...fissures.

Good work here, and congrats on your 100th story!!!

This rocks

Congrats on 100 stories, Priest!

This rocked my world. I'll never take it for granite. I'm glad Maud gets a new slate.

God, this absolutely tore me up inside and I loved it. It was so dramatic and it really made me feel something.

Man, that was intense! Love it

Reminds me of this song:

and the name 'Anon'.

*shiver* no wonder this has a Dark tag, you monster.

Happy 100th you luck sob

very interesting

I am touched, fascinated and mortified in equal measure.

I get Non-consent and suicide, but Anon...
static1.fjcdn.com/comments/Youd+have+the+audacity+to+strike+bill+murray+you+_ce9ff650ff865c56d97ebf0992f52829.jpg

Flutterpriest, I'm sure that this is not what you believe a healthy relationship looks like. I think there's a very good chance that this isn't what you would ever truly promote as normal. Not like the author of Fifty Shades Of Grey.

I do, however, have to draw special attention to this:

“No,” you interrupt. “You will NOT speak to yourself that way again, do you understand,” you growl. “You are loved. And I love you. And I’ve got you right here. I am not letting you go. You are safe. You are secure.”

Sorry, but no. He doesn't have the right to speak those words after what he did. He loves her? No, he doesn't, because love doesn't seek to do harm. If he loved her, he would have found another way to help her with her problem. She's safe and secure? What meaningless drivel! If she were safe and secure with him, then he wouldn't have harmed her. I suppose it is one thing to write a story, when you would never even dream of participating in such activities in real life, nor ever want to encourage others to do so, nor desire to normalize the desires of those who wish to harm others . It is another thing to take cruelty and proclaim it as "love". Never take love, safety, and security and seek to twist their meanings into something they are not, and cannot ever be defined as. If you write cruelty, call it as such, and if you write love, call it as such, but do not trade one for the other, so as to confuse those around you who do not know the truth.
I do not say this in anger, only in the desire to encourage accuracy.

Edit: To those who hated my comment, I only spoke the truth of what love is, and what love isn't. Do not get mad at me simply because I called out Anon on his untruthfulness.

9171081
This is 100% NOT what he considers a healthy relationship, nor does he think this is, even in the context of this story, how love works. Can confirm. He's well aware this isn't what love looks like, and that this is not what healthy kink looks like. ;)
I'll let him confirm that himself as well, just wanted to speak up since he and I were talking about that concerning the story just last night.

Edit: I'll also add that consensual non-consent can be practiced in a healthy, safe, sane, and trusting setting between experienced partners, and it can be a positive thing for both parties. This is... not how it's done. XD

9171081

9171085
Yeah no, none of this is healthy. Like. Period.

Consensual Non-Consent is a real BDSM idea and topic, but it is NOT the way it's depicted in this story. This story deliberately, DELIBERATELY pushes the envelope for shock value.

Love looks like a lot of things, but not the extreme its presented as here. Everyone has their own kinks and what they do in the bedroom in a safe, sane, consensual way between partners is their own business.

I find Fifty Shades repulsive. See "Her Most Faithful Servant" for a very basic introduction to healthy BDSM.
-----

As for the criticism of the lines about love. I certainly understand your outrage for the aftercare Anon is performing, especially after how far he pushed his actions in the story. However, the lines used in the story are very, very normal during aftercare. With the depths that Maud sunk to emotionally in the story, it's very normal to try to be a totem that she can cling to for support. So she can break, but still feel safe.

While the events in the story are not safe and sane, keep in mind that in a real BDSM situation there is still a lot of support that doms will provide to their subs. Even if they strike them, make them bleed, cut their skin, burn them, freeze them, they still care about their partner in some way.

But yeah, no. The prompt I followed was along of the lines of "What would you do to a loved one, for a loved one." and took it to an extreme because I dont know what nice things are.

9171128
No outrage from me, just to clarify. :) We talked about this extensively yesterday, I know it was intended to unsettle (particularly people like me) and that you know a lil somethin' about healthy bdsm too.

9171134
oh, yeah. edited. was just trying to make it clear i was answerin both of ya :)

I perfectly understand the idea behind this, it just got a bit squickier than I'd like. But if you look past that, at the emotions and inner conflict involved, I'd have to say good job.

Oh, and Happy Hundredth

9171081
While you are correct on the safety and sanity part, I’d like to point out that love can be unhealthy.

Edit: Also, characters are allowed to be delusional.

I'll read the story later, but firstly, that is one sexy piece of cover art! Love it!

9171085
9171128
I never accused Flutterpriest of thinking it normal, merely I felt the need to state that Anon's statements in the quote were untrue, and in fact, dangerously so.

While the events in the story are not safe and sane, keep in mind that in a real BDSM situation there is still a lot of support that doms will provide to their subs. Even if they strike them, make them bleed, cut their skin, burn them, freeze them, they still care about their partner in some way.

Except, bdsm should never go that far. That's not love either, and anyone who does the things you just described to another in real life needs to be arrested. Such people cannot be trusted around others, any more than a wolf can be trusted around sheep.

9171753
If love is unhealthy in a purposefully harmful manner, it cannot truly be called love, unless the alternative is something worse, i.e., you need to break someone's ribs to restart their heart during CPR, or you need to repair a compound fracture, give someone chemo, etc.
Though I agree that a character in a story is allowed to be delusional, the delusion should be shown for what it is, so as not to confuse those infirm in their morality.

9172088
I'm not sure i could find any real justification there either but this is some really strange and unorthodox circumstances in the story. I guess the real test is how far the dom is willing to go. I've heard of things like cigarette burns and minor frostbite from ice play which is questionable but i suppose tolerable for some very trusting and careful consenting partners but when it comes to the point of intentionally breaking bones or causing permenant, lasting damage then it goes into the realm of being basically assisted self harm, which is about as bad, if not worse.

The thing is that i can see the grain of truth in what he says but this is mostly just a level of fanatism where the sub has pushed their dom to do something reprehensible due to a Dom's inexperience or extreme trust that their sub knows their limits to the point of insanity. There are many kinds of love and not all of them are good or healthy but it's still a sort of love. Honestly, maud may have been partly to blame as the stigma for many new doms is that they aren't the ones who safeword out because "if their sub is not ready to quit then what right do they have to? It's not like they're the ones being hurt. Their sub wants this and is trusting them to do it because they love and trust their sub."

Inexperience and poor judgement was rampant here and this is exactly why even the dom needs to be taught that it's okay to safe out and to be taught other, less damaging methods of pain play.

Maybe someone with an emotional issue like this could benefit from this sort of exercise (pain play being used as an outlet to dig up all the raw emotions so that they can be confronted and worked through) since not everyone is the same and/or has the time to find a less intense type of therapy. That's always been a pretty dark side of BDSM and there really isn't enough discussion out in the open about it and the methods that are and aren't ok.

What I'm basically saying is that while i understand the ideas behind this attempt, the details were sadly overlooked. He does love her, but he trusted her too much in this instance and it resulted in a really unsafe session. I doubt even she knew fully what the dangers were or worse, didn't really care. It seems like she just really wanted to "get what she deserved" but didn't think about what she was doing to him.

9172088
If you genuinely think bdsm should never draw blood, cause burns, or involve ice or beatings... I... disagree. As long as all parties consent and it's safe, sane, and consensual, then blood play, physical beatings, ice play, and other extreme bdsm can be very very rewarding to the parties involved. If those are not your kink, awesome! You do you. In your own way. However you find it enjoyable.
But the way you put it seems like you feel bdsm shouldn't involve beatings, blood, burns, or ice at all? Or else the dom should be arrested?

Also...
9172155

Inexperience and poor judgement was rampant here and this is exactly why even the dom needs to be taught that it's okay to safe out and to be taught other, less damaging methods of pain play.

YESSSSSSS THIS THIS THIS! Unhealthy as hell, and this is very well put. Too often Doms are not taught that THEY too can say "no, I can't do this" without it being wrong. Not all doms want to be this physically violent, or feel comfortable with it, and that should be fine for them, they shouldn't feel obligated to do so just for a sub. The fact that he felt unable to voice that he was uncomfortable and then mentally berated himself as he did it in the story says so much about why their interaction is unhealthy.

But then again, this is a story, not real life. :) No one is bad or wrong for enjoying it as it is, in my view. It was written with specific intent. You just did a lovely job of expressing one of the reasons the subject nature here made me initially uneasy.

Great story.

There's a lot of "One True Way" bullshit going on in these comments, though.

Things present in this comment thread:

-People who have never had experience in BDSM having strong and unchangeable opinions about it
-"Your fetish is objectively wrong compared to mine"
-People who actually have something to say about the story itself

9171081
I haven’t read the story yet, but I don’t have to to know that sometimes you need to be broken before you can be fixed. Sometimes you need to re-break an arm that’s been healed incorrectly. Sometimes you need to show someone a projected downfall before it happens. Sometimes you need to get shot to know what it feels like. Sometimes your heart needs to be broken before you can love.

And sometimes you need to hurt someone to let them know that you love them.

Now, I totally agree that abusing the ones you love is wrong. You should never hit your wife, you should never spank your kids (let alone beat them), you should never play harmful mind games that keep them in fear. But every now and then, they will ask you to hurt them. Because sometimes, they understand that they need to hurt. Because pain allows us to understand value in one of the worst kinds of ways, but in an extremely effective way.

Hey. Congratulations on 100. I'm trying to figure out the last few myself.

The unhealthiness here ain't in the blood--bloodplay is a thing yall. But yeah the second chapter very much felt like a scene that had spiralled out of control before it even started, and having had to safeword a few times out of a scene that shouldn't have even started... dang.

9171128
What author wrote "Her Most Faithful Student".

9174437
My bad. I meant "Her Most Faithful Servant" which was written by me.

9172189
If it causes harm, then by its nature it cannot be safe or sane.

But the way you put it seems like you feel bdsm shouldn't involve beatings, blood, burns, or ice at all? Or else the dom should be arrested?

Absolutely. Bdsm should not cause any harm, let alone grievous, often permanent harm, which is what things like cutting can do, and what burning and freezing will do. There are people, though they are rare, who want to be dismembered, or who fantasize about being disemboweled, or even get off on the thought of being killed. If they find a dom willing to do this, and the dom does so, should the dom not be punished to the full extent of the law? What, therefore, should separate that kind of sex from what you described in your comment? There's not much of a difference, between disfiguring someone with burning or causing permanent damage with frostbite, or scarring, vs cutting off fingers, gouging out eyes, etc. They're both causing needless, lasting harm. Why should one harm be viewed as "okay" and another viewed as "bad" when they both leave a person damaged, often forever?

9172534
That's because there IS only one true way. Morality is objective, not subjective. I'm not against Flutterpriest, nor Anonpencil, rather the fact that Anon in this story had the audacity to lie to his partner about his good intentions.

9173364
How can you claim that hurting someone is bad, and then turn around and proclaim that physically hurting people is necessary? Also, if you read the story, you would find that he beat his girlfriend until she bled, and then kept going until he broke at least one of her bones, all in the name of showing his "love" to her. Again, I have nothing against the authors, but rather against the precedent that Anon did this, and yet claimed he loved her, and that she was safe around him. That's all, nothing more, nothing less.

9172600
It's not about the fetish, but about Anon's willingness to stoop to such an insane level as to do harm, then turn around and make the ridiculous claim that he loved his partner, and that she was safe with him around. I never said anything against bdsm, but against the assertions of a character. Much in the same way that many people are not afraid to speak out against Fifty Shades Of Grey for its own inaccurate portrayal of the nature of genuine love. Various people have called Christian Grey a sociopath, and they're right. Anon isn't a sociopath, since he feels terrible about what he did to Maud, but that doesn't mean that he has any right to throw around words like "love" or "safe".

9175112
Nope.

Prove me wrong. :)

9175105

Bdsm should not cause any harm

Uhhhhh.....

78.media.tumblr.com/512b2dc73b47a5320f8ad637908b132b/tumblr_o4c98pxmtV1uzyzqlo1_400.gif

I suggest that you do some additional research into BDSM. I get the feeling you are not well educated on or understanding of the subject, and that's A-ok. Not everyone "gets it," you know? Or knows much about it beyond things they see on TV or in books, which is fine, not saying you need to be an expert or anything. But from where I stand, reading your views on the subject, it seems you have a whole lot left to learn, if you so choose.

My friend, I wish you luck in your life and future, but my goodness are you close-minded on this. Enjoy your vanilla (or even kinky in your own way! Ain't nothing wrong with vanilla love or light kink!) sexuality and lifestyle in what manner you find it most rewarding and loving, I hope you find happiness with someone like-minded.
I will do so with mine as well, where I vehemently disagree with you about morality, bdsm, sex, and love.
Have a good one. :)

9173364
I’ve read the story now. My point still stands, Maud felt like she doesn’t feel so it took her boyfriend breaking her to help her. I should know how this feels because I’ve felt similarly. I’ve seen things that make regular people horrified, scared, creeped out, and me? Nothing. Sometimes, something happens that people think to be funny and I have to walk away to not let them know how I think that it’s not funny at all. I had to fight someone for training purposes and ripped the shirt off his back while remarking that I wished that it was flesh and not fabric. The only difference is that Maud told someone to break her. I don’t have to, I’ve got myself for that.

9175126

How can you claim that hurting someone is bad, and then turn around and proclaim that physically hurting people is necessary?

I said sometimes, and I included non-physical ways.

he beat his girlfriend until she bled, and then kept going until he broke at least one of her bones, all in the name of showing "love" to her.

media1.tenor.com/images/70d15b6d6e00b1537e00fe3181ae2060/tenor.gif?itemid=4474030

Maud asked for this to happen. She asked for him to make her cry. Maud. The mare with the emotional appeal of a pile of sand in a desert. She heard that her father was hurt and she didn’t even shed a tear, but her boyfriend got her to smile. My guess is that she thought that if he could make her smile, he can make her cry. And she was right. And if you couldn’t tell at the ending, she was visibly and audibly happy. Sounds like she’s going the direction she wants to.

9175176
God's word.

9175387
No offence, but I have done research. There's nothing I've found on the subject of sadism that indicates anything other than pure malevolence. That's the only reason any real person has to enjoy the pain and suffering of another. Based on everything I've seen, it's a desire to make someone else's life miserable for the sadist's own enjoyment. Also, you didn't answer my ultimate question: why should one form of domestic abuse be seen as acceptable just because someone is broken enough to think they deserve it? Why should comparably less severe, though often permanent harm and mutilation done to someone be seen as alright, instead of equally tragic to those who wish to be dismembered or killed? I'm not trying to annoy you, but I am honestly trying to understand your point, and thus the perceived difference. Please answer, what makes one event tragic, and one acceptable? Since all my research led to the above conclusion, then that means that this conversation counts as my last bit of research, and the only piece which contains any interaction with another person. I've never had any genuine conversation about this before. Once you answer this, I'll leave you in peace.

9172155
Cigarette burns and frostbite do cause permanent harm though. I should know. I have a family member who got frostbite, and now their fingers are permanently more sensitive to cold. I myself burned both my hands in an accident, though not related to cigarettes, and while not enough to cause any scarring, causes pain in hot water, the temperature of which was nowhere near enough to even cause discomfort before. That shouldn't be inflicted upon people. Also cigarette burns will cause scarring, and fingers and toes can be completely lost by frostbite. Love making should improve people's lives, not slowly destroy them piece by piece.

9179284
Those are extreme cases i would barely call on par with things like branding, which is basically just really savage and painful tattoos. And they are a bit of a questionable area, no one is disputing that.

That said, there are ways to minimize the effects when handled properly (making sure the surface is wet before using a hot item at a controlled temperature and limiting exposure to a second or two), and the frost bite is more a side effect of causing or reducing sensitivity using ice and usually isn't an intended effect. As for those who do it intentionally, it may be done as a form of a kind of "sensation tattoo" where it isn't clearly visible but the reminder of that session, and their partner in turn, happens each time they expose it to certain temperatures. That, while questionably sane, can actually end up being an odd sort of comfort for them. I don't advise it, but i can understand it. It's a grey area, prone to the same issues as permenant body markings and the like.

The core of the argument you kind of got away from though, as I see it, is that even if people go to insane lengths in their sessions, even if they are inexperienced or making a mistake in the heat of the moment or trying something drastic to get some higher form of catharsis for issues they probably should address differently, they can still deeply care for and love each other. This "that can't REALLY be love" argument is just an appeal to purity and has woefully little understanding of the absolute insanity that love itself can be and the extreme lapses in judgement that can happen when something or someone you care about is on the line much less that such lapses don't inherently come from some sort of malicious intent. There's even a popular proverb that came to being from exactly these sorts of situations: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

9179214

I would LOVE to direct you to a few resources if you would like them. And will include some links at the end for you to read over.

But your comparison of, say, a small burn to disemboweling is absurd. Burns heal if done properly, and make no mistake, there is a proper or at least better ways to cut, burn, freeze, and inflict pain SAFELY. There is NO safe way to disembowel a person, even for surgeons, seeing as they still lose patients. And also... BDSM IS NOT DOMESTIC ABUSE. For some people, pain is an enjoyable experience, one that gives a sexual or emotional release of sorts. Some of this has to do with an exchange of power and control. In physical BDSM, the harm inflicted is done in a way so it is not life threatening or able to cause serious damage. By serious, I mean anything crippling or causing the loss of life, limb, etc. In bdsm scenes where there is hitting, be it with a whip, a paddle, a bare hand, or another implement, there are often, if not usually bruises. Sometimes, cuts and burns that are CONSENSUAL (<this is the opportune word here) do leave scars, but these are nothing that will be cause for alarm. I myself have a few scars from BDSM involvement, and all of them represent fond memories for me, and were given with my full and enthusiastic consent. Some people enjoy doing this to others, AS LONG AS THEY CONSENT, and it's a positive, often deeply intimate experience. It's not someone who enjoys causing unwanted misery. They're participating in a mutual activity where everyone has said "yes."

If you don't understand why someone would participate in this, that's fine! As I said, not everyone feels this way, and that's okay. But some people enjoy being hurt. Some people really get a lot out of it, or in causing consensual pain. What sets it apart from abuse is CONSENT. In healthy BDSM interactions, there is always consent. The two terms you'll often see associated with BDSM are "Safe, sane, consensual," and "Risk-aware consensual kink" (SSC and RACK). With many enjoyable things that are considered extreme (think about extreme sports, such as skydiving) there's a level of risk, but if people go into it understanding and consenting to this risk, then it's generally okay if it follows one of these mentalities. As I go with SSC (thought RACK is fine too, whichever anyone subscribes to) I'll break it down a little:

Safe: What you are doing isn't going to kill you or cause serious permanent damage. This is enforced by good sanitation. Experienced/knowledgable doms and subs. Research into what you are doing. And, most of all, discussion between the parties involved beforehand. Everyone needs to be on the same page, and agree to what's going on so there are no surprises. For an example, if a certain couple wants to do a scene involving cutting, they have to talk about where they are being cut, how much they will be cut, how it can be done safely (and taken care of well afterwards) before anyone EVER starts doing anything. And, sometimes most of all, they will discuss what ends this interaction. This is where a safeword comes into play at times, though sometimes "no, stop, don't" is plenty. All parties know the risks, understand how to do what they want to do, and are enthusiastic to do it anyway. And in the end, they're all going to be happy with what went down. (this is the part that really didn't happen in this story, imho.)
Sane: Everyone involved is competent to make these decisions. They aren't saying yes while drunk or high, and they are capable of giving full informed consent. This is also where your concern comes into play. If someone is saying "I want you to kill me!" that's... not sane. that's suicidal. Because asking to be killed is different than asking for a small burn, a cut, a series of bruises, etc. Requests for serious bodily harm (not simulated severe bodily harm, roleplay is a real thing!) are not really regarded as sane decisions. There are standards there, and there IS a difference, even if that's confusing for you. Believe me. BDSM happens every day, and people aren't getting disemboweled by it.
Consensual: This is the big one. Everyone has to say HELL YES. Sometimes, this is done just verbally, and sometimes there is a written contract, but the consent is all done beforehand, and can usually be revoked at any time. Someone can use a safeword to stop things, and entered into the situation knowing what they were getting into, and WANTING that to happen. Most of all, they trust each other to abide by the parameters they have discussed (even briefly, like "spank me until I bruise") and communicate well with each other. A sub WHO ENJOYS AND WANTS pain may ASK a dom to hurt them, and the dom, who enjoys inflicting WANTED and ASKED FOR pain will give that. Both parties are into it. Both parties get some enjoyment from it. Both parties give FULL. INFORMED. CONSENT.

It's like asking for someone to give you a tattoo, in a sense. Yes, there is permanent change to your body that causes harm, and it doesn't NEED to happen in a medical sense. But the person getting the tattoo has said "Yes I want this. Yes, I know the risks and understand what I am doing, and I am of legal age and legal status (not unconscious) to make this decision." and the artist has said "Yes, I will do this for you." and both parties can say stop at any time, either because it becomes unsafe, or because something else unexpected or unwanted happens. Tattoos are legal. And you wouldn't compare getting one to getting disemboweled, right?
Well, a minor scar, cut, or burn during a bdsm interaction isn't the same as disemboweling or dismemberment either. It's not abuse. And it's legal. And people doing it are HAPPY and HEALTHY. Studies have shown that the practice is NOT mentally ill, and that people who practice it often have healthier relationships than those who do not. Yes, even if there's a bruise, scrape, or cut sometimes.

Please, take a look at some of this information if what I have said does not make sense to you. It's often more concise and informative than I am:
https://www.thehotline.org/2017/04/06/healthy-bdsm-relationships/
https://www.verywellmind.com/difference-between-bdsm-and-abuse-4065395
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-wide-wide-world-psychology/201502/the-surprising-psychology-bdsm
https://www.livescience.com/34832-bdsm-healthy-psychology.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bdsm-practitioners/bdsm-practitioners-arent-mentally-ill-study-idUSBRE94U17J20130531
https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)30447-1/fulltext <- this is from a peer reviewed scientific journal. It's just an abstract though. :(

9179506
i.imgflip.com/2i8b6s.jpg

9179179

God's word.

You do realize that's the same excuse used by many Religions (Christianity included) throughout history to justify mutilation, subjugation, killing and murder, right? It's a poor way of saying, "I say the invisible, magic man in the clouds told me so! I'm going to believe in my own visions of morality and will not explain them without using my religion to justify them."

That's because there IS only one true way. Morality is objective, not subjective.

This is not true. Your morals are bound by your personal beliefs and experiences. The only truly evil thing that counts as objectively immoral would be stealing. I'll tell you why. Abstractly, stealing covers many things that have their own labels. For example,
Murder, is stealing life from another, murder is robbing someone of their chance to make something of themselves and be happy in their short time here on this earth.
Rape, is stealing another's freedom and choice in how they choose to use their body. It's also, in many cases, robbing of innocence and psychologically destructive. So the theft of sanctity of the body and mind.
This is just to name two.
Stealing is the most selfish thing you can do and it covers a wide variety of subject matter. On the flip side, stealing has been used to provide for families in times of great need. These examples are fewer and less common than the two I listed above, historically.

Now, if you look through history and other cultures' ideals about morality, you'll find that it's very subjective, comparatively and with only very few similarities. The Vikings believed that a free man (or woman) was protected under their laws similarly to how we are today, however, a slave had no rights and was usually subjected to things we view as heinous; they had no say in who touched them, who killed them (because to the Vikings it wasn't murder), or even who they were sold to or sacrificed to. The Vikings morals were subjective even in their religion. Their gods are more bi-polar than a mental patient on an untested, experimental drug.
National Geographic Article on Viking society and Slaves
You can do a search for "Vikings, treatment of slaves" and the first ten articles you'll find (not from Wikipedia) are kinda disturbing.

I'll give you a real world example you can look up right now.
In 2013 (approximately) in the country of Uganda, Corrective Rape was a common and acceptable way for anyone to "fix" gay people; make them go straight. But, they didn't count it as a crime because the people being raped are perceived as gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, bi-curious, and so forth. I'm not sure if this has changed recently, but it stands to my point. At the time, it was morally acceptable to engage in Corrective Rape (in the country of Uganda).
See "Stephen Fry: Out There" if you don't believe me. Search "Uganda, corrective rape" and see how many hits you get for it.

Morals are subjective and will change from one person and society to another, regardless of the goodness of the people being spoken about.

9179179

So you're a fanatic who doesn't actually understand anything outside of your own narrow world view?

Gotcha'.

9181361
No, I'm a Christian who knows the absolute truth of what love is and isn't. Desiring to inflict suffering and misery isn't love. Love always seeks to protect and defend not destroy. Having morality is not a narrow world view. The world is dying without the truth, and I'm not going to apologize for trying to save people from themselves and one another.

9179559
False Christians have indeed done many evils in the name of their "faith" you are right about that. All the things you listed are truly evil, but how can you proclaim them to be evil, if by your own reasoning, morality is subjective. Murder and rape are evil, but you cannot possibly assert that and yet claim that morality is subjective. Lack of an objective standard just means that good and evil are meaningless, and therefore those crimes you mentioned, according to your world view, cannot truly be right or wrong. After all, if you claim that anything is objectively immoral, then clearly, there must be an objective standard.

9179506
Thanks for answering my question, Anonpencil. I still can't really see any difference, but nevertheless, you and Flutterpriest were respectful towards me, and patient, and for that, I thank you both. If it helps, the only references I have for sadism in real life are kids I knew with abusive parents, and some very creepy kids that enjoyed hurting and killing small animals, (note that the creepy children did not belong to the abusive parents in question.) Neither the parents nor the children were the kind of people I ever wanted, nor would want to associate with. I've also seen sadism in youtube comments where trolls go out of there way to hurt others.
Recently, I was watching a video where a man was thanking people for their support, as he recently lost his niece in a car accident, and if my memory serves, she was only 18 or 19. The woman's father was in the video thanking people for their outpouring of love. Trolls in the comments had no qualms about making the most sickening "jokes" I've ever seen, all aimed at this poor woman, and all intended to be read by the grieving family members. This is sadism, and the only kind of sadism I've ever witnessed. If doms are sadistic, then therefore it seemed pretty safe to me to make the connection that these must therefore be the kind of people who become doms.

When I always thought of a dom, I thought of someone who would never help their partner in a medical emergency, because they wouldn't want to relieve their partner's pain and suffering. I thought of someone who would want their partner to go through every surgery, dental drilling, etc without anesthesia or painkillers, because it wouldn't be "fun" without their partner screaming. I thought of someone who would gladly trip their partner, just to watch their face hit concrete. I always envisioned someone who enjoyed verbally and emotionally abusing their partner until their partner doesn't even believe they deserve to live, or be considered a person, and that they should just be treated like an inanimate object. This is what has always come to mind when I think of a dom, because this is what comes to mind when I think of sadism. Basically, think of the interrogator from the 2010 move Unthinkable but now imagine it being sexualized.
I only know sadism based on what I've seen, and based on this, it cannot be safe, sane, or healthy. If someone gives consent for something that isn't healthy, then that consent should be considered invalid. I will never be able to understand your views, and you may very well never understand mine, but I am glad to see that perhaps, doms aren't necessarily the completely heartless psychopaths that I thought. That still doesn't mean it's right, but it doesn't mean that they're all complete monsters like I feared though either. As promised, I'll leave you in peace.

9179372
What about whipping? Whipping is common in S and M. I've also seen what whipping does to people, red stripes down someone's back leaking blood is not okay. It's used as a punishment in some countries still, and has been since it's inception. How is whipping not a form of cruelty? It leaves entire areas of skin and flesh stripped completely away from the body. That's not love, that's a form of horrifying torture. It's painful enough to experience that slaves lived in absolute terror of it! Even if the other stuff can be "mitigated" there is no possible way to mitigate the injury of a whip, except not to use one. Surely, if nothing else, that should be outlawed.

9197158
Particularly heavy handed whipping can definitely be unsafe, but that's not exactly the norm. Whipping/flogging/ect can be light enough to merely cause redness and increase sensitivity, it can leave welts which will leave with time if you go a bit harder but can do more for a pleasure/pain mix or even in some types of hard painplay where the recipient wants to feel the pain or even fear as part of a larger scene just to make it more real and intense.

When you get to blood and scarring, i get a little uncomfortable with it. It also lends itself to the questionable choices of body markings and the effects there of, as well as questions of intent and reason... At this point i feel like there are few healthy reasons to go that far. Some of the ways ive had it explained is a sort of accepting a mark, some saying they just got too carried away with the contrast of sensations, others just wanted to take things to a level they never had before because they trusted each other that much. They also usually mentioned that they always have bandages and other medical supplies on hand as part of the usual aftercare supplies.

Of course, it's not always safe or sane and that troubles me as well. It's with no small regret that i say that yes, there have been accidents or even scenes gone wrong where emotions took someone past what the other was willing to handle. There are plenty of cases for you to look at where that situation should never have happened. Where someone went into a scene with malicious intent, where someone went with a partner they didn't know as well as they should have, where someone took out anger they shouldn't have.

I'm honestly less into the pain scene than some others so it's harder for me to understand it on a personal level. I'd probably never go that far with my wife, I'd safe if things started heading in that direction and ask that she not push me so far. And considering her own temperament, it probably would never get close to that anyway. Regardless, i have talked with some that do. They usually are fairly well adjusted people in terms of looking after themselves elsewhere just a bit more intense in the bedroom (or dungeon occasionally) than myself. We're all a bit strange when it comes to sex or pleasure and some people want experiences that don't seem sane or safe to most, but a lot of the rougher side of SnM is dabbling and exploring exactly that with people you trust and supplies and equipment to make it less of a risk. No matter what I say, there will always be some that look at a scene and shriek in horror at the desires and dangers inside it but a friendly reminder is that many who practice these themes do take several measures to keep things safe, sane, and consensual.