Is it evil to use/abuse someone who wants to be used/abused?

>evil

Well spooked.

>arious kinds of sexual activity can be construed as abuse in various contexts

Then they're Evil.

If it's a man who is being abused, then it is not abuse. If it is a woman, then she has been coerced into it, and doesn't truly want it.

But that's frankly absurd. The simple act of sex can be abusive in the wrong context, which by your logic would make sex inherently evil.

No, because they enjoy it.

It's 100% okay to have a slave if the person enjoys being a slave.

One might also say that such a position belongs to "jaded" fourteen year olds who don't want to admit that functioning adults exist because they don't fit in highschool.

While sure, every person might have their 'quirks' that run the social gambit from bed to upkeep, there's a very distinct line between 'healthy, functional behavior' (i.e. Normal) and 'unhealthy, dysfunctional behavior (i.e. Abnormal)

The only people who fail to acknowledge this difference are those trying to justify their aberrant behavior rather than face it and right themselves.

Is giving drug addict meth evil? Yep, most of the time it is.

As long as you respect the safety word, it's not.

Except you're asserting an arbitrary standard with no foundation or internal consistency. There is no basis for your statements about normality and abnormality beyond your own prejudices, biases and default cultural assumptions.

Yes, you're furthering their mental illness.
faggot

Deviance, distress, dysfunction, and danger. That's what mental diseases get judges on edgelord. So, sure, one of those categories is about being super weird, but the rest are obviously measurable and a non arbitrary standard. If you're unhappy, unable to function, or endangering yourself/someone else, it's a disease. Ta-fucking-da. Go back to high school.

Oh really? Tell me more about my baseless standards for normalcy. Go on, Junior. Stick it to The Man!

No, but really though. I clearly outlined the "foundations" of normalcy for you.

Ask yourself:

Is this behavior self-destructive?

Does this behavior impede my ability to function in society?

If the answer to either of those questions are 'yes', it's abnormal, and you'll find the vast majority of people recognize and actively avoid such behaviors.

inb4 Booze&Drugs. Yes, I know you're an indulgent little tyke. Like many things, there's a line of "normalcy" with these behaviors. It is neither self-destructive nor an impediment to your overall ability to function in society to have a few beers on your weekend off. It is only abnormal and therefore wrong when you're slugging them four times a day.

Failing to acknowledge this obvious difference, with very clear standards, does not make you seem wise or compassionate. It makes you seem completely ignorant and detached from reality.

how is this thread not considered shitposting yet the one i made about relic having racist moderators is? looks like the mods have some judgement issues

No, none of those have any basis whatsoever as you've failed to define them or argue why they're relevant.

Two people in a healthy, consensual BDSM relationship can be very happy together, giving one another pleasure in safe, sane and consensual ways and having that as an aspect of a long term, stable and rewarding relationship. Given that this can and does occur, your entire moralistic screed falls apart.

Is neither evil nor good. Though you should use a safe word

On the contrary, it's reliably consistent because prejudice and cultural assumptions are inductively generated logical judgements constructed from a suitability bias.

Being a social construct doesn't make that entity unreal. It's simply operating on a higher plane of abstraction.

So I suppose you agree with all those people who argued staying inside on the computer, talking to people on the internet was a bad thing? It's so self destructive, bad for you socially, bad for your health, making you think wrong, deviant thoughts. Getting rid of the computer is probably a good idea.

Or those weird 'traditional game' things. What kind of normal person has loads of boxes of little models or weird books full of dragons? It's obsessive and delusional and just can't be healthy. You should throw those all out and go do normal person things instead.

As long as you stop when they use the Safe Word then no, it's not evil.

Your logic would justify hate crimes in the developing world. It is clearly not fit for purpose.

Oh, cry me a river. If they're in a happy, consensual relationship that's long-term, stable, and rewarding, then guess what? They're a normal couple.

But if one of them's got a daddy they're still trying to impress, and they've started coping with their past abuse at his hands by asking their boyfriend to treat them like garbage until they cry themselves to sleep at night? That's not fucking normal, and you're a goddamn nutjob for trying to obfuscate the difference between the two.

Of course it's inherently evil.

That's why you lose the ability to talk to and ride Unicorns after you lose your virginity.

So basically you don't understand what you're talking about at all, got it. You should make your absolute ignorance of the subject matter a little more obvious next time.

There's a reason the BDSM community despised Fifty Shades of Grey, after all.

It's a thread asking if keeping a slave as a slave because they enjoy being a slave is an evil action. Seems to be Veeky Forums related.

Do you see where you tip the scales there, Junior?

Yes, staying inside on the computer 13 of 24 hours of your day, staring at memes and jerking off, is abnormal, self-destructive behavior and you need to get help.

If you're just browsing the occasional meme after work, or giving yourself a tug twice a week, that's perfectly normal, healthy behavior.

How is it so hard for you to acknowledge the difference between healthy and unhealthy interactions with the world?

wait, there is a bdsm community? HOW IS THIS RELATED TO Veeky Forums AT ALL?!

Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused
That's pretty sweet

Just as much as this thread duh

seriously mods, explain how my thread on relics racist moderator is AT ALL shitposting when compared to this

One fey I played was open-secretly masochistic, and played somewhat realistically. By which I mean she didn't deliberately expose herself to getting wounded in battle. That's not masochism, that's just bloodlust.

She could only get a full night's sleep benefit if she got a thorough lashing beforehand. She was... interesting.

The amount of trust a proper S&M relationship needs is quite extreme.

Because you've given absolutely no coherent basis for making the distinction beyond what you think is right, and continue to avoid the middle ground in favour of giving extreme examples to make it seem like the distinction is always obvious.

I understand completely what I'm talking about. If you had any actual ability to argue that point beyond saying it and hoping it sticks, you'd have used it. But you don't.

The BDSM community can despise some movie all it wants. There are abusive, unhealthy relationships, and there are healthy, normal relationships. Some of them happen to be BDSM relationships. Some of them don't.

They don't all get a free pass, no. Some are fucked up and wrong. They're not normal relationships.

Cutting off chunks of your flesh then going to the hospital, while your lover watches in glee, is not natural.
It's a sign of a mental dysfunction, and if any anons know what I'm referring to they'll agree.

But to you we can't make that distinction because that's mean to disturbed people, christ's sake.

At this point you're just diving into circular logic with no relationship to your original point.

Yes, abusive relationships are abusive. That is true in and of itself. But whether a relationship is abusive has no relation to how 'deviant' or abnormal it is. Plenty of incredibly abusive relationships occur behind a guise of perfect normalcy, very likely the vast majority of them do.

Avoid the middle ground? You dolt, the middle ground is what's normal and healthy.

I'm not "avoiding" it. I'm GLORIFYING it. I'm advocating for moderation in your pursuits.

The distinction is fairly obvious. If you're trying to make the argument that the distinction is hard to discern, then congratulations, you've admitted I'm correct by acknowledging that there's a distinction that you really shouldn't be pretending doesn't exist.

I've provided you a very clear outline for what constitutes healthy behavior as opposed to unhealthy behavior. It's not my fault if you can't understand it.

Now that just sounds straight up dangerous, I'd never try to justify or allow for that level of shit. It's the broad, sweeping generalisations I'm more saying are dumb and arbitrary.

Sounds like it could turn into something harmful and codependent but I'd hesitate to define it as evil. Unhealthy maybe, but probably not evil. Maybe not even unhealthy depending upon what constitutes "use/abuse" in this context. Is it just kinky S&M play? As long as its done responsibly that's no problem. Is it a mentally and/or physically abusive relationship? As long as its stable and not a burden on everyone around them, I guess it could be tolerable. I feel sorry for the person that inevitably tries to step in and white knight, though. I imagine it'd be hard to understand that some people just don't want help.

tl;dr: No, it's not inherently evil according to me.

You're repeating that what you approve of is healthy and what you don't approve of is not, and acting as if that gives you any kind of point. It's kinda sad.

By the middle ground, I mean between 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' options. You keep citing things which are obviously safe and normal, or obviously unusual and potentially harmful. You've never once acknowledged the grey area, that the distinction between the two is not so black and white as you continuously assert without foundation or argument.

Circular logic? Okay, you're just saying things you don't understand.

Abusive relationships are abnormal relationships. Healthy relationships are normal relationships. It is ENTIRELY to do with how deviant or abnormal it is.

Hol up.
Just to clarify here, are you working from the assumption that there is no middle ground between vanilla sex and mutilation?
I mean, mutilation is the most sincere form of flattery, but still.

Are you straight up saying you consider anything that isn't a 'normal' relationship to be inherently abusive? Is that really where you're going with this.

Do you have specific ideas about the genders that should be involved in a 'normal' relationship? You seem to be moving in that general direction.

It's got nothing to do with what -I- approve of. There's plenty of normal shit I don't approve of.

And no, you're again wrong. I entirely acknowledge that some things are more unhealthy than others. But whether some things are more unhealthy than others is pretty irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Honestly, watching take a couple of kids to school on Liberalism is a lot more entertaining than most of the threads on the board right now.

I'm going to start throwing the words 'Evil' and 'Abuse' into my OPs in future, in hopes of baiting out intelligent posts from people triggered by them

It's directly relevant, because it concerns the point at which an activity can be judged as harmful to the person indulging in it. Which has been a question asked and mulled over for centuries because it is fucking complicated.

You tell me. Read my posts. Actually read them. Don't just reply with your sophomoric bullshit. Do I SOUND like I'm trying to argue for some 1950s-ass Mom-In-The-Kitchen relationship for all people?

If your answer is 'yes', I'm just going to assume it's the daddy issues speaking.

Huh? He sounds like a college kid in the need of schooling.

Your own words have been doing the job for you.

At best, you've been arguing for a tautology, that abusive relationships are abusive. At no point have you clarified how you think that relates to BDSM or other non-standard relationships beyond handwaving some sort of 'No true scotsman' thing, that if a relationship works fine then it is a normal relationship regardless of what its participants actually indulge in.

liberalism =/= hedonism thanks for playing try again

Same. I'm enjoying watching this overly hostile moralfag get taken apart. The more he tries to act superior and blindly tosses out insults, the more I'm laffin

You're hilarious. Careful wagging that finger though, you might get a sprain.

Looks like five parents taking a kid to school

I'm not sure they would be open to that kind of relationship, judging by their posts.

I don't think you know what "my own words" are saying.

Seriously, please read and comprehend.

I have no interest in producing commentary about 'BDSM' or any other "non-standard" arrangement of relationship.

I have interest in answering the OP, which was,

>Is it evil to use/abuse someone who wants to be used/abused?

You went off on a tangent about how abusive relationships don't exist and normalcy is a lie, and I explained to you why that's laughably false.

Laugh all you'd like, just try and learn something while you do it.

I've lost hope for this other guy.

It takes a village to raise a child

Ahh, so you just completely failed to understand me or are confusing me with someone else. Par for the course, really.

Abusive relationships do exist. However, actions that might in some contexts be considered abuse can also make up parts of entirely healthy relationships, with safe, sane and consensual BDSM being an excellent example of this.

It certainly helps them conform to that groups norms.

Okay, sure. I entirely agree with you there. Context is extremely important to understanding any action. You cannot define a relationship as abusive if all participation is entirely healthy, safe, sane, and consensual.

Oh please, guru, lecture us some more on how to live properly. I came here to discuss traditional games and instead discovered the peevish anonymous voice of a generation. We can all learn a lot from you. Your scores of followers must be so proud.

The other guy at least tried reasoning to you. It's clear to me that's pointless. It'll take far more than anyone on Veeky Forums can do to wrench that head of yours from its tight sheath of your ass. But good luck with your teachings, do continue to dismiss any points of view you don't share. Can't have that pure and simple mind tainted with self doubt!

My child, I feel you would fare better from my teachings if you first educated yourself in reading comprehension. You seem to be confused, and believe that I am speaking of morality. I am not.

They say when you die, you shit your pants; but not me. I'm gonna shit my heart.

>Can't have that pure and simple mind tainted with self doubt!
Oh the irony

not if they're enjoying it, and it isn't damaging their mental health

Happiness comes in many shapes and forms. What may seem odd or cause concern in some might be the highlight of their week to others.

If I had an expensive car, and I wrote a note on it that said "please take this, the keys are inside!", it would not be theft if someone hopped in and drove away.

Likewise, if my partner wanted to hurt me or abuse me in some way, I would encourage it, because that's what consent is. My consent changes the act from evil to not evil. Just like with the car.

Intent, action, and circumstance must be looked at. If your intent is to make your partner happy, and the circumstance is that they are aware and coherent and in a clear state of mind, then the act of hitting them is not evil. Likewise, if your intention is to make your partner happy, and the action they've asked you to do is to hit them, but they're not in a clear state of mind and might not understand, then you should hold off and talk about it later. There are three very important aspects of determining the morality of an action, and the act itself is only one of them.

Well, they both enjoy it and it's not damaging to ther mental health so this is fine

this entire thread is a shitpost and none of you give a shit what happens to video game adaptations to your table top games

You're completely right, we don't give a shit. Go away.

>make me

>grabs popcorn

No, someone hurting another for their own enjoyment is evil and that has nothing to do with your consent.
Using an individual to reach a goal is entirely different from abusing an individual. If an individual wants to be used to help another reach a goal it's alignment in terms of dungeons and dragons depends and what the goal is and why the individual is trying to achieve it. For example an individual that is using another for physical satisfaction and nothing more is being evil, an individual whose goal necessitates using that individual to better society AND that individual is doing good. The grey areas in between and probably neutral.

What does it matter if your partner has a clear state of mind or not? If they want to be abused then abuse brings them pleasure, making it the right thing to do. They don't need to understand why they want to be abused the enjoy it.

>cutting off chunks of flesh
>not damaging to mental health
Clearly they have already damaged their mental health. It is also severely physically damaging. Obviously there's a limit to what consent can make okay, but it isn't tremendously easy to define without context. If someone begged you to kill them, it would still be wrong to kill them, unless their quality of life is terrible enough that you can justify it. Some say not even then. It is a complicated issue, we can't pretend it isn't, but some acts are clearly over the line. You have to make a decision depending on the context.

>not if they're enjoying it, and it isn't damaging their mental health

If they're enjoying it and it isn't damaging their mental health, is it really 'abuse'?

This is why the psychological side and the concept of 'informed consent' is important.

That gets into the whole Right to Die debate, about whether people can be allowed to choose to die with dignity at a time of their choosing or whether that can't be allowed.

Personally, I think groups like Dignitas do amazing work and that right to die laws are going to be something of a necessity going forward, but it's hard to tell how long that will take.

if someone would die if you diudnt amputate their arm and they were begging you to amputate would you say no? Is that still evil? (since you faggots apparently dont give two flying fucks about the franchises your tabletop games belong to)

You can't just have anonymous posters describe their present actions in greentext!
That makes me angry!
>gets angry

>Clearly they have already damaged their mental health
Who are you to judge? They enjoy such relationships so it must be normal.

>grabs popcorn

It objectively isn't. Both your consenting BSDM partner and the mentally ill girl I picked up enjoy being slapped around and called a worthless whore. Both get the same earth-shattering orgasm from the treatment. Both brains release the same pleasure chemicals. Their enjoyment is literally the same and equal. There is no difference at all, both were given what they wanted and they enjoyed it the same way. Abusing someone who wants to be abused brings pleasure to them and is the right thing to do.

I'm not qualified but if some stupid situation prevented any outside intervention and I had tools that could do the job and could potentially save them, yes. But that's rather contrived and has nothing to do with what I said because I wouldn't enjoy doing it.

There are some things you absolutely can judge on. The BDSM community is actually notably strict about this. You don't ignore safeworlds, psychologically unhealthy relationships are heavily frowned upon and anything that causes long term physical harm is utterly rejected.

You do get some weird crossover between BDSM and body modification, but that's nice and somewhat rejected by both larger groups due to the rather unsettling nature of the combination.

I disagree. If it's a mutually agreed upon activity that they both find enjoyment in, then it is not evil.

If one of them doesn't care what the other wants, and does it anyway, then it is evil.

The difference in our conclusions is born from the fact that I am looking at circumstance and you're only looking at intent.

If they are not in a clear state of mind, then they might be saying something that is untrue, by mistake.

If they're on a stimulant, then jumping off a bridge might seem like a good idea. They definitely consent, and they want to do it, but if they were in a clear state of mind, they might decide not too.

Same goes for sex. If you're with a partner who perhaps has a mental disorder or is perhaps really high on drugs at the moment, it is up to you to know them well enough whether enough what they're saying is true.

If someone would benefit from an amputation, and they're even asking you to do it, and you're qualified to do so and are confident in not accidentally causing more harm than good, then yes, refusing to help someone in need when it would not cause you or them greater harm to try would be a pretty bad thing to do. But I don't quite follow this example since we've mostly been talking about sex and/or mental health.

Safe, sane, and consensual != evil.

>instead of talking about tabletop games and their franchises

I would amputate it but certainly not to make some junkee have his sexual satisfaction

I'd say no, for the same reason I think it's wrong to, for example, help suicidal people kill themselves. Human beings generally want to live and not be hurt, when they don't it's always due to some temporary malfunction of the brain. The exception being kinky shit, of course, but that should be handled carefully so that risks are minimized.

>some junkie
kek

If it's safe sane and consensual then it BY DEFINITION is not abuse, you mongoloid.

I agree. Having watched my grandmother live with Alzheimer's, I don't know if I would want to live like that, and with an increasingly aging population in many parts of the world, more and more people will be facing that choice.

I don't want to derail this too much though, as this might be going beyond OP's question. I do think that this is the kind of question that there isn't one answer to, and saying it doesn't ultimately come down to a combination of assessing potential damge (mental and physical), the mental states of those involved, and more subjective factors such as societal or personal values, feels like it misses the point.

No, Abuse ; verb; use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse. Regardless of your consent the person doing the act is doing something evil, what you have to say has nothing to do with it.
>Alignment questions have nothing to do with dungeons and dragons

always make sure your cuffs have a safety release in case your bitch pulls that strapon out