who've doe fucked-up stuff to other picked "victims" who had little credibility when compared to the nnetworks th perpetrators used to insulate themselves. And of cours, everything happens on the DL, so whenn a victim reports it, IF a victim reports it, then the personn who committed it can basically say "who do you believe, this random person, or me?"

anniezz338 -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/15/2011 3:12:07 PM)
Acceptance my ass. If it works for us,,,,, it works!

Duskypearls -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/15/2011 3:52:47 PM)
In spite of the good in many, I think it is human nature that we see and fancy ourselves as far above animals (a form of elitism), in terms of their atavistic, predatory, and violent nature. I also think inherent in us is the capacity to harm or destroy others. It may be only the degree in each that differs, but under the right pressure and circumstances (and that will vary for everyone), it is my sense there is NOTHING that one human being will not do to another.

anniezz338 -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/15/2011 3:56:38 PM)
Bullshit. There are just things I WILL NEVER DO in the name of human nature/

ControlImYours -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/15/2011 10:53:44 PM)
I don't think you can say for certain what you would or would not do until actually faced with the situation, I am sure there are many people maybe on here that have done things they never they could or would have when put in a position.

SailingBum -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/15/2011 11:26:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama Good links brought me to more good links: http://www.prisonexp.org/links.htm#iraq http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/21/zimbarbo.access/ (CNN) -- The pictures of Iraqi prisoners being abused and humiliated at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison have been chalked up to aberrant behavior by a "few bad apples." But is this an aberration -- or does this spring from a dark side inside most human beings? ...O'BRIEN: In your study, was there a handful of sort-of bad apples in the group of these college students who were prison guards, who basically brought everybody else along with them? ZIMBARDO: No, see that's what's been happening -- from Bush on down, we're saying it's a few bad apples, it's isolated. But what's bad is the barrel. The barrel is the barrel I created by my prison -- and we put good boys in, just as in this Iraqi prison. And the barrel corrupts. It's the barrel of the evil of prisons -- with secrecy, with no accountability -- which gives people permission to do things they ordinarily would not. I watched the interview of the FBI agent now retired who was interviewing the prisoners at the time. The FBI pulled their agents once the mistreatment started. Im quite sure he wrote a book about it. For those of you that have not been in the military. It goes something like this. Right or wrong you follow orders or you might end up dead. It was quite common in nam if someone really pissed you off you might "frag them". Which basically means when your out on patrol you toss a fragmentation grenade in their general direction. It might not kill you, but some body parts may be missing. Yep yep you follow orders. BadOne

kalikshama -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/16/2011 8:56:08 AM)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/21/zimbarbo.access/ O'BRIEN: How do you explain, though, the two or more who said no? I refuse to be involved? ZIMBARDO: Oh, see, those are the heroes. I mean, in our study we had good guards who didn't get involved, but in our study they never challenged the bad guards. So what you have is powerful situational forces that get the majority to do things they say they would never do. This is not just my study -- there's 30 years of (similar) studies by social psychologists. But the interesting thing is -- there's always a few people who blow the whistle: at Enron, at My Lai, which is again a direct parallel. But those are the rare people; those are the exceptions. We like to think we would be the heroes but in fact most of us, the majority, would go along, would blindly obey authority, would do these dehumanizing things to other people.

kalikshama -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/16/2011 9:17:59 AM)
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death. Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal. "I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since. The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal. The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity).

kalikshama -> RE: "No Limits" S&M and the Stamford Experiment (12/16/2011 9:27:39 AM)
quote: For those of you that have not been in the military. It goes something like this. Right or wrong you follow orders or you might end up dead. I was in the USAF post Vietnam so the concept of "unlawful orders" might have gotten more play than for those who served earlier. Also, I was in the Air Force.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125