Webster’s defines a right as “something to which one has a just claim.” The original definition of “right” has been corrupted to mean “the acquisition of some value — healthcare, prescription drugs — based solely on the basis of need, or most recently the full acceptance of any minority group’s behavior, such as gay rights, BDSM rights.”

Currently, individuals are free to engage in any consensual BDSM activity he or she wishes. If a group of individuals share a common interest in BDSM, such as Cuffs, they are free to do so. When a group such as Cuffs is funded by a larger group such as GSB, then Cuffs becomes subject to the rules and regulations of the group providing the funding or it must refuse the funding. The basic principle at stake is property rights, not some fictitious “BDSM rights.”

The idea that “BDSM should be an accepted social activity if done safe, sane and consensual, as Cuffs promotes” is simply not true. It is true that an individual has the right to engage in BDSM activities so long as nobody else’s rights are violated. I can tolerate persons engaging in BDSM, but I don’t have to accept it. It is wrong to demand the complete acceptance of such actions from any other individual involved. Simply put, the mind cannot be forced.

In other words: do whatever you want, but don’t demand my sanction or my money.

Jason Walleser

Junior

Materials Engineering