A case study in power, control and abuse

[VelvetDarkness]

I still do not agree with the thought a submissive is possibly like an abuse victim in that they accept what is dealt out. For one an abuse victim accepts usually out of fear and/or feelings of inadequacy, a submissive accepts from a point of trust which has developed and grown...if that trust is broken, it usually ends. I for one committed to F before he ever laid a hand on me, and with full knowledge of what I was asking for and committing to, I didn't fall into it and wake up one day and realise he had been hitting me, whipping me etc and I accepted it out of fear of doing otherwise. Just on this board alone you will see many other submissives looking for the same type relationship, not because they are with someone who is abusing them, but because they seek a consensual relationship with the elements they require.

Does that mean they are an ideal cadidate for an abusive relationship? Possibly, but that is more about the people involved than a desire to be abused. I have dated abusive men, and believe me, I didn't stick around feeling this was wonderful and leading to happy ever after because I have no desire to be abused and I actually pity anyone who tries to abuse me. And yes, as Marquis says, people are going to say that I am abused as I have been branded, do get whipped and caned fairly regularly etc., but the reason it is not abuse is I have given consent to these things, and in fact asked they be part of the relationship before it ever began...someone who is abused does not have consent or the choice about what happens. Having specialised in working with abuse survivors/victims and also abusers, I have gained a lot more insight into what happens and why, and the difference between abuse and D/s. I guess I have a big problem with trying to pass one off as the other because i am passionate about both areas, have a lot of experience in both areas, and it is ot a value judgement to say they are not one in the same unless someone is deluding themselves for their own purposes.

Catalina

Thankyou Catalina

I agree with the points that you made about the abused woman and they gave me food for thought. I would like to clarify that I didn't wish to equate a D/s relationship with any form of abuse or non-consent, merely that some of the steps the couple goes through, even with consent and trust, follow a pattern that is mirrored in some abusive relationships. They are on entirely different planes and are to be in no way equated with each other but I do agree with Marquis in that they may be compared.

 

[RJMasters]

Again, you are clearly placing value judgments on what a dominant is, instead of taking the term at its simplest meaning.

That is because you and others use the word "dominant" to infer Dom or Domme and it is a game of sematics that you use at your conveince to mean whatever you want it to mean.

But since you are making it clear here that the context in which you wish the word dominant to be understood is in the simplest form of the word, then you infer that dominant means any type of brute force or manipulation used by a person that allows them to overpower and subdue and gain control by fear another person. Such as what this man did to this woman in the case you are presenting.

And by making this distinction in the definition, you then prove why the dominance which you claim is being shown by this man, is nothing simillar to the dominance a Dom would exercise. It is exactly why D/s is nothing like what is going on in the case you are presenting here.

 

[JMohegan]

That is because you and others use the word "dominant" to infer Dom or Domme and it is a game of sematics that you use at your conveince to mean whatever you want it to mean.

RJ - What is your definition of Dominant, the noun, capital D, as applied in a D/s relationship context?

 

[JMohegan]

i find it most peculiar to define a sexual taste or proclivity in terms of ethics.

i want to be able to look at it apart from the ethics; i.e., as an anthropologist. (the same way we look at forceful 'takings' in the animal kingdom.)

relevant to your posting, i don't think pre occupation with ethics alone helps in self understanding: the impulses are there. they are amoral. if you are prudent you'll handle them in certain ways. if you are 'sociopathic', in others.

Preoccupation with ethics, in isolation, is not helpful. But preoccupation with amoral impulses, in isolation, is not helpful either.

To advise a prudent handling of amoral impulses "apart from the ethics" negates the essence of prudence itself. Because while it's prudent to avoid being incarcerated or shot in the back of the head, it is also prudent to avoid excessive guilt, shame, and inner self-flagellation, all of which will transpire if you ignore your personal moral compass beyond a certain degree.

 

[RJMasters]

RJ - What is your definition of Dominant, the noun, capital D, as applied in a D/s relationship context?

I'm gonna elect to pass on this at this point and time. Here are a couple posts from what is a fake dominant thread which will point in the general direction.

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=17896151&postcount=17
https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=17898772&postcount=23

I do have my own opinion of course, but I don't think there is only one set way or true way in being either Dominant or submissive. I think it is an individual expression of who they are.

 

[SpectreT]

Preoccupation with ethics, in isolation, is not helpful. But preoccupation with amoral impulses, in isolation, is not helpful either.

To advise a prudent handling of amoral impulses "apart from the ethics" negates the essence of prudence itself. Because while it's prudent to avoid being incarcerated or shot in the back of the head, it is also prudent to avoid excessive guilt, shame, and inner self-flagellation, all of which will transpire if you ignore your personal moral compass beyond a certain degree.

...Which brings something to mind. The apparent preoccupation with ethics in my posts may be a reaction to the preoccupation with amoral impulses I perceive as present in the premise presented.

an aside - I've never been fond of the word "morals". "Morals" are what you do because someone's watching you, be it your neighbors, God, whatever. "Ethics" are what you do when absolutely no one is looking. Another peek into my mind and the funny things it does with language sometimes.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Aside to AA: Agreed, though lead is cheap.

It does, however, produce the desired effect. All the better should her aim, his thick skull, or karma leave the decedent quite alive, aware, and unable to move. How appropriate this sad sack of shit rely on his abused partner for the remainder of his days for the simplest of needs. How ironic the only person liable to give a rat's ass about him be put in jail leaving him to the tender mercies of who knows.

As for the apparent question at hand, the decedent had no place in my world other than as fertilizer. A "Dominant" in my world doesn't break, or irreparably damage his toys. i found this little gem.

Dominance and submission, and the inner conflict and surrender connected to these are enduring themes in human culture and civilization as well as human sexuality. Human beings share with many other mammals the instinct to look up to certain individuals who become leaders often through strength of will and personality, and to lead or follow, submit or dominate. In human sexuality this has broadened out to include mutual exploration of roles, emotions and activities (such as sensation play, the exploration of intense physical sensation as an end in itself) which would be difficult or impossible to do without a willing partner taking an opposing role.

As such, D/s is far more subtle than its initial appearance of those who are cruel and want to brutalize and those who are weak willed and want to be hurt. Modern BDSM is very different from this, is based upon a deep ethos of mutual respect and has developed an entire subculture of values and approaches within which such explorations of oneself and ones relationships can take place in a safe, sane and consensual manner within either or both roles.

D/s may be ritualised or freeform. It is usually a negotiated lifestyle, where people discuss their wishes, limits and needs, seeking commonality. As such it may exist within, or separate to, a sexual or marital relationship and indeed in many ways may be considered a form of relationship of its own. This would not be so much because it is sexual, loving or long term (although it may be any or all of these), but because the essential intensity, trust and intimacy within it that are similar to those required to make any deep relationship possible.

 

[JMohegan]

Justifications I am entirely comfortable with:
- Causing someone pain is ok if they interpret that pain as physical pleasure
- Using all your faculties of persuasion to get your desires fulfilled is ok as long as you are totally honest
- A disproportionate amount of service in a relationship is acceptable if the differential in effort and pleasure is compensated for in other areas of the relationship

Justifications I am mostly comfortable with:
- Causing someone pain is ok if they are willing to endure that pain for the mental satisfaction of pleasing you
- Using all your faculties of persuasion to get your desires fulfilled is ok as long as you respect the appropriate level of forthrightness that the other party can reasonably expect from you
- A disproportionate amount of service in a relationship is acceptable if both parties are comfortable with it

Justifications I am somewhat comfortable with:
- Causing someone pain is ok if they feel like they need or deserve it, psychologically
- Using all your faculties of persuasion is ok as long as you don't exploit a pathological weakness in the other party (retardation, childhood/adolescence, psychological issues, etc.) where they could not possibly be expected to have adequate defense mechanisms in place
- A disproportionate amount of service in a relationship is acceptable if the parties will tolerate it

Justifications I am not comfortable with (but curious about):
- Causing someone pain is ok if they will tolerate it
- Using all your faculties of persuasion is alright under all circumstances. Might makes right.
- A disproportiante amount of service in a relationship is acceptable under any circumstances

In case there were any questions, this should give you a pretty good idea of the code I follow in both my intimate and extracurricular relationships.

This excerpt is extraordinarily helpful in framing the discussion. It also assists me in understanding your perspective, and comparing it to my own.

There are things which are far beyond the line that seperates good from evil, but that doesn't make the line thick. There are still some things which are going to be close to the line, no matter how you cut it. I think the fact that you created these rules to placate your superego is proof positive of that fact.

When I talk about my personal "line", I am not referencing the line between good and evil.

Good and evil are at best amorphous concepts, and the line between them is blurry indeed.

When I talk about my line being thick and straight, I am referencing the fact that the rules I establish for myself are impenetrable boundaries that I do not allow myself to cross. This may seem unduly restrictive to some, but for me the boundary is actually liberating, because it grants me the freedom to roam at will on the permissible side of the line.

I think that our sexual identities are intrinsic to who we are as people. I know nothing of their sexual habits, but I do think that the relationship they were in fed a deep seated need for both of them, much like a person's need for sex and/or love. Sometimes sex and love can be the most beautiful thing in the world, and sometimes it can be destructive, addictive and defy any conceivable logic; just like D/s.

But do you really see Norman's beatings as part of his sexual identity? Pure talks about "impulses", but I do not see any hint in your summary pointing to a sexual basis for the impulses driving Norman's abusive behavior.

He reads, to me, like a guy who experiences road rage and jumps out of his car to pummel the driver who cut him off in traffic, or a guy who gets called on the carpet at work and comes home to beat his dog.

I see extreme anger in his impulses and a despicable lack of self control in his behavior, but what I don't see is evidence of arousal or sexuality anywhere in the beatings and abuse.

 

[JMohegan]

...Which brings something to mind. The apparent preoccupation with ethics in my posts may be a reaction to the preoccupation with amoral impulses I perceive as present in the premise presented.

I understand (and actually already understood) your point here. A reaction to the premise presented is the way I interpreted your remarks.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

... When I talk about my line being thick and straight, I am referencing the fact that the rules I establish for myself are impenetrable boundaries that I do not allow myself to cross. This may seem unduly restrictive to some, but for me the boundary is actually liberating, because it grants me the freedom to roam at will on the permissible side of the line.
...

I can identify and understand this concept of the hard, thick line.

On one side of this line I am a free, functioning, acceptable member of the BDSM community and for the most part, society as a whole. On the [U]_other_[/U] side of that line, I'd become another Bundy, Ramirez, Dahmer, "Slavemaster", or Gein...

But the line IS wide and thick, and will support me while I walk on it...

 

[Pure]

that's a fine posting!

Marquis said

As for loopholes, I wonder what loophole you think it is I am trying to find. Here are several "loopholes" or justifications I use for politically incorrect behavior, rated by my comfort level.

Justifications I am entirely comfortable with:
- Causing someone pain is ok if they interpret that pain as physical pleasure
- Using all your faculties of persuasion to get your desires fulfilled is ok as long as you are totally honest
- A disproportionate amount of service in a relationship is acceptable if the differential in effort and pleasure is compensated for in other areas of the relationship

Justifications I am mostly comfortable with:
- Causing someone pain is ok if they are willing to endure that pain for the mental satisfaction of pleasing you
- Using all your faculties of persuasion to get your desires fulfilled is ok as long as you respect the appropriate level of forthrightness that the other party can reasonably expect from you
- A disproportionate amount of service in a relationship is acceptable if both parties are comfortable with it

Justifications I am somewhat comfortable with:
- Causing someone pain is ok if they feel like they need or deserve it, psychologically
- Using all your faculties of persuasion is ok as long as you don't exploit a pathological weakness in the other party (retardation, childhood/adolescence, psychological issues, etc.) where they could not possibly be expected to have adequate defense mechanisms in place
- A disproportionate amount of service in a relationship is acceptable if the parties will tolerate it

Justifications I am not comfortable with (but curious about):
- Causing someone pain is ok if they will tolerate it
- Using all your faculties of persuasion is alright under all circumstances. Might makes right.
- A disproportiante amount of service in a relationship is acceptable under any circumstances

In case there were any questions, this should give you a pretty good idea of the code I follow in both my intimate and extracurricular relationships.
===

This is both elegant and concise and shows awareness of some of the key nuances involved.

Many of these points revolve around the moral or legal duties not to harm and such duties to protect or look out for another (where they exist).

I especially like

[mostly comfortable with]
- Using all your faculties of persuasion to get your desires fulfilled is ok as long as you respect the appropriate level of forthrightness that the other party can reasonably expect from you

This, one might say, is to go by--roughly--a legal threshhold. (There are generally no longer any legal duties to avoid seduction or 'one night stands')

i've discussed this point in threads on libertinism, amoral sex, etc. there are many nuances here involving such things as: avoiding lying;
avoiding deceit and so on. these sound straightforward, but what about, for example, *allowing* an unrealistic expectation to blossom? Can the other reasonably expect that you go out of your way to disabuse them of unrealistic expectations?

It is a common thread with some discussants here, such as Spectre and RJ, that they believe that one has an substantial duty to protect and look out for others. That is to be contrasted with 'every man/woman for him/her self'. But this latter policy may simply acknowledge others in a minimal (legal) way, i.e., avoiding exploiting what you call 'pathological weakness'; our discussants deny that simple possibility and allege that if you're not as protective as *they* say they are, then you're going to be Dahmer, Gacy and others; these are the frightening alleged consequences of rejecting the proposed paternalistic duties.

One sees that the philosophical issue is not really around 'dominance', for it arises throughout any sexuial behavior. Every fucker has to be Jesus Christ or rjmasters to be legitimate. The alternative allegedly is 'animal acts' (as Spectre would have it) or 'serial murder.'

 

[Pure]

comments on rj

i've included some rj excerpts below, regarding consent. i have re paragraphed slightly, but left spelling etc as is.

consent wasn't the immediate topic of the thread, but clearly ties in.
if i may put all of rj's points below into a couple sentences it is as follows:

[pure's summary] while domination may be by brute force, the Dominant--as prototyped in the bdsm community--necessarily operates by consent, which is rather clear cut. the honest Domfolks assume it's clearcut and work for its being clearcut and thereby show themselves as responsible and honorable persons; the persons who see grays, tend to want to heighten them or exploit them and make excuses for immoral, irresponsible and immature behavior.

without getting into the ramifications of consent, let me mention one basic point that Spectre (not quoted) and rj seem to miss.
they seem to think that consent means saying "yes, do me" after appropriate clear discussion and disclosure of information.

yet it's much more like saying "I, being of sound mind and legally competent, say 'do me'".

the issue is harm. serious bodily or mental harm. that, as the law says, 'negatives' (negates)-or may do so-- all the talk that Spectre or rj envision.

Spectre and RJ's ideal dom --who happens to be themselves--simply ignores this issue, and gets into a serious problem. if they were to look at the Miewes case, they would see it.
the one submitting to this Dom says, "i agree that you cut off my prick, and then we'll fry it up and eat it." that's consent by their [ST and RJ] criteria. they have no procedure for arriving at a judgement of "nonconsent."

notice rj's emphasis below on *clarifying*. essentially this means 'what is going to happen.' 'do you realize this is what will happen if we proceed.' for the Miewes events, rj would gallop up and ask, 'do you realize you will be dead if you proceed?' Unfortunately, the victim's answer would certainly be 'yes.' So much for clarifying.

The Norman case illustrates this rather well. The Mrs. had rather clear ideas about what she undertook to bear. Except at the end, her statements would likely indicate acquienscence, if not agreement.
What would 'hang' Norman is that she underwent serious bodily harm. Hence her statements, and indeed her actions (retuirning) are irrelevant. I think some of Catalina's points support this. "Abuse" is that which harms. When, if ever, Mrs. Norman gets 'clear' about what's transpiring, and its legal status, is irrelevant.

The official BDSM "solution" --focussed on consent--to 'what is legitimate" was a judiicious PR move, but it avoided some key issues. (Or, if you like, safe and sane need far more emphasis than they have received.).

To conclude, it is harm that creates the grays that so bother some discussants. Only by wrapping themselves in a virtuous mantle-- claiming always to be acting for the moral and spiiritual welfare of all those with whom they have sexual encounters-- do they avoid this pitfall.
=====


rj excerpts
Here is also where a decision is made in how one will approach their view and attitude towards consent. When consent is not clear...is that a reality that is formed/stems from a person who wishes it to be grey so as to allow wiggle room in responsibility?

I believe that consent can be very clear if one chooses it to be so and will take the necessary steps to ensure as best they can that this line is clear. IMO this is what dictates wheather a person is safe or not safe. I also attach this to a person's level of maturity in their thinking as to whether they are responsible(hence the playboy comment).

When you make the claim that, "anyone who knows me, knows I am not an abuser", yet then turns around and clearly states they do not believe consent is a clear matter, I question the wisdom in cutting that any slack.

This particular issue of consent is not a side issue, it is a fundamental one. What one believes and how one approaches consent will have resonating ripples throughout all other aspects. It will affect areas of respect and trust in either a good way or in a negative way. It will shape your views of other fundamental topics such as how you view domiance or submission, and that too will further impact things.

If you see consent as a grey area, then chances are that greyness carrys over into many other areas as well. If you see consent as clear because you choose to ensure it is clear, then that clarity is also carried over into the other areas as well. Greyness causes confusion and doubt, clarity aides confidence. This is true for the submissive and the dominant alike.

[..]So what I purpose for your consideration is you realize that you have a lot of control in establishing the greyness or clearness of the line of consent. You are either a person who will seek to make that line clear as possible, or you are the type of person who won't.

It may be wrong of me to say, but IMO those who keep things grey by not making it their goal in making it clear, learn how to use this greyness to manipulate and avoid responsibilty. It is also my opinion that this path does not lead to becoming a more mature Dom or person for that matter.

 

[Kajira Callista]

I can identify and understand this concept of the hard, thick line.

On one side of this line I am a free, functioning, acceptable member of the BDSM community and for the most part, society as a whole. On the [U]_other_[/U] side of that line, I'd become another Bundy, Ramirez, Dahmer, "Slavemaster", or Gein...

But the line IS wide and thick, and will support me while I walk on it...

i like you.

 

[Private_Label]

In this situation, Mrs. Norman had the opportunity to bring in legal action and refused it. Whatever her reason may have been, she had the right to refuse it and she did. I'm not suggesting she consented to the abuse, but she consented, repeatedly, to remain in a situation where she could expect to be abused.

How is that so different from people who consent to play without a safeword? At some point they may very much want whatever's going on to stop, but if they've taken no affirmative action to secure their right to make it stop, do they forfeit that right?

From your transcription of the case:

On the evening of 11 June 1985, at about 8:00 or 8:30 p.m., a domestic quarrel was reported at the Norman residence. The officer responding to the call testified that defendant was bruised and crying and that she stated her husband had been beating her all day and she could not take it any longer. The officer advised defendant to take out a warrant on her husband, but defendant responded that if she did so, he would kill her.

She feared that the justice system would not be able to protect her.

Plus she may have had something like Stockholm syndrome

There is no precise, universally accepted definition of Stockholm syndrome. It generally refers to a cluster of symptoms often observed in hostages, cult members, battered women and victims of sexual and physical abuse. These symptoms include:

• 
  Emotional bonding with the captor/abuser
  Seeking favor and approval from the perpetrator
  Depending on the perpetrator for security and purpose of existence
  Befriending and caring for the captor
  Resenting police and proper authorities for their rescue attempts
  Losing one's own identify in order to identify with the captor/abuser
  Seeing things from the perspective of the perpetrator
  Valuing every small gesture of kindness, such as letting them live
  Refusing to seek freedom even given the opportunity

Note that she also did attempt to remove herself from the situation via suicide before she shot the deceased:

A short time later, the officer was again dispatched to the Norman residence. There he learned that defendant had taken an overdose of "nerve pills," and that Norman was interfering with emergency personnel who were trying to treat defendant. Norman was drunk and was making statements such as, "'If you want to die, you deserve to die. I'll give you more pills,'" and "'Let the bitch die . . . . She ain't nothing but a dog. She don't deserve to live.'" Norman also threatened to kill defendant, defendant's mother, and defendant's grandmother. The law enforcement officer reached for his flashlight or blackjack and chased Norman into the house. Defendant was taken to Rutherford Hospital.

She feared for her life. She feared him so much that she was willing to take her own life rather than endure what her husband was doing to her.

Does that sound like consent? She felt she could not obtain freedom through those methods available to most people, therefore had to resort to the only method left available. Denying her husband the ability to kill her at his discretion.

I've never been in that kind of abusive relationship, but I have been in a situation where I felt suicide was the only option available to me to get rid of the pain. From experience I can say that instead of seeing the situation as a number of interconnected problems that need to be solved one at a time you start looking at the situation as one larger, nastier problem that requires one solution.

From the outside you can say what steps need to be done, have him arrested, put out a restraining order [which by the way is no guarantee that he will stay away, in some cases it pushed the object of the restraining order to commit assult with intent to kill], move, change her name, break her ties to the current community... All she could see was that putting him in jail was only going to fuel his anger, and when he got out the next day he would hurt her worse.

[Again from my personal experience]On top of that, the emotion generated by the situation left me with no ability to feel any other emotions except the [emotional] pain. I certainly would not have agreed to put myself in that emotional state.

In my personal view, it does not sound like she consented willingly to the emotional and physical pain that was inflicted.

 

[RJMasters]

i've included some rj excerpts below, regarding consent. i have re paragraphed slightly, but left spelling etc as is.

consent wasn't the immediate topic of the thread, but clearly ties in.
if i may put all of rj's points below into a couple sentences it is as follows:

[pure's summary] while domination may be by brute force, the Dominant--as prototyped in the bdsm community--necessarily operates by consent, which is rather clear cut. the honest Domfolks assume it's clearcut and work for its being clearcut and thereby show themselves as responsible and honorable persons; the persons who see grays, tend to want to heighten them or exploit them and make excuses for immoral, irresponsible and immature behavior.

without getting into the ramifications of consent, let me mention one basic point that Spectre (not quoted) and rj seem to miss.
they seem to think that consent means saying "yes, do me" after appropriate clear discussion and disclosure of information.

yet it's much more like saying "I, being of sound mind and legally competent, say 'do me'".

the issue is harm. serious bodily or mental harm. that, as the law says, 'negatives' (negates)-or may do so-- all the talk that Spectre or rj envision.

Spectre and RJ's ideal dom --who happens to be themselves--simply ignores this issue, and gets into a serious problem. if they were to look at the Miewes case, they would see it.
the one submitting to this Dom says, "i agree that you cut off my prick, and then we'll fry it up and eat it." that's consent by their [ST and RJ] criteria. they have no procedure for arriving at a judgement of "nonconsent."

notice rj's emphasis below on *clarifying*. essentially this means 'what is going to happen.' 'do you realize this is what will happen if we proceed.' for the Miewes events, rj would gallop up and ask, 'do you realize you will be dead if you proceed?' Unfortunately, the victim's answer would certainly be 'yes.' So much for clarifying.

The Norman case illustrates this rather well. The Mrs. had rather clear ideas about what she undertook to bear. Except at the end, her statements would likely indicate acquienscence, if not agreement.
What would 'hang' Norman is that she underwent serious bodily harm. Hence her statements, and indeed her actions (retuirning) are irrelevant. I think some of Catalina's points support this. "Abuse" is that which harms. When, if ever, Mrs. Norman gets 'clear' about what's transpiring, and its legal status, is irrelevant.

The official BDSM "solution" --focussed on consent--to 'what is legitimate" was a judiicious PR move, but it avoided some key issues. (Or, if you like, safe and sane need far more emphasis than they have received.).

To conclude, it is harm that creates the grays that so bother some discussants. Only by wrapping themselves in a virtuous mantle-- claiming always to be acting for the moral and spiiritual welfare of all those with whom they have sexual encounters-- do they avoid this pitfall.
=====


rj excerpts
Here is also where a decision is made in how one will approach their view and attitude towards consent. When consent is not clear...is that a reality that is formed/stems from a person who wishes it to be grey so as to allow wiggle room in responsibility?

I believe that consent can be very clear if one chooses it to be so and will take the necessary steps to ensure as best they can that this line is clear. IMO this is what dictates wheather a person is safe or not safe. I also attach this to a person's level of maturity in their thinking as to whether they are responsible(hence the playboy comment).

When you make the claim that, "anyone who knows me, knows I am not an abuser", yet then turns around and clearly states they do not believe consent is a clear matter, I question the wisdom in cutting that any slack.

This particular issue of consent is not a side issue, it is a fundamental one. What one believes and how one approaches consent will have resonating ripples throughout all other aspects. It will affect areas of respect and trust in either a good way or in a negative way. It will shape your views of other fundamental topics such as how you view domiance or submission, and that too will further impact things.

If you see consent as a grey area, then chances are that greyness carrys over into many other areas as well. If you see consent as clear because you choose to ensure it is clear, then that clarity is also carried over into the other areas as well. Greyness causes confusion and doubt, clarity aides confidence. This is true for the submissive and the dominant alike.

[..]So what I purpose for your consideration is you realize that you have a lot of control in establishing the greyness or clearness of the line of consent. You are either a person who will seek to make that line clear as possible, or you are the type of person who won't.

It may be wrong of me to say, but IMO those who keep things grey by not making it their goal in making it clear, learn how to use this greyness to manipulate and avoid responsibilty. It is also my opinion that this path does not lead to becoming a more mature Dom or person for that matter.

You would like to make it appear as some great virtual mantle(your words not mine), we are are just talking about consent and whether it is present or not. For a person who would put ofrth any effort in the direction of making sure it is present, much of the grey can be eliminated.

As far as your coments about the Miewes case, your wrong. The reason why your wrong is because you would say that I have a problem based on consent, and in the miewes case consent was given....That is why there is "sane" maybe you heard of it?

Funny how consent and sane work together. What is sane? Here we see the issue broaden as to what one person considers sane and what another person considers sane. I can't speak for others, but I can say for myself that regardless of whether consent was or was not present in the Miewes case, watching someone cut off peices of your body and then watch them cook it up in a skillete and eat it infront of you, fit into my way of thinking of not being sane. It is for that reason I would have a problem with the Miewes case and not as what you suggest from some virtuious white knight mentality.

True to form pure, you so enjoy "summarizing" and re-ordering what people say in order to present a slightly misrespresentation of what they say. And as I have said many times before, you are the king of logical fallacy and show it clearly here in trying to get people to follow some "red herring" to confuse.

And just for the record...I do find on a "fantasy-level" certain erotic thoughts where the Miewes case is concerned just as I find a dark perversion in docette girls. So shove that up your virtious mantle and smoke it.

you would like this discussion to be based upon where I personally draw the line or limits so you can then somehow justify through comparitive statements. Sorry I won't give you the satisfaction of framing the arguement in those terms. I have no problem accepting that some people might have darker fantasies than I and I am sure I have some darker fantsies than others...that is entirely besides the point where the topic of consent is concerned and whether a person take an active position in ensure clarity for themselves and those they are involved with.

And consequently, since Marquis wanted to discuss things which are based upon a faulty assumption. The reason this discussion cannot go forward(at least with me) is because he makes the assumption there are similarities between the dominance and submission shown in this case and with D/s dominance and submission. Since I do not agree with this, further discussion makes no sense as whatever conclusions that come such discussion would be as faulty.

For you, and those like you who are willing to agree that consent is and can be a grey area, I am sure you all have lots to talk about.

And with that...I shall leave you to your flawed, and what I consider to be fantasy-based discussion, where the clarity of consent is consider a unicorn, where dominance rests upon brute-force's shoulders, and where it is accepted that submission is equated to abusive responses.

 

[Marquis]

RJ, I have to wonder if you're being intentionally obtuse, or if you simply lack the issue spotting and analysis skills to to participate effectively in a discussion such as this one.

Although it may be impossible for you to recognize this, the lack of logical continuity in your argument has progressed from understandably misguided to embarassing.

I would've been happy to reiterate my viewpoint with ever simplifying examples and explanations; as well as read, consider, and fully respond to everything you wrote to me, ad nauseum. However, you've made it easy on me by quitting.

So, I want to wish you the best of luck on playing intellectual Pong with newbies who want to know what "SSC" stands for and what the best way to spank a sub is. Throw in a few imaginative anectdotes and they might even overlook the all important consent of their spouse and let you add them to your collection of online submissives. I'm sure they all think you're very heroic, or at least adorable, for defending patently obvious ethical limitations so blindly.

I recognize that you may take offense at what I'm saying here, but I'm merely being as straightforward as you were when you attacked my character and not my arguments. For that reason I hope that this particular dispute does not have a permanently deleterious effect on our friendship.

 

[RJMasters]

RJ, I have to wonder if you're being intentionally obtuse, or if you simply lack the issue spotting and analysis skills to to participate effectively in a discussion such as this one.

Although it may be impossible for you to recognize this, the lack of logical continuity in your argument has progressed from understandably misguided to embarassing.

I would've been happy to reiterate my viewpoint with ever simplifying examples and explanations; as well as read, consider, and fully respond to everything you wrote to me, ad nauseum. However, you've made it easy on me by quitting.

So, I want to wish you the best of luck on playing intellectual Pong with newbies who want to know what "SSC" stands for and what the best way to spank a sub is. Throw in a few imaginative anectdotes and they might even overlook the all important consent of their spouse and let you add them to your collection of online submissives. I'm sure they all think you're very heroic, or at least adorable, for defending patently obvious ethical limitations so blindly.

I recognize that you may take offense at what I'm saying here, but I'm merely being as straightforward as you were when you attacked my character and not my arguments. For that reason I hope that this particular dispute does not have a permanently deleterious effect on our friendship.

Marquis,

First, I don't have a collection of online submissives, so no I don't offense at your misguided assumption, I find it amusing though.

Second, I doubt anyone is seriously sitting there thinking I am heroic anything, but I dare say a few might think that at least I have my head screwed on straight in regards to consent and the views I presented here.

Third, I am not quitting, I am refusing to continue a discussion when it is clear that you point to the table and say the box on the table is green, and I look and see that it is not green but orange and it's not even a box, its a fruit bowl. By stepping aside, you can now go on with your discussion and exploring your thoughts concerning this. I have made it clear I don't agree and have said why.

Fourthly, Its funny how we see things in such polar opposites. You say things just got easier on you, as I look down the road I see things getting a whole lot more dificult.

oh...let me get that for you Marquis..*moves the sign in the middle of the road which says, "bridge out ahead". Sorry for delaying you.

 

[Marquis]

The fruit bowl may be orange, but the box is green.

 

[Pure]

reply to rj

rj,
i find your post pretty much lacking in content, as opposed to flaming, but i'll respond to one passage:

rjTrue to form pure, you so enjoy "summarizing" and re-ordering what people say in order to present a slightly misrespresentation of what they say. And as I have said many times before, you are the king of logical fallacy and show it clearly here in trying to get people to follow some "red herring" to confuse.

P: you do not say where my summary is incorrect. so the comments about my character are irrelevant.


rjAnd just for the record...I do find on a "fantasy-level" certain erotic thoughts where the Miewes case is concerned just as I find a dark perversion in docette girls. So shove that up your virtious mantle and smoke it.

P: i don't believe i denied you your 'dark fantasies.' this is a non issue.

rj you would like this discussion to be based upon where I personally draw the line or limits so you can then somehow justify through comparitive[sic] statements. Sorry I won't give you the satisfaction of framing the arguement [sic] in those terms. I have no problem accepting that some people might have darker fantasies than I and I am sure I have some darker fantsies than others...that is entirely besides[sic] the point where the topic of consent is concerned and whether a person take[sic] an active position in ensure clarity for themselves and those they are involved with.

your point is obscure, but you seem to think that you've been criticized about where you draw limits, and whether your fantasies are tame. neither is an issue.

And consequently, since Marquis wanted to discuss things which are based upon a faulty assumption. The reason this discussion cannot go forward(at least with me) is because he makes the assumption there are similarities between the dominance and submission shown in this case and with D/s dominance and submission.

i don't think the marquis *assumed* that Norman's dominance was similar to your prototypical Dom, but he offered that as an issue for discussion.

somewhere, rj, you said that A 'dominates' B, if A sees to it that things happen according to his [A's] agenda. i think this is one statement i can agree with.

you then want to distinguish good or right domination from bad or wrong domination, i.e., the latter may involve coercion. i don't have a problem with this *insofar* are one is moralizing about domination.

however you go on to assert this entity, "the Dominant"; it's the fellow who does only the good domination (doesn't coerce, etc.).

this move is akin to the original proposal that (good) bdsm activities are 'safe sane and consensual."

it's obvious that Norman does not fit your definition of Dominant, though he did what you define as 'dominate.'
---

Where the discussion bogs down is that rj, Spectre, and some others want ONLY to discuss morality (good or right domination).

Hence we get statements like Evil Geoff's

I can identify and understand this concept of the hard, thick line.

On one side of this line I am a free, functioning, acceptable member of the BDSM community and for the most part, society as a whole. On the _other_ side of that line, I'd become another Bundy, Ramirez, Dahmer, "Slavemaster", or Gein...

As I stated several posts ago, i don't have a problem with this line between good and evil. I don't believe I or marquis said that Norman or Dahmer were other than evil.

I want to talk about impulse, desires, inclinations as they relate to human sexuality. There are for instance, homosexual acts, bestial acts, and sadistic acts. They can be clearly defined. One can introspect and see if one has those impulses or desires. (It is a separate question which can be acted out, without landing onself in jail.)

I think the "BDSM" movement reflects as similar pattern as did the 'gay rights movement'. The latter wanted to talk about 'gay sex'. BUT, in the desire to make it respectable, some said, "gay sex is for the same sex of partner, but it is loving, caring and committed."

That is a great PR move, and one can hold up certain couples are exemplars.

I think this is what rj and others have done with the "Dominant"; it's become "a person who dominates, but is loving caring, respectful and legal."

My position is that we all have desires which are amoral. That includes the desire for heterosexual gratification. Since we do live in society, it's prudent NOT to exercize straight or kinky desires in ways that land one in jail (seriously harm others.). Some will be relegated to fantasy, as is the case with the Marquis de Sade, the original: his fantasies included wholesale slaughter of virgins, for example.

But i see no point, as students of human behavior, of separating what RJ calls 'dark fantasies' from 'acted upon desires.' They have the same root. The rl. Marquis did set up 'scenes' where he whipped and bumfucked women (and underwent the same). These are socialized expressions of the same desires [occasionally in a legal grey area, regarding what a prostitute may have consented to].

There is a desire to inflict pain, and an inclination to be aroused by that, and to 'come' fantastically. All the moralizing and all the legal evaluations are a separate question.

 

[JMohegan]

There is a desire to inflict pain, and an inclination to be aroused by that, and to 'come' fantastically. All the moralizing and all the legal evaluations are a separate question.

Pure,

When you have a chance, would you please respond to the comments I addressed to you in post #54 above? I understand and agree with your characterization of some urges as being amoral, but I am struggling to understand your point of view on *behavior*. Not the urges themselves, but the actions that result therefrom.

I describe my inner self in three parts for ease in discussing that which is not only intangible, but also quite complex. However, the reality is that when I *act*, I do so as a single human being. And this being is a blend of the ethical superego, the sadist, and the practical Dom.

It sounds to me as if you are advising behavior that ignores the existence of an established superego, which is clearly present in Marquis (as in most human beings).

If I am wrong about this, please correct me, and explain what role you believe the superego plays, not in the *desire* to inflict pain, but rather in the act itself.

 

[SpectreT]

<snip>
Spectre and RJ's ideal dom --who happens to be themselves--simply ignores this issue, and gets into a serious problem. if they were to look at the Miewes case, they would see it.
the one submitting to this Dom says, "i agree that you cut off my prick, and then we'll fry it up and eat it." that's consent by their [ST and RJ] criteria. they have no procedure for arriving at a judgement of "nonconsent."

notice rj's emphasis below on *clarifying*. essentially this means 'what is going to happen.' 'do you realize this is what will happen if we proceed.' for the Miewes events, rj would gallop up and ask, 'do you realize you will be dead if you proceed?' Unfortunately, the victim's answer would certainly be 'yes.' So much for clarifying.
<snip>

Usually, it's too much chowder from one clam. This reads like a case of "New England Clam Chowder" without a singie clam to be found. I suppose your recipe substitutes Red Herring.

This is the first mention of arriving at a criteria for non-consent, so of course you have no information on where either RJM or I draw lines (and as much as RJM and I agree on some things, I bet we have different limits). The Miewes example falls under "insane". To the point of calling the guys with the white coats and butterfly nets. No consent possible, by my definition, with the reality-challenged.

If you're going to continue to trot out whackadoos and sociopaths in an attempt to change the focus of the discussion from "Flawed premise regarding abuse being similar in any way beyond minor and cosmetic to socially acceptable D/S" to "Baseless assumptions regarding anyone here and where they draw lines", I really am going to have trouble taking this seriously.

As to the remarks about trying to look like heroes - I've been very forthright about my relative lack of experience. Hardly the stuff of heroes here. And I don't do "online", so I'm certainly not trolling for a virtual sub.

So what do I gain from continuing this discussion? Sure, I love to argue, but there really is no point in continuing the discussion when no one is discussing the same things. In other words: I don't see a green box anywhere in the room. I (And others) have discussed, at length, how and why the thing which has been asserted to be a green box is neither green, nor a box. It is another color and shape entirely. If somebody wants to bring in a green box, we'll talk about a green box. There is an interesting orange fruit bowl on the table, though...

(God, I hope I've beaten that "green box" metaphor into the ground...)

 

[Marquis]

Alright, from the top.

 

[Marquis]

I've been quietly following this thread and have found it very interesting. Let me throw this anecdote in for fun.

While working as a hospital nurse I treated 2 guys and a woman who were brought in by police. The woman had been outside a bar, receiving a telling off and a beating from her bf for supposedly "flirting like a bitch in heat." She had a graze on her face but the bruising was mostly from her chest to her thighs (a sign that this man is accustomed to hiding his handiwork). Another man came out of the bar on his way home and saw the situation. He intervened and confronted the bf, putting himself between the bf and gf.

He was told by the bf to fuck off and mind his own business and he turned and asked the gf if she wanted to go with the bf or not. She acted scared and indecisive. Words were exchanged between the heroic bystander and bf and bf threw a punch. Bystander hit back and a fight ensued.

Interestingly, the woman started screaming "Don't you fucking hurt him!" and laid into heroic bystander along with her bf. She kicked and scratched and got genuinely vicious. By this time police had been called from inside the bar and they were all brought in.

So what motivates a woman to leap to the aid of a sadistic, abusive bf and attack a guy who only came into contact with either of them in the interest of protecting her?

Purely fear of the bf? Or maybe her values have actually been manipulated by him to this degree?

By all accounts they looked like honeymooners when they actually went home.

Is she really just responding to his romantic mood through fear? She was offered all the help under the sun out of his earshot and defended his character at every turn.

Stockholm syndrome?

I do feel that the D/s bond as it deepens develops as the sub submits further and the Dom/me gains more power and control over the sub. Even within the bounds of consent there are similarities from a psychological perspective.

I think this is a classic example of Stockholm syndrome.

Two years ago, Francisco posted an awesome article in a thread I started about the similarities between Pimps and Doms. I don't recall, if I read the article before last night, but it was well worth it.

The title of the article is "A Comparison of Pimps and Batterers"

A valid comparison if ever I've heard one. They discuss the similar manipulation tools used in both in fascinating detail, and I will take some info from this article to expand on the ideas I've put forth and will continue to put forth in this thread, the pimp thread, and a new thread I plan to start to discuss the way I perceive the correlations in behavior.

A quote from the same website:

The answer to the question "why do prostitutes stay with their pimps?" is the same as the answer to the question "why do battered women stay with their batterers?" (Melissa Farley, 1996) Humans bond emotionally to their abusers as a psychological strategy to survive under conditions of captivity. This has been described as the Stockholm syndrome (Dee Graham with Rawlings and Rigsby, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men's Violence, and Women's Lives, 1994, New York University Press, New York.)

In this I find another similarity between consensual D/s activities and uncontrolled situations. I wonder if some form of the Stockholm syndrome does not affect submissives as well.

To give a specific example, during my earlier experiences practicing BDSM, I would often wonder what would motivate a submissive to withhold her safeword when she needs it. Moreover, aftercare is often much more necessary if a challenging scene has to be aborted than if it is completed.

While it's easy for inexperienced players to imagine in their sophomoric and sanitized fantasy of BDSM that the safeword or "fully informed preconsent" is the end all, be all of consent, this simply isn't the case. Pure made an excellent point when he illustrated the importance of one's condition AFTER the fact as important to the validity of consent.

Submissives will often continue with a scene far beyond their level of comfort and make efforts to hide any displeasure or inability to complete the scene. A good Dom doesn't just keep an ear open for the safeword, you have to combine what you know about your subject with keen observation to determine how far things need to go. This is a well documented phenomenon and one that any experienced player is familar with.

Although this is certainly not true across the board, most submissives I've encountered have personalities that make them more sensitive to the judgment of others than the average 'nilla population, and certainly than dominants. However, their sensitivity to the opinion of their dominants is often bizarre if looked at from a vanilla perspective.

I've had submissives cry in shame in my arms because they couldn't take the beating I wanted to give them. For a long time I couldn't see any shame in not being able to take a beating, so I didn't understand why they would get so upset at reaching their tolerance point. I now understand that for a submissive, particularly in an intense relationship, pleasing their dominant can take on almost unimaginable importance.

We talk a lot about self esteem. Most of us agree that it is just as important if not more important for a submissive to be someone with healthy feelings of self worth. Yet an oft ignored reality is that many submissives (whether they choose to or can't help themselves) value themselves based on their value to their dominant. Is this healthy and should it be encouraged? I dont know, but its one of the questions I began this thread to discuss.

 

[Marquis]

Without ethics, without self-constraint, you're nothing but a mad dog that needs to be put down. Plain and simple, no room for ambiguity, no room for confusion. The ethics are the be-all, end-all, and any statement to the contrary is absolutely flawed - perhaps to make excuses?

How things shake down is important, sure, but how things get started is every bit as important. Start from the wrong place, be it blackmail, physical force, placing a loved on in danger, any form of coercion, it simply doesn't matter how it ends up. It's absolutely wrong.

It can create some surface similarities - the acts performed, the power imbalance - but that's where it ends. Biology, anthropology, law - none of that means crap, as far as I'm concerned, in this discussion. The fact of the matter is we all have a responsibility to not harm others. This includes not giving in to impulses and urges. And if there's some difficulty understanding that there is an absolute, immovable, straight line, you shouldn't play in the field. Just like I would suggest someone with a really bad Tourettes tic stay the hell away from the edge of the roof. You don't want that twitch to take you over the edge.

And please note this is all discussing the start and origins of a relationship; I don't for a minute assume that things don't evolve or change over time. As I believe Marquis mentioned, "If I'd told her x, y and z was going to happen right at the start, she'd have slammed the door in my face." Yes things change. I get that. I'm talking about the start.

And Pure? The average time of rotation of the planet is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.09 seconds. You gave me and RJM some extra time. Thanks.

Aside to AA: Agreed, though lead is cheap.

And finally: Damn. RJM beat me to it, and said it more clearly and less confrontationally than I did. Maybe I need some coffee.

I don't even know where to begin correcting this.

Just keep reading, maybe you'll catch up.

 

[Marquis]

Thankyou Catalina

I agree with the points that you made about the abused woman and they gave me food for thought. I would like to clarify that I didn't wish to equate a D/s relationship with any form of abuse or non-consent, merely that some of the steps the couple goes through, even with consent and trust, follow a pattern that is mirrored in some abusive relationships. They are on entirely different planes and are to be in no way equated with each other but I do agree with Marquis in that they may be compared.

I think it's sad that we need to keep repeating the bolded disclaimer since NO ONE seems to disagree with it, but, whatever.