Why a “TERF” could support laws against gender identity discrimination

I’ve been called a TERF. Yet, I believe that discrimination on the basis of gender identity should be illegal, and – rightly understood – such laws does not interfere with women’s rights. If this makes no sense now, please hear me out. What I say here is not something you can predictably hear from either gender-affirming or gender critical people.

Take, for example, Sal Grover. She wanted to create a female-only app for women to connect with and support other women. Transgender people was nowhere on her radar when she did. Soon, a male-bodied trans-identified individual named Roxy Tickle was denied membership, based on facial recognition software rightly identifying Roxy as male. Because of this, Sal now faces a landmark court case for gender discrimination.

Yes, Dylan – God made no mistake with you!

While celebrating 365 days of “girlhood”, Dylan Mulvaney got tearful and said:

“I’m trying really hard to maintain a relationship with God, and I don’t think that He made a mistake with me. Uhm In that maybe, actually, one day, I will actually be grateful for being trans. That this isn’t some curse.”

Dylan Mulvaney, saying God made no mistake

Cynics may claim that Dylan was putting on an act for the camera. But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Dylan does try to have a relationship with God, and let us assume the view of God Dylan tries to follow is the God of the Christian Bible or Jewish Torah.

I agree – God made no mistake with Dylan Mulvaney. When DM was born, when the doctors proclaimed: “It is a boy!”, God was right to make Dylan a boy. When Dylan’s face developed masculine features, the very features Mulvaney tries to kill with Facial Feminization surgery, God was right to give him those features.

God made humanity in God’s image, male and female. (Gen 1:27)* The Bible claims our bodies are made in God’s image. The body is true. It is real. It is a beautiful God-made thing.

Transgenderism means having certain thoughts about who you are, thoughts that do not match your (good, God-made) body. Thoughts – mine as much as that of Dylan Mulvaney – could be unrealistic. Or self-centered. Or delusional. Thoughts, according to the Bible, are not all made by God. It could also come from ourselves and our societies. Sometimes it could even come straight from hell, and then it should be rejected immediately.

Psalm 139:23-24

Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!

Romans 12:2

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

And thus I urge Dylan Mulvaney if he wants a relationship with God, to come to God just as he is. His male body and unsatisfaction with being male, his desire for attention, and every part of his thoughts and actions which we do not know, need to be placed before God – the sinful parts as a confession, the other parts in willingness for God to change them or use them as He wishes. It probably won’t get the result that conservatives would like – God seldom turns everything in someone’s life around instantaneously. God certainly did not change everything at once when changing me. But God would lead him in seeing what is true and what is good – and make that his image of himself and others.

And part of that truth is that sadly for him, he cannot be a woman – even less a girl – in a meaningful way. But he can, if he finds his identity in God, be a man (perhaps with some “effeminate” mannerisms) who pursue meaningful goals, instead of chasing a version of himself he could never be.

An actual example of how someone who lived as a girl in this world for one year may look. (Photo: Borrowed from the Internet.)

Life is short. So why do I argue with strangers on the Internet?

When, if ever, should you argue on the Internet? (Photo: Freepik)

I live a pretty isolated life. Often in the evenings when I go to bed, I ask myself: Have I done anything good for my fellow humans today?

The answer is sometimes something like: On the social media suggested to me – therefore, the things that actually crossed my path, I defended important issues in such a way that a reasonable reader will hear more than just one side about it. Because of how human minds work, I did not expect the people I disagreed with to learn from it – I expected the undecided listener who hears us argue to at least hear two sides of the story. For that reason, arguing on the Internet – especially in a busy comment section on a large website – is a lot more potentially meaningful than arguing with a co-worker at the office.

For example, when someone mentioned “gender affirmative care” for gender-confused young people, I mentioned that many professionals believe that puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and affirming that the child’s new gender, is not the best way to help young people. And the statistics the trans activists use to claim, say, that children will commit suicide if not affirmed comes from terrible methodology.

Standing up for truth may get these important issues to be treated slightly more wisely in the world. For example, a parent who reads this response may know better than to immediately affirm a gender-confused child, and to explore options with a better chance of getting a child who accepts herself or himself as is.

Yes, this attitude comes at the price of people – who may or may not be rather decent people in other contexts – insulting and shaming me without justification. But if a reasonable reader can see the mockers are unreasonable, it inclines their minds to not choose their side in real life.

In short, I argue with strangers on the Internet. I have seen articles that warn against arguing on the Internet, but they seem to not address this viewpoint at all: They only see that the person who is argued with does not change. They never consider the reader whose mind is not made up yet. If this reader only hears “everyone says X”, it will incline him to believe X. If someone responds with: “No, professionals say opposite-of-X”, this reader’s mind is not necessarily inclined towards X. There are issues so important that this really matters.


If you disagree, please tell me how to do something more meaningful with my time. Ironically, if you don’t know me, you will be arguing with a stranger on the Internet. But I will try to listen – after all, if there are wiser ways to influence the hearers of these arguments, I want to do it!

“And you still can hear me singing to the people who don’t listen to the things that I am saying hoping, praying someone’s gonna hear… I was born a lonely singer and I’m bound to die the same, but I got to feed this hunger in my soul. If I never have a nickel I won’t ever die ashamed, ’cause I don’t believe that no one wants to know.”
– To beat the devil, Kris Kristofferson

Can people who are not transgender give meaningful advice on how to rear trans children?

Transgender girl looking in mirror: Computer art by myself (Retha Faurie, the writer of this article)

Woke activist groups would tell us that only transgender people can comment on what trans-identified children and teens need. This may sound good, but is blind to several truths:

a) Trans people are not one group.

The majority of powerful, rich transgender people who lead trans-related policies seem to be autogynephilic, from auto = self, gyne = woman, and phile = love. These males feel sexually aroused by the thought of themselves as women.
However, a five-year old boy who wants to wear a Disney Princess dress do not feel sexually aroused by it. If he* calls himself a girl, something beside autogynephilia is at work here.
Likewise, a 13-year-old girl may conclude that the discomfort she feels with her changing body, and the response of boys to it, means she was actually born to be a boy. This is not autogynephilia either.

Men with unusual kinks are not the ideal go-to group for child-rearing advice, especially if they are like this biological-guy-who-claims-to-be-a-woman who want to advise girls on how to insert tampons and organize topless parties for LGBTQ youth of 12 and over. (Despite discussion of menstruation, we know for certain Janiv has male genitalia, because of the court cases he made against beauticians who do not want to wax it.)

Jonathan/ Jessica Yaniv, one of the male-born transgender individuals who are interested in “helping” trans-identified youth.

The sexual quirks of adult males certainly do not make them the same as a gender-confused child or teenager.

b) Many not-currently identifying-as-trans people do understand things that make children identify as trans

Some young people tell us why they used to identify as trans, but stopped. Other adults talk to the young people who identify as trans, and hear some truths from them. This means detransitioners (people who used to identify as trans, but no longer do), caring parents, people in helping professions like psychology, and people who listen and read what the trans communities say and see similarities between the trans youths and their own views when they were younger, are all able to contribute to the conversation.
Here is one example, Charlie Rae:

Testimony of a woman who had gender dysphoria, concerned about the medical treatments children and teens get when they proclaim they are transgender. (Source: Gender Cynical Facebook page)

c) Trans youths are not just trans:

Youths who identify as trans are also children or teenagers, also need guidance in growing up as decent human beings, has developing brains just like any other child, and have physical, emotional, spiritual, intellectual and medical needs similar to those of other children. They also often have depression as a co-morbidity. Thus anyone who knows child development or depression – whether a teacher, doctor or therapist – can also weigh in on what a trans child need.
We know, for example, that therapists recommend taking suicide threats seriously, but not giving people whatever they want because of these threats. Thus, if a teen say – usually driven by actual advice on social media – that s/he will commit suicide if she does not get puberty blockers, we should go to what is already known on dealing with suicide threats as a manipulation tool.

---

Wokesters who want to listen to only transgender people seems to be like a racist claiming all Chinese people are the same.

The latter probably never cared enough about any Chinese people to think of how (just like any other race) they include mothers and fathers, and children and singles, rebels and traditionalists, ambitious people and those satisfied with their current lot, or how one Chinese person may hold views completely unlike the next one.

The former maybe never cared enough about any transgender individuals to realize they have different roads to transness and different needs, and are essentially like the rest of us – we could give trans youths some good things except what they themselves demand.

Why are Dr. Seuss’s depictions racist, but Lego’s not?

Because Dr. Seuss’s estate announced that they will stop publishing a few titles with racist images, I looked up some of the books which contain these offensive images.

(By the way, this is not quite “cancel culture” – they are only stopping to publish a few titles by a prolific dead author. Most authors will hope to be this successful, with only a few of their books going out of print 30 years after their death.)

I could find at least one picture which is definitely racist, from a book that I never heard about. (In my book-loving childhood with my father often relocating, I read through the Seuss works in at least 2 school-and 2 public libraries. So, if I have not heard of a book, I would guess it is one of his less popular titles.) It pictured blacks as primitive, not just traditional.

Others among the titles have a few stereotypical depictions of Chinese and Eskimos, but not, as far as the average person has ever heard, negative. Many people in sections of China dressed like the depictions, and even today some Eskimos can still be photographed in something close to their traditional fur outfits.

Some pictures produced even now feature the same stereotypes. Here is one example:

On the left: The most (allegedly) offensive picture from a 1937 book by Dr. Seuss. On the right: Details from “Chen’s Noodle House” in the Ninjago City Gardens Lego set from this year.

Both feature a stereotypical Chinese character with a conical hat and a noodle bowl. Dr. Seuss’ To think I saw it on Mulberry Street uses the words “A Chinese man who eats with sticks.” The 2021 Lego set shows Mr. Chen twice – once as a picture on a sign and once as a minifig. Lego’s Youtube videos even makes the Mr. Chen character from the Noodle House a villain. Why is one okay, and the other not? If you argue that Dr. Seuss is problematic because the character is referred to as Chinese: the Chinese-inspired characters in If I ran the zoo was not called Chinese, but it is one of the books which went out of print now.

Personally, I think they just stopped publishing his most boring books. I checked out the stories of three of the canceled books, and they are all just kids imagining one weird thing after another, with no continuity or storyline. Which is very much unlike the meaningful stories in his better books, like The Lorax.

Why should feminists be concerned about transwomen in female jails and prisons? A look at the numbers.

This article aims to look at numbers for incarceration, and find a conclusion on whether including trans people in the prison of their choice would make a statistically significant difference to the situation in those prisons or jails. I am using the USA and UK for this, as these are English-speaking countries from which a lot of statistics are available online. It is thus easier to compile numbers that readers of this blog can verify.

——————

In the USA

0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender. For teens, estimates vary from just under 3% to one in 137, which at 0.7% is a lot closer to the 0.6% adult percentage.

For every 100 000 women in the USA, 126 are in prison. For men, the number is 1352. This means more or less 1 in 12 prisoners is a woman.

The average person in the USA has a 5% chance of being incarcerated at some stage. Transwomen have a 21% chance and transmen 10%. Please do not conclude, from this, that trans people are necessarily more criminal. Several factors may contribute to this, and the source I link to mention some of them. The source also contains plenty of reasons to care about trans safety, especially in prison.

What Bohemian Rhapsody is about – my theory

There are a lot of songs which, by the time you heard two lines of it, you already know what the song is about. Bohemian Rhapsody is not one of them. There is more than one theory on the story Mercury tried to tell in this song. Here is mine.

Bohemian Rhapsody is about someone almost dying from a suicide attempt or a drug overdose:

“Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?”
Is this really a hallucination, or is this really happening? See my explanation of “I see a little silhouette … let me go … Beelzebub has a devil …” further into this article – it is either a Near Death Experience (NDE) or a (drug-induced?) hallucination. He is not sure which.

“Mama, I just killed a man …”
He believes he killed himself.

“If I’m not back this time tomorrow carry on”
He can perceive his mother crying over him.

“Life has just begun, and now I go and throw it all away… Too late, my time has come… goodbye everybody”
He believes he is dying.

“I see a little silhouette… Scaramouche… thunderbolts and lightning…”
He is having either a Near Death Experience of hell or is hallucinating about hell.

“He’s just a poor boy, from a poor family” “let him go”
Angels in the NDE/hallucination are pleading for his life.

“We will not let you go”
Demons are dragging him down.

“Let me go”
He is pleading to the demons in his hallucination/ NDE.

Beelzebub has a devil … for me”
He sees demons in this hallucination/ NDE.

“So you think you can stomp me and spit in my eye? So you think you can love me and leave me to die? … Just let me right out of here”
He is fighting to stay alive. (The sentence “So you think you can love me and leave me to die?” also reminds me that Freddy Mercury died of AIDS.)

In the end, he makes it out, alive, but the depressed/ reckless state of mind that caused him to use drugs/ attempt suicide continues: “Nothing really matters. Anyone can see. Nothing really matters. To me.”

What is wrong with BDSM? This is how I see it affecting practitioners (Part 2)

<

C) Ways in which BDSM affects mainly the practitioners

C1) It creates/ maintain/s encourages a situation where the hurting person asks to be hurt again, and often even hurt worse

A hurting person who is unambiguously against what happened will, as far as it is possible, get out of the situation, and avoid unnecessary hurt in the future. But BDSM encourages victims to ask for more pain and more degradation. Among others, they do this by creating a connection in the mind between pain and sexual pleasure. Their partners, if not sadists, could have chosen to emphasize the truth that orgasm can be reached by purely physical means without any pain, emotional or physical, instead.

It also pressures subs into accepting bad behavior from doms. Here is one piece of testimony from someone nicknamed Kinksterbullshit who studied the BDSM social media site Fetlife:

There is a forum for female subs to talk and one section was discussing when their dom punishes them when they aren’t supposed to. Like, if they aren’t in a 24/7 dom/sub relationship sometimes the dominant forgets and punishes the girl anyways. Most of them talk about how they did something that made their boyfriend mad and he punished her. Hitting, pepper spray, and shoving things in the girls mouth were all examples I read. And the sad thing is that these girls all said that they deserved it and shouldn’t have made him mad.

C2) The “building up” seems to be in a different direction than the “breaking down”

Studying the blogs of female BDSM subs, it seems the insults during scenes and the compliments afterward are in two different directions: The insults are mostly about sexuality (words like sl*t, b*tch, etc) and worth (words like worthless or c*mdump- only worth something as a dumping place for semen). It thus touches their personhood and sexuality in general. Subsequent praise is about sexual worth to the sadistic partner: His little girl, he is proud of her for tolerating (tellingly, not enjoying) pain, he loves her.

The message of the abuse is that s/he is worthless outside the relationship, but worth something to the sadist s/he is dating. She’d thus better keep on tolerating his treatment because that is where she gets her value.

C3) Even with their tiny definition of non-consent, consent violations are rife in BDSM

Here, I will quote Kitty Stryker, who calls herself an authority on developing a consent culture in “alternative communities”:

When I start to think of the number of times I have been cajoled, pressured, or forced into sex that I did not want when I came into the BDSM community I can’t actually count them… it happened so bloody often that it was just a fact of being a submissive female… I have yet to meet a female submissive who hasn’t had some sort of sexual assault happen to her [in BDSM]. So many sites are focused on saying how BDSM isn’t a cover for abuse that we willingly blind ourselves to the times that it can be.

C4) It causes practitioners to switch off common sense

BDSM-ers regularly tell me things like “Since we don’t hurt anyone, you have nothing to say about this.” But by inflicting pain they literally hurt someone, so the argument does not work on even the most superficial level.

Or they may say, right between calling it safe and calling it consensual: “It is sane!” Why should anyone find it sane to get turned on by pain and degradation? None of them can answer that.

So many of their answers seem to be thoughtless and superficial, I come to the conclusion that kinksters have to switch off a part of their minds in order to be involved in BDSM.

C5) “I like to make you happy”/ “I like to make you suffer” is a horrible relational dynamic

On many a BDSM blog and in the writings of people who used to do BDSM, female subs and ex-subs say they did not like it, but they liked how pleased their doms/ “daddies” were with them afterward. Male doms often write of how they love to make [crude words for women] suffer. I cannot think of a more dangerous relational dynamic than this:
He: “I love choking you, cutting you, and whipping you. I love it when you sob and scream.” She: “I love pleasing you, Daddy. If you will be pleased by hurting me, then hurt me.”

C6) Feelings often follow when you act a certain way

Psychologists tell us that acting confidently often causes us to become more confident and that acting happy makes us happier. In BDSM, participants tell us that one of them is role-playing a sadist or a rapist, while the other is pretending to be a submissive victim. If personalities are influenced by role-playing, BDSM dominants are turning themselves into monsters, and subs are turning themselves towards helplessness.

C7) Many subs do it from self-loathing

Here, I will quote someone else who did BDSM:

My first sexual relationship was a BDSM situation, because I had been groomed by a bunch of weirdos (both online by strangers and in IRL by society and my abusive family) to turn my deep emotional hurt and sorrow and self-loathing into literal, physical self-harm and abuse…

a.) lots of other women have said the same things I’ve said, so either there are a whole lot of bad doms or the whole scene is just really f***ed up, and either way somebody should probably pay attention to that,

and b.) I don’t think anyone is truly wired like that, from birth, but if you’re talking “worn down to the point that they eroticize their own abuse”, then yeah. I’m the real deal too.

… that means some dude gets off on torturing someone whose mind already tortures itself, and if you can’t see why that’s fucked up I don’t even know how to help you.

BDSM sometimes or often encourages and feeds self-loathing.

In conclusion, I think my main issue with BDSM is probably Point B8, Part 1:

It seems to me that nobody can love BDSM and simultaneously be on the side of kindness, justice, freedom, honesty, and equality. Any minute anyone spends defending bondage, dominance, submission, slave-master relationships, sadism, one-sided punishments, etc., or willingly participating in it, is a minute spent choosing the side of evil. Any moment spent working for equality, justice, or kindness, is a moment opposing everything BDSM stands for.

What is wrong with BDSM? This is how I see it affecting society (Part 1)

Trigger warning: Sexual violence

I never met a kinkster who wants to honestly discuss BDSM. They never want to talk about pain. They do not want to tell me what tops/ doms/ sadists get out of BDSM. They only give me platitudes (“…safe … sane … consensual …“).

Today, I want to do what nobody in any of these conversations ever allowed me yet: To share, from my angle, what I saw on BDSM blogs, forums, discussions, and information pages. “Do your own research”, they challenged me – and I did. Being autistic means I see some things others miss and miss some things others see. These two articles may thus include points you did not notice before, brought to you for free by the insights of Retha Faurie. (If you do not care how kinksters are affected by BDSM because they consent to it, then ignore part C – parts A and B have ways others are affected.)


A) Ways in which BDSM affects mainly the rest of society – not just practitioners


A1) It makes women in porn and prostitution suffer

BDSM desires tend to be fueled by, among others, watching violent pornography. One of the (many) problems with porn is that the vast majority of sex trafficking victims report having porn made of them against their will. If you watch violent pornography, there is no way to vouch that actual, non-consensual humans did not suffer for your pleasure.
BDSM lovers also tend to take out their violent fantasies on prostituted women. While some of these women are trafficked, even the others prefer not to have pain and insults inflicted on them, as BDSM-loving johns are likely to do.

It also causes some who are aware of BDSM to care less about human trafficking victims: If a sex slave means both (a) a kidnapped woman who is raped by twenty men a day, and (b) a willing BDSM participant playing a sex game with her boyfriend, then sexual slavery becomes a nuanced thing – not something to fight tooth and nail.

A2) It encourages the wrong questions

When someone is beaten, the right first questions are not: “Why does she (he) allow it? Why do they stay?” It is “why does he (she) beat her (him)?” BDSM people make a consistent practice of telling us the subs asked for it – they never discuss with outsiders why the dom enjoys beating his (her) partner. They teach, by this practice, society to question the motives of the wrong person.

A3) Some victims of rape/ sexual slavery are traumatized when their rapes are used to fuel entertainment

I think Andrea Dworkin says it best in “Letters from a war zone” (although potentially, some abused men could also feel like this about the things BDSM acts out, and she talks of women in particular):

“[w]e see the torture of women as a form of entertainment, and we see women also suffering the injury of objectification—that is to say we are dehumanized. We are treated as if we are subhuman, and that is a precondition for violence against us…

When your rape is entertainment, your worthlessness is absolute. You have reached the nadir of social worthlessness… One lives inside a nightmare of sexual abuse that is both actual and potential, and you have the great joy of knowing that your nightmare is someone else’s freedom and someone else’s fun.”

 

B) Ways in which BDSM probably affects both practitioners and the rest of society

B1) At best, BDSM is anti-intimacy

BDSM, according to its defenders, is about pretending to be someone you are not. At best, the BDSM dom is not really dominating and not really happy with the bottom’s pain, he is just pretending. At best, the BDSM sub is not really the slave of a violent sadist, but just putting on an act.

But ideally, sexual intimacy is about being not just physically, but emotionally naked before someone you trust. Ideally, you can show your whole self, without pretense, to someone who truly cares. BDSM, as participants explain it to those outside the scene, is all about pretense, and markets pretense as good relationships.

(When the pain, inequality, and sadism is real instead of a show, the problems get more grotesque than merely a lack of honest intimacy, of course.)

B2) It brings verbal and physical cruelty into the deepest and most vulnerable of human experiences

Women, and even perhaps men, are never more vulnerable than when naked before a lover. According to BDSM, this is the ideal time, and the ideal type of relationship, in which to degrade, punish, insult, and inflict physical pain.

(I know that the average kinkster now wants to answer with: “But we/ they enjoy it!” Really? I hear of women jerking their bodies away with each lash which lands, not automatically moving closer. If their bodies literally enjoyed the lash, their bodies would have instinctively drawn closer. I hear of subs struggling to sit down the next day after a beating, never enjoying to sit down because of the great feeling in their butt. I hear that when choked, they fight for breath – if they enjoyed being choked, they would have relaxed under the -to them- great feeling of not breathing.)

This not only affects people who consent to BDSM relationships, but also the rest of society who knows about it: If it is no big deal to inflict (physical or emotional) pain on a lover, and some people even ask for it, why should it be a big deal when some people hurt their partners?

B3) BDSM makes sex violent and violence sexy

This mindset – sex as violence, violence as a sexual mindset – is a prime influence on rape and sexual slavery. It is also a reason why women and girls, in general, have to put up with so much mistreatment from men and boys.

B4) It spreads false information about what domestic violence is/ is not

Without exception, every kinkster I ever met said that consent makes the difference between abuse and non-abuse, that beating or choking a partner who allowed you to do so is not abusive. But DV sources simply do not back that up. In short, in a relationship where one person dominates the other, you could expect the submitting partner to allow unwanted behavior. Their “consent” does not negate the abuse.
This false information IMO includes a too tiny definition of non-consent.

B5) Even while consensual, it is based on an interest in non-consent

At its best and most consensual BDSM is the equivalent of a rape joke, with a sexual thrill instead of a laugh as the result. Even while consenting, the scene is based on an interest in non-consent. If both partners whole-heartedly loved consent, the thought of acting out a rape/ slavery scene would disgust them, not thrill them.

It would be good for all to live in a world where people whole-heartedly chose the side of consent – where the very idea of continuing when a partner does not seem willing would abhor men and women.

B6) It makes it harder to spot and to prosecute rape and murder

The website We can’t consent to this documents cases where violent murders and assaults have been defended – often successfully – by claiming that the victim consented.

B7) BDSM is sexist

The majority of doms are male and the majority of subs female. Many insults used for women (wh*re, sl*t, etc.) have no real male equivalents. So-called “female doms” are often prostitutes paid to do only what their male clients want. Even in gay, lesbian, or femdom BDSM, there are insults that male subs are not “man enough” and masculine symbols like dildos for female doms.

It also aids sexist men in believing women want submission. This infamous quote (quoted by Jared Wilson in response to why women read 50 Shades of Grey) is only one example of a sexist man aided by awareness of BDSM:

“Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence… This is what lies behind sexual “bondage and submission games,” along with very common rape fantasies. Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the “soon to be made willing” heroine. Those who deny they have any need for water at all will soon find themselves lusting after polluted water, but water nonetheless.” – Doug Wilson

But female submission is not natural: It is taught to women from a young age.

B8) BDSM “feeds the wrong wolf”

Most people know the story of the Native American who said everyone has a good and an evil wolf inside them, and the one you feed wins. It seems to me that if someone enjoys or gets off on inflicting pain, it is better to starve than to feed that side of himself (or herself). This also counts for a side that wants someone to inflict pain on you.

The same can be said about everything in BDSM: Do you regard freedom as being on the side of good, not evil? Bondage is the opposite of that.
Is equality a worthy goal for you? Then you should be against master-slave and dom-sub relationships.
Are you a kind person, who prefers healing to pain? Then you will abhor sadism and masochism.
Do you believe in justice? Then you will hate the one-sided punishments involved in BDSM “discipline”.

Do you love openness and honesty? Then role-playing and pretense, as kinksters claim they are doing, will be a weak excuse for a relationship in your eyes.

>> To be continued here

What does it really mean to stand up for life in a violent world?

I just finished a riveting action/ crime novel, and it was a page-turner: The main character is a bodyguard, protecting a lottery winner. 7 people get killed in the story. 5 characters are personally responsible for at least one of the seven deaths. 3 of the 5 killers also get killed in the story.

Of course, the reason the bodyguards are the good guys is that they kill people who killed before, or who showed a willingness to kill. On one level, I understand that reasoning.

But if you always manage to kill the potential threats before they kill your charge, are you not more murderous than they?