Anon,

Your analysis is both thorough and objective. I encourage others to look at this post most closely. Thank you for your contribution.

The conflict is not with people who are familiar with the BDSM community. The conflict is in the fact that the target audience of this 'statement' is the general public who in general is not aware of the fact that BDSM activities are consensual and nonharmful. It is also with the fact that by including the word "harmful", ALL people that sign the agreement become responsible for expaining how BDSM is nonharmful to those that don't understand. And that may be difficult or even impossible for Pagans who have no exposure to BDSM.
The point is that the word "harmful" is unnecessary and creates more confusion than clarity.

David,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your contributions to this and the fact that you are taking part in its creation. I still believe that the term "harmful" is unnecessary and redundant in the statement and that by omitting it from the statement we lose nothing except for the need "to defend my perceived "harmful" sexuality against my place as a signatory to this statement at some point in the future. " I don't think that we should have to defend ourselves and our decisions when we can express ourselves more cleanly and clearly by omitting the word. What is gained by keeping the word "harmful" in the text? Is there something that we lose by omitting it?
Another point that perhaps should be made here is that our perspective on the interpretation of this is not necessarily what is critical. We are creating this as a public declaration for the purpose of informing the world what our stance is regarding these transgressions. As such, it is the interpretations of those that read this statement that are not part of our community that matter most. For a non-pagan, or even just a person without knowledge and understanding of how BDSM works, all they see is the pain, the bruising, the welts and wounds. They don't know about safe words or that the "harm" inflicted is upon request. From their perspective, including BDSM in Paganism makes this statement hypocritical. And with that in mind, now not only do you, or we in the BDSM subculture of paganism have to justify and or defend our sexuality, but all people who sign this statement will be under the same obligation in order to avoid the label of hypocrite.
Unfortunately, as well, we are not likely to get the "opportunity for education" in most instances as well. This public statement is likely to be taken at face value by all who read it outside of our community. And judgement of its validity will be swift and based on the knowledge and information immediately available to those that are reading it. Without being able to define harm specifically( or in the present case at all), we will be judged by the reader based on their interpretation without the opportunity to educate.

Thanks.

Mithros

This composition creates a great opportunity for the Pagan community to come together to directly address a concern that has existed among us for far too long. I want to thank all that have contributed to this for their insight and initiative to make this come to being. I do have one concern however... The statement defining offenses: "we also find that coerced, nonconsensual, harmful or exploitative sexual acts are extraordinary affronts" potentially makes members of the BDSM community targets of persecution. I understand the reason for ambiguity in defining "harmful". My question is: Why are we including the term "harmful" in the first place? Any sexual act that is nonconsensual, coerced, or exploitative is harmful to the victim emotionally, psychologically, and/or physically. We recognise this and this is why we created this statement. By including the term "harmful" we are both being redundant and dividing our constituency. We also create a grey area that is otherwise non-existent.
I look forward to hearing others' perspectives on this.