If your partner *actually is Jewish*, enjoys and is giving you permission to do this within an empowered relationship such that the permission can be given freely, and the play is private or only among other people who have been carefully vetted for comfort level, why? Who is being hurt here?

Arguments like this have a hard time explaining the existence of female/gay/lesbian/non-binary dominants.

Ah, I see. Ok. There’s definitely a valid point to be made that the mainstream porn gaze combined with BDSM elements is dangerous in a way kink itself is not, if that’s what you’re getting at.

Well, non-consent play (“simulated rape”) of various degree is a pretty huge part of BDSM as it is normally understood, so you can see how one might have been confused. Are you saying that the former should be excluded from BDSM entirely? I’m actually asking.

I mean yes it would be obviously inappropriate to do that but you would presumably know your best friend’s comfort level in advance...

I don’t think that’s a reach at all so much as clearly the intent of the ad.

Of course it isn’t really about rape, but you have to admit it’s a bit iffy sounding when you listen to it now.

It’s definitely tone deaf.

Ok I mean that’s a bit of a reach

You presumably would know these things about your best friend though?

This is the correct answer, not so much because of your specific preferences, but because of the “I was uncomfortable with something, so we talked about it, and then we converged on a mutually satisfying solution” approach.

...why not...?

Speaking as a man,it might be true that masturbation reduces sensitivity (surely this is also true of vibrators?). But I strongly disagree that it accurately simulates sex. Vaginas etc. just feel - physically - better. There is no comparison.

I think you mean “wolves”

I did say “in the head”, but I meant that figuratively.

I do think this has some potential usefulness. One advantage is it allows for a somewhat more gradual escalation of force than is currently possible. Maybe you’re a cop holding at gunpoint, I dunno, a junkie or something.

I think actually a lot of the objections are from people who *do* want the guns taken away

I don’t think that’s quite right. They think the world is already kill and be killed, but that the “good guys” are unfairly restricted from defending themselves.

What I’m suggesting is that there are two risks to be balanced:
1. The risk of serious injury due to accidental (misfires, stupidity) or unnecessary (machismo, “heat of the moment”) gun use.

What if you’re sitting down to a delicious Sausage Buttermilk Biscuit from the McDonalds value picks menu when the entire Iranian army parachutes in and starts killing people left right and centre while flexing. Do you want a pansy-ass .45 that reminds me of a penis, or a shoulder-mounted M230 chain gun that’s going…