A case study in power, control and abuse

[Marquis]

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.

Ha ha, you're very creative. That would be rather ironic.

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.

I'm not sure what you see the question at hand is, but you seem to be answering the question "Was Norman a "Dominant"?

Not exactly a final Jeopardy question.

 

[Marquis]

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 think this sums up pretty much everything you have to say.

I am the Black Knight, you are the "Knight in Tarnished Armor" here to set me straight.

What is it that convinces you that I am somehow less ethical than God fearing citizens like yourself or RJ?

My cavalier attitude towards tragedy?

My ability to analyze emotional situations with scientific detachment?

The fact that I make no apologies for my humanity?

Perhaps you see something sinister in my avatar?



I'll tell you what, I created a fucking road map of my moral guidelines so there would be no ambiguity on where I stand on broad issues of ethics. If you want to attack me in a credible manner, why not start there?

 

[VelvetDarkness]

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.

There are an awful lot of similarities and the reasons why women stay are of course, largely the same. According to a social-worker friend of mine, studies in the UK have turned up the obvious and shown that many women who have been prostitutes and then left the trade continue to acquire aggressive, abusive partners; moving from one category to the other, seamlessly.

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.

I suppose you could call it a stockholm fetish lol. I also think that things which subs find attractive, such as rape play, breath play, torture, could be described as facets of stockholm fetish. Although in consensual D/s play safewords are used and boundaries agreed and respected, the kick a sub gets from this play comes from the suspension of disbelief - of allowing oneself to genuinely believe they are in a non-consent, abusive situation for the purpose of the exercise.

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.

I can't profess to be an experienced player by any stretch of the imagination, I'm still very much at the start of my D/s journey. I can identify with the need to test my own endurance and already have pushed myself a little too far on one occasion. The motivation to please my partner at the time was a strong one but a huge part of it was self-discovery. "What am I capable of? How far can I take this?" I would say IMHO that in consensual D/s the sub's motivation is almost always twofold.

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.

I can't really comment on this because I haven't really got this far or been with a Dominant partner for long enough for this kind of deep respect and absolute trust to develop. I can relate to the deep feeling of failure that goes with not accomplishing what I set out to do or thought I was ready for but at this stage I'm taking at face value and very consciously not permitting myself to get discouraged. On a personal level, I don't think I could submit sexually in the long term to a partner without that respect and deference overlapping into other areas of the relationship and that would take time and trust along with everything else. I wouldn't want to become blinded to a partner's faults completely and lose my objectivity but I see the danger of it when reading your post. It would be naive of me to think that 'it could never happen to me' but it's definitely not something I'd want to happen.

 

[catalina_francisco]

There are an awful lot of similarities and the reasons why women stay are of course, largely the same. According to a social-worker friend of mine, studies in the UK have turned up the obvious and shown that many women who have been prostitutes and then left the trade continue to acquire aggressive, abusive partners; moving from one category to the other, seamlessly.

Perhaps the studies are far outdated or angled toward a particular group of former sex workers, most likely those who did not choose the career out of a desire to do so but were coerced, forced, or found it necessary to support a drug habit or children, pretty much the old stereotype. Fortunately, there are now (and have been for quite awhile) many sex workers who do not have to do that work, and are not overseen by a male or anyone abusive, but choose it of their own free will and actually enjoy it. Some are even astute business women/men who also have romantic relationships which are far from being abusive or agressive, often quite respectable and even pampering. Stereotypes can be quite misleading of reality.

Catalina

 

[JMohegan]

I also think that things which subs find attractive, such as rape play, breath play, torture, could be described as facets of stockholm fetish......

I can identify with the need to test my own endurance and already have pushed myself a little too far on one occasion. The motivation to please my partner at the time was a strong one but a huge part of it was self-discovery. "What am I capable of? How far can I take this?" I would say IMHO that in consensual D/s the sub's motivation is almost always twofold.

VelvetDarkness,

Sometimes it is helpful to distinguish between a submissive and a masochist. The first is not necessarily the second, or at least in the same degree.

From my own personal experiences, I would say that Marquis's remarks (and his concerns) about the intense desire of some submissive women to please their partners were right on the money. This is, in fact, what I meant earlier when I said that my partners have all been women whose submissive streaks are longer than their masochistic ones. These are women who have a stronger desire to please than a craving for pain.

Not all submissives fantasize about breath play, torture, etc. Some would tell you, in the beginning of a relationship, that they have very little interest in pain or even fear it. They can be taught to associate pain with pleasure to a certain degree, and you can bring them along to the point where they accept things that would have had them screaming RED on day one, but the entire process (the "journey", if you like that word) transpires for one primary reason. Specifically, this person's desire to please her mate.

 

[SpectreT]

I think this sums up pretty much everything you have to say.

I am the Black Knight, you are the "Knight in Tarnished Armor" here to set me straight.

What is it that convinces you that I am somehow less ethical than God fearing citizens like yourself or RJ?

My cavalier attitude towards tragedy?

My ability to analyze emotional situations with scientific detachment?

The fact that I make no apologies for my humanity?

Perhaps you see something sinister in my avatar?



I'll tell you what, I created a fucking road map of my moral guidelines so there would be no ambiguity on where I stand on broad issues of ethics. If you want to attack me in a credible manner, why not start there?

It's not the avatar.

To be honest, I missed the roadmap you spoke of until it popped up in a Pure post, as below: (Color added by me; the reason I did that follows)

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.

And you're certainly not less ethical; you even have more hierarchies than I do regarding ethics. The items I've placed in red all fit in my "absolutely uncomfortable with and not curious about in the least" column, which is one of two columns, the other one being "comfortable with". I don't allow myself any ambiguities and grey areas.

The question itself is what I find disturbing. Not you. I am well aware your practices don't mirror this fascination. You have gone out of your way to make that point, and I accepted it and understood it quite some time ago. I'm only sorry that wasn't more clear in my posts. It isn't you, it's the question I have serious issues with, and the premise of the question I was attacking.

Hopefully, I'm absolutely clear this time. I have no interest in attacking you. The premise I've read, however, is something I do not and cannot agree with.

In response to AA you said,

I'm not sure what you see the question at hand is, but you seem to be answering the question "Was Norman a "Dominant"?

Not exactly a final Jeopardy question.

Yet, based on what I've read in this thread, that green question seems to be a logical corollary of what I've read to be your premise. "How close is this to D/S? Does anyone else see similarities?", to boil down what I read. I answered that in a post you replied to with:

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

Just keep reading, maybe you'll catch up.

So what exactly, was wrong with that post, from your point of view?

Finally, the reason you have to keep hammering on that bold line in VelvetDarkness' post is because some of us did compare the situations, posted our opinions, and those opinions didn't mesh with your own. You want to compare, but it looks like you're attempting to equate when you disregard the opinions brought forth by comparison, or reply with what amounts to "you are a clueless noob, get over yourself".

And yes, I suppose mine is a sanitized vision. I'm certain I would have new issues to work through and other things to think about, assuming I ever get into a relationship again. (Something that's highly unlikely in my current mental and emotional state.) I've never made any bones about my inexperience, either. The post you replied to with the above "I don't even know where to begin correcting this" was mainly inspired by Pure's comments about where you end up being more important than where you start. Essentially, "The end justifies the means."

In my world, the end cannot justify the means. The means have to be every bit as just as the end. That's one of my core beliefs, and it applies to every facet of life.

All right, I lied about the "finally". Or maybe this is a postscript.

Marquis, I apologize for anything I've posted which made you feel I was attacking or judging you. I hope we can simply agree to disagree on this, and move forward. If we were face to face, I'd even suggest a handshake.

 

[Pure]

response to j mohegan

i have not found any disagreement with some of your points; you seem to understand that desires and impulses are what they are, and they don't have 'caring' written on all of them (or even most of them).

however, you misread my postings in ways similar to rj.

since i don't know you, i'll have a go at an attempt to explain,

most recently JM said in part,
JM: 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.

P: i have no problem with this general formulation so long as you don't claim to be dominated by ethics (wearing the mantle of virtue).


JMIt 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.

P: I don't recall 'advising' any behavior, or in particular impulse or instinct driven (amoral) behavior. I simply describe. It's very odd to run into this misperception, though I'm acquainted with it throughout the sexology literature: Researcher A says "40 percent of adolescent males have at least one homosexual encounter." The moralist or preacher says, "Researcher A condones--and even encourages--adolescent homosexual behavior." It's as if *naming* something makes it happen.

As to the role of the conscience; yes, individuals 'internalize' the voice of parents and society; some of them listen to it a great deal, but few people are predominantly determined by conscience/morals in their acts. Many 'think' they are, but aren't; for example a parent brutally punishes a child for a minor incident to 'teach them a lesson.' Looking deeper, one may see it's sadism that's the primary factor.

Of course, exceptional people, 'rise' to the occasion--e.g., Dietrich Bonhoeffer These are the .001%.

Turning to the posting you asked me to look at....
J Mohegan in post #54 said in part.

xxxOriginally Posted by Pure
P//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.//

JM 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.

P: I did not 'advise the prudent handling of amoral impulses.' Most of my postings do not contain advice, esp. moral (or immoral) advice.

JMBecause 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.

P: You're getting heavy into hyperbole, but generally
I don't have a problem with this statement, though it might be noted that one's 'moral compass' is subject to revision. I imagine you're doing a few things now that you, a decade ago, thought immoral (?).

As I stated in my previous posting--following rj: you dominate someone if you see to it that your agenda is satisfied and your desires are met, [i should have added] when that agenda and those desires conflict with those of that 'someone.'

Unlike rj, however, i don't think this equates to 'leadership' which is a broader and somewhat different notion. Leaders may essentially be those who carry out the desires of others in an organized way, like the counsellor at a kids camp who is seeing to it that they have fun in a variety of activities. Similarly, the conductor or concertmaster of a volunteer orchestra.

Mr. Norman 'got off' on prostituting his wife, and her degradation in this prostitution. It's a sadistic (and dominating) impulse exercized in an illegal fashion. Yet if "Exalted Master Dom" [EMD] advertizes and finds a person [P] who will, in his words, 'fulfill my every desire and be prostituted if and when and how *I* see fit", he may avoid the long arm of the law.

You will say, "Well, P, in coming to [and serving] EMD, under the posted conditions, consents." Yet, as the Marquis has suggested, suppose a psychologist says, "She's exposing herself to diseases; clearly there's pathology present--though she is legally and medically 'sane.'"

The Marquis has rather well indicated the issue of pushing the amoral impulse when the 'consent' is clouded by pathology. But he indicated a gray area around how much he might have a duty to be forthright about all the ramifications of the act contemplated. (In simple terms, is he entitled to treat her as an adult? or must he treat her as a child who needs guidance about consequences, and whom he has a duty to protect).

So you see, JM, even in this 'straightforward' case, there are some blurry lines regarding morality. Yet the impulse/desire to degrade is certainly there [in EMD]. It is arguably similar to Mr. Norman's, esp. in the case of obvious pathology.

Let us take a more complex case. Person Q comes to Exalted Master Dom, and says, "I don't know about all you would like, if I could prostitute myself, but please train me."

EMD then embarks on a graded series of degradations of Q, the peak of which is an act of directed prostitution. Perhaps the first is to be whipped in front of his and her friends and be called a whore. To ensure the training he gives 'aftercare,' expressing his love; and he makes sure of her sexual satisfaction.

I would argue that this process is not *different in kind* from that which Mr. Norman undertook. It is what domestic violence specialists call 'escalation' of abuse. It desensitizes the person a bit, and also establishes a bond.

At this point I expect a lot of tapdancing from those arguing that the events above are still a ballpark away from Mr. Norman's. They will say that Q is 'enhancing her self esteem' in being beaten and called a whore. Whereas the opposite is true of Mrs. Norman. But I think some readers, esp., females will get an uneasy feeling about Ms Q's path. Somehow it seems 'unhealthy' or 'downhill.' And one can imagine that maybe Ms Q is not at all ready to concede this. Yet isn't this reminiscent of the behavior of a battered wife who does not admit 'mistreatment' and says she deserves what happened?
--

So I'll end this attempt, JM. Thanks for reading this far. My aim is simply to describe and understand sexually deviant behavior. I think those inclined to it are often 'bound and determined' to do it.
(look at the postings saying, 'now that i've had X, i must have it in the next relationship.')

I do hope that those with aggressive leanings remain prudent and avoid inflicting serious harm. I'm not even averse to saying, 'yes there is a moral creme de la creme [of those with such impulses], headed by rjmasters, who exercize their impulses with an abundance of caring and respect.' But I hold that it's a *moral* spectrum from Dahmer to rj [as he describes himself]. The social scientific and biological descriptions of the behaviors do not show such a marked difference.

I think this forum should more concern itself with the middling cases [of deviants], who, like the Marquis, admit to and practice a degree of egoism, while remaining off the list of 'enemies of society.' If 'domination' is the issue, I see no reason to withhold the designation 'Dominant' from the Marquis, and save it for the moral exemplars.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

Not all submissives fantasize about breath play, torture, etc. Some would tell you, in the beginning of a relationship, that they have very little interest in pain or even fear it. They can be taught to associate pain with pleasure to a certain degree, and you can bring them along to the point where they accept things that would have had them screaming RED on day one, but the entire process (the "journey", if you like that word) transpires for one primary reason. Specifically, this person's desire to please her mate.

Thankyou JMohegan

You are right in that I shouldn't have generalised. I do stand by the overall meaning of the post however.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

Perhaps the studies are far outdated or angled toward a particular group of former sex workers, most likely those who did not choose the career out of a desire to do so but were coerced, forced, or found it necessary to support a drug habit or children, pretty much the old stereotype. Fortunately, there are now (and have been for quite awhile) many sex workers who do not have to do that work, and are not overseen by a male or anyone abusive, but choose it of their own free will and actually enjoy it. Some are even astute business women/men who also have romantic relationships which are far from being abusive or agressive, often quite respectable and even pampering. Stereotypes can be quite misleading of reality.

Catalina

Thanks again Catalina, I think that as a Moderator you do a tricky job very well.

I also said many I did not say all. And I completely agree with you that although most prostitutes don't really choose the trade of their own free will there are many who do and who work independently, without any kind of coercion or abuse.

I should have specified that these prostitutes go from one abusive situation to another. Those who are not abused in the first place are therefore exempt from this statement.

 

[Pure]

note to spectre

you said, in part,

The post you [,arquis] replied to with the above "I don't even know where to begin correcting this" was mainly inspired by Pure's comments about where you end up being more important than where you start. Essentially, "The end justifies the means."

In my world, the end cannot justify the means. The means have to be every bit as just as the end. That's one of my core beliefs, and it applies to every facet of life.

It's a fairly serious misreading to state that my posting "essentially" proposed that 'the end justifies the means.' I can't begin to deal with wholesale misperceptions, but in a quick summary, i said that, in legal, and perhaps even moral terms [framework], the outcome [oddly enough] of an encounter has an influence on our judgment about consent. It's odd because for you and rj, one may look for some clearly characterized, identifiable 'mental act' [as it were, saying inwardly, 'i agree'] which precedes those encounters we end up saying are legal.

 

[SpectreT]

you said, in part,

The post you [,arquis] replied to with the above "I don't even know where to begin correcting this" was mainly inspired by Pure's comments about where you end up being more important than where you start. Essentially, "The end justifies the means."

In my world, the end cannot justify the means. The means have to be every bit as just as the end. That's one of my core beliefs, and it applies to every facet of life.

It's a fairly serious misreading to state that my posting "essentially" proposed that 'the end justifies the means.' I can't begin to deal with wholesale misperceptions, but in a quick summary, i said that, in legal, and perhaps even moral terms [framework], the outcome [oddly enough] of an encounter has an influence on our judgment about consent. It's odd because for you and rj, one may look for some clearly characterized, identifiable 'mental act' [as it were, saying inwardly, 'i agree'] which precedes those encounters we end up saying are legal.

After some thought, and a careful rereading of your post, I noted quotes around 'forceful', 'taking' and 'resistance', which suggests a fantasy play scenario. I missed that connotation before. Going with that, and your statement about two possible reactions to that situation, if she's okay with it after the fact, we don't perceive it as abuse.

Assuming also there was a preexisting relationship, in which such things had been discussed, and she had reasonable cause to expect such to occur, and furthermore, earlier indicated she was okay with it, sure, I wouldn't perceive that as abuse. (ex. Him: "Honey? One of these days, real soon, I'm going to drag you by the hair into our room, slap you around a little, wrestle you down and assrape you."

Her: "Sounds like fun, dear. What did you want with the meatloaf tonight?" (yes, this was intentionally silly.))

If, however, it was an unexpected date-rape, which she later feels is the hottest sex she's ever had in her life, I'd have grave concerns about the whole situation. Legally speaking, if there were no witnesses, the date rapist is in the clear, since she's unlikely to call the cops and brag about what was for her a great time. That doesn't make him any less of a rapist in my book.

Now, on to the negative reactions.

In the first instance (the relationship, and expecting such a situation, perhaps even looking forward to it before the fact), I'd need a hell of a lot more information before jumping up and down and shouting "abuse"! Don't get me wrong, I'd still think he's in the wrong for going somewhere she wasn't ready for yet, or more accurately, failing to read her well enough to know she's not ready yet. But she knew it was coming, even told him she was cool with it. The law looks at it a little differently, of course, especially if she's got some nice photogenic bruises to show the jurors.

The second instance, throw the book at the rapist, plain and simple. Everyone's on the same page there. She had no reason to expect it, sure as hell didn't want it, the rapist hasn't got an excuse in the world.

Seems to me that the law and morals aren't on the same sheet of music, hell, they aren't even playing in the same concert hall, except in the last instance. Imagine the first instance - add in a nosey neighbor who calls the cops - hubby's off to prison, even though everyone involved in the act (except the unexpected and unwanted observer who called the police) was in agreement to the act, even enjoying it.

 

[JMohegan]

I don't recall 'advising' any behavior, or in particular impulse or instinct driven (amoral) behavior. I simply describe.

Thank you for clarifying, Pure. I definitely misread your remarks, culminating in the statement (addressed to Marquis): "the impulses are there. they are amoral. if you are prudent you'll handle them in certain ways. if you are 'sociopathic', in others."

Mr. Norman 'got off' on prostituting his wife, and her degradation in this prostitution.

That is an assertion for which I have seen no evidence. From Marquis's summary in post #1:

"Norman, himself, had worked one day a few months prior to his death; but aside from that one day, witnesses could not remember his ever working. Over the years and up to the time of his death, Norman forced defendant to prostitute herself every day in order to support him. If she begged him not to make her go, he slapped her. Norman required defendant to make a minimum of one hundred dollars per day; if she failed to make this minimum, he would beat her."

That doesn't sound like a man "getting off" to me. It sounds like a man using beatings and intimidation in order to "force" his wife to support him, so he won't have to go to work.

If you have evidence for the fact that Norman was aroused or sexually gratified in beating or degrading his wife, would you please point to it?

I do hope that those with aggressive leanings remain prudent and avoid inflicting serious harm. I'm not even averse to saying, 'yes there is a moral creme de la creme [of those with such impulses], headed by rjmasters, who exercize their impulses with an abundance of caring and respect.' But I hold that it's a *moral* spectrum from Dahmer to rj [as he describes himself]. The social scientific and biological descriptions of the behaviors do not show such a marked difference.

I agree that there are many spectrums of human behavior relating to behavioral impulses, and that these are intertwined with the moral spectrum of individuals.

However, one problem I have with your statements here is the assumption that Norman's abusive behavior belongs on the spectrum of sadism *in human sexuality*. I just don't see it.

 

[Marquis]

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?

There are a few things that I want to highlight:

1. Amoral sex is not immoral sex. It's not nearly as hot (kidding (somewhat)). I bring this up because I've seen at least one response that seem to confuse these words.

2. Any ethical code is filled with nuances, interpretation and circumstances that make it infinitely complex. Your example about unrealistic expectations makes me think of an all too common exploitation of the loophole you quoted above.

I am flirting with an unfamiliar female at a social venue.

She asks me: "Do you have a girlfriend?"

This is a highly loaded question. It is often a simplified way of asking "are you emotionally committed/available?" In my case, I find it particularly hard to answer accurately, since not being monogamous, I am both committed and available. Of course, my emotional availability is much more restricted than my sexual availability.

I answer, truthfully: "I date a lot of people."

She now assumes, with almost absolute certainty, that there is no one special in my life. I know that she will assume this because of experience, does that knowledge create a duty for me to correct her misinterpretation of my comment?

Finding me very likable, she says: "You are witty/attractive/confident, why don't you have a girlfriend?"

She is looking for warning signs.

I answer, truthfully: "I was engaged a few years ago, but since then I have yet to meet a girl who could motivate me to be exclusive."

While being the gospel truth, this is more manipulative than my previous response. I am purposefully giving her the impression that I am not incompatible with commitment, I merely haven't met anyone worthy. I am also purposefully answering the question I feel like answering, and not the one she asked.

Feeling hopeful, she asks "Well, what kind of girls do you like?"

I describe whatever flattering physical characteristics she possesses and add something about "I enjoy women who aren't afraid to be true to their own desires. Bold, intelligent and uninhibited women."

I'm sure you can see where this goes.

While everything I've said is true, it is the truth, as you pointed out, as legal advocates might present it, in the light most favorable to your own case. I understand that there are others, like Spectre for example, who might consider this type of subtle manipulation outside the bounds of ethical behavior, but I'm curious as to where this stops.

Let us say, for example, that you have herpes, or perhaps an unsightly growth on your back. Despite the possibility of either of these two being present when we meet a stranger, I think it is fairly standard to assume that a person is std free and clear of unsightly tumors. In fact, although unreasonable, most people tend to be very naive in their assumptions about another person. In that case, don't you have a duty to make this person aware of this fact as soon as possible, so as not to mislead them? In fact, if you don't reveal every undesirable bit of information about yourself immediately, aren't you no better than me?

I can imagine it must be hard to get laid with ethical boundaries like that.

Contrast this with an acquiantance of mine who, resembling a famous hip-hop personality, tells everyone from club bouncers to teenyboppers that he is Jay-Z's brother.

Actually, there is another layer of this as well that I find interesting. Let's say you pay a visit to a prostitute. She moans loudly while you fuck her, and when you are done she tells you that you were "the best she's ever had."

Do you fault her for trying to create a more satisfying fantasy for you?

Likewise, no girl will sleep with you if told "I have no interest in you other than for a singular sexual encounter," even if all she desires is a one night stand. To some degree, she expects you to maintain the fantasy that this may be the first night of the rest of your lives together, even if you both quite clearly know the deal.

So I guess the question is, do you respect her as an intelligent human being, capable of analyzing a situation shrewdly and acting in her own best interest; or does this egalitarian treatment fall secondary to what you, Pure, referred to as the "paternalistic duties?"

 

[Marquis]

My apologies for not addressing this earlier, there is a lot for me to respond to in this thread and I'm having a hard time keeping it organized.

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

Thanks.

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.

I would venture to believe there are some people who would disagree with you on that in this forum, but I am not one of them.

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 this truly embodies the purpose of deciding exactly where those lines lie. I think of it like doing my taxes. I will not violate the tax code, but by understanding the complicated tax code as much as possible, I give myself the freedom to take full advantage of any possibilities to save money.

It would be easier to simply overpay, but less frugal. I hope that analogy isn't too convoluted.

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.

I'm not sure how to answer this question, but it's a good one.

I agree with the comment you make in a more recent post about there being a lack of evidence that his sadism was sexually motivated. I also agree with your reading of Norman's character to a degree. I also see him as someone with little self control, a sort of overgrown baby.

However I think that relating our impulses to our sexuality is always difficult to do. There are a million things that motivate us to have sex: love, money, physical attraction, revenge, boredom... the list goes on almost forever. For that reason I've come to believe that our sexual identity is largely a derivative of our overall identity. In that case, I think it's likely that Norman received some psychosexual satisfaction from torturing his wife. I think it was their twisted way of reaffirming their intimacy, much like vanilla sex is for most vanilla relationships and kinky activity is for many of us.

 

[Marquis]

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.).

Yes, I completely agree with this.

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.

Not to mention that this is the oldest trick in the book.

For some reason it reminds me of the classic line from the urban mockumentary "Kids":

"Baby, you won't get pregnant 'cause I love you."

 

[Marquis]

It's not the avatar.

To be honest, I missed the roadmap you spoke of until it popped up in a Pure post, as below: (Color added by me; the reason I did that follows)




And you're certainly not less ethical; you even have more hierarchies than I do regarding ethics. The items I've placed in red all fit in my "absolutely uncomfortable with and not curious about in the least" column, which is one of two columns, the other one being "comfortable with". I don't allow myself any ambiguities and grey areas.

The question itself is what I find disturbing. Not you. I am well aware your practices don't mirror this fascination. You have gone out of your way to make that point, and I accepted it and understood it quite some time ago. I'm only sorry that wasn't more clear in my posts. It isn't you, it's the question I have serious issues with, and the premise of the question I was attacking.

Hopefully, I'm absolutely clear this time. I have no interest in attacking you. The premise I've read, however, is something I do not and cannot agree with.

In response to AA you said,



Yet, based on what I've read in this thread, that green question seems to be a logical corollary of what I've read to be your premise. "How close is this to D/S? Does anyone else see similarities?", to boil down what I read. I answered that in a post you replied to with:



So what exactly, was wrong with that post, from your point of view?

Finally, the reason you have to keep hammering on that bold line in VelvetDarkness' post is because some of us did compare the situations, posted our opinions, and those opinions didn't mesh with your own. You want to compare, but it looks like you're attempting to equate when you disregard the opinions brought forth by comparison, or reply with what amounts to "you are a clueless noob, get over yourself".

And yes, I suppose mine is a sanitized vision. I'm certain I would have new issues to work through and other things to think about, assuming I ever get into a relationship again. (Something that's highly unlikely in my current mental and emotional state.) I've never made any bones about my inexperience, either. The post you replied to with the above "I don't even know where to begin correcting this" was mainly inspired by Pure's comments about where you end up being more important than where you start. Essentially, "The end justifies the means."

In my world, the end cannot justify the means. The means have to be every bit as just as the end. That's one of my core beliefs, and it applies to every facet of life.

All right, I lied about the "finally". Or maybe this is a postscript.

Marquis, I apologize for anything I've posted which made you feel I was attacking or judging you. I hope we can simply agree to disagree on this, and move forward. If we were face to face, I'd even suggest a handshake.

I would have no problem giving either you or RJ a handshake. I don't think you're bad people, and you have even shown some considerable gentility in spite of my oftentimes less than congenial argumentation style.

However, my social relationships on this forum are far less important to me than the opportunity for self-exploration that it offers.

As for the rest of your post, responding to every word of every poster is getting exhausting, so I'm going to do my best to respond to everything you're inquiring about indirectly by posting my own answers to the "questions" I asked at the beginning of this thread.

I also want to suggest that you reread earlier posts in this thread by Pure and myself. The fact that you overlooked the moral guidelines I posted indicates to me that perhaps you'd be less confused if you were reading more carefully. I assure you that many of the questions you bring up in this post have already been addressed cogently, and I don't think its fair for you to ask me to repeat myself if you can't take the time to read everything accurately.

 

[Netzach]

omg I have a headache reading all this.

Is there something sado-fucked up that I get a mini-woody thinking about this guy getting three slugs in the back of the head?

 

[Marquis]

I’m posting this for several reasons:

1. In a very dark way, I find some of the details of this case to be humorous and even a little erotic.
2. I am fascinated with the impulses and personalities that draw people to, or keep them in, relationships with high power differentials. I think there are some undeniable patterns that emerge, and I’d like to discuss those.
3. I think the question of whether Mrs. Norman’s actions were legally and/or morally justifiable is an interesting one.

I am going to put forward an elaboration of my own views on these distinct areas of analysis. Perhaps that will clear up some of the confusion, and move the discussion forward into the area of interest that brought me to post this in the first place.

Out of order:

1)

There was unfortunately no talk in this thread about the humor or eroticism of this post. That's all well and good, it wasn't my primary reason for posting it.

3)

I could speak about this for a long time, but I'll keep it brief.

I think this is a very difficult question, and my opinion is anything but set in stone. I do believe there is a lot of credence to the idea that she Mrs. Norman may have reasonably believed she had no alternatives. I do not believe, however that she had any legal right to kill him because he "deserved it." Assuming the authority of law for yourself is highly antisocial behavior. If everyone did it, we would exist in a state of chaos.

Morally speaking, I think she and everyone around her have (particularly her mother and children) to accept some blame for allowing this to continue for so long. I dated a woman for a long time who was very passive aggressive, and had explosive anger reactions. If I would upset her, instead of addressing the problem immediately, she would allow it to build up until she would feel the need to enact some form of revenge. I think this is a fairly common characteristic among those who find themselves on the bottom side of relationships with high power differentials, as I'll get into more later.

At the same time that Mrs. Norman was being conditioned to believe she was worthless and deserved subhuman treatment by her husband, Mr. Norman was being conditioned to believe that he was all powerful by his wife. These interactions are ALWAYS bidirectional, and to place absolute blame on one person is unfair in my opinion.

On the other hand, I do think her eventual retaliation is something Mr. Norman could've reasonably expected, but that's more a comment on practicality than ethics.

2)

The Angel/Devil complex

 

[Pure]

netzach,

i have no trouble imagining that a murderous rage [in someone] would give you a miniwoody.

as a couple posters have noted, she, the Mrs., repaid him [the Mr.] in his own coin. one might imagine that, psychosexually, she had come to resemble him in violence and volatility.

this brings me to Mohegan's point:

JM but what I don't see is evidence of arousal or sexuality anywhere in the beatings and abuse.

P: i agree that i made an inference here; marquis' account did not contain direct evidence about arousal. yet as the marquis has just posted, a psychosexual motive of Mr. N is not hard to imagine.

in any case, i don't think that a sexual version of Mr. N would be difficult to find. (one whose control, for example, had a sexual element--i'm thinking of those two in Calif., who, in a criminal way, kept sex slaves; both were former marines, one was Chinese{ADDED: Leonard Lake and Charles Ng}).

however this brings up an interesting point. it is *sadism* which is defined in terms of arousal. *domination* in the broad sense certainly encompases those whose 'getting of[f]' on commanding and imposing is more of a general 'power high,' and i've heard this personally, irl, from some female doms.

indeed, on this forum, my impression of some doms like eb, supports this. some like to be served and are pleased with its homage, yet it doesn't make them hard/wet.

so we come around to the same point. mr. norman [under mohegan's alternate hypothesis], while antisocial, is not [would not be] different in kind from a number of others who are selfish, narcissistic, very demanding, and very demeaning. assholes, one might say, who do not rise to the level of sociopathy or criminality. (i think of the patriarchs in some cults, some of the not-so-nice exemplars of the wilder branches of the LDS faith.) elsewhere i've called these 'vanilla doms.'

 

[Marquis]

in any case, i don't think that a sexual version of Mr. N would be difficult to find. (one whose control, for example, had a sexual element--i'm thinking of those two in Calif., who, in a criminal way, kept sex slaves; one was Chinese, the other a former marine.)

I think I know the case you're talking about. I believe I earlier confused this with the Jamelske case, as they seem to have some similarities (use of a bomb shelter type enclosure to imprison kidnapped sex slaves).

however this brings up an interesting point. it is *sadism* which is defined in terms of arousal. *domination* in the broad sense certainly encompases those whose 'getting of' on commanding and imposing is more of a general 'power high,' and i've heard this personally, irl, from some female doms.

While you are correct that the traditional meaning of "sadism" as coined by Kraft-Ebbing denotes sexuality, I sometimes wonder if that term shouldn't be expanded to encompass a non-sexual appreciation of inflicting pain.

I think I could appreciate pleasure from a violent act (in revenge, for example) towards a male (or a female for that matter) that would not cause sexual arousal but would otherwise largely emulate sadism.

Then again, that makes me wonder if all of our impulses aren't somehow tied to our sexuality (an idea supported by many psychologists and biologists). I seem to recall a propensity towards conflict with other males being inversely proportional with my sexual fulfillment.

 

[Pure]

a reference to the New York criminal kidnapper, John T. Jamelske is

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/sexual_assault/john_jamelske/5.html

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Ha ha, you're very creative.

More a simple knee jerk reaction like the mini-woody to which Q-BoU referred. As an aside, and just for Q-BoU ...

Live well. It is the greatest revenge.
The Talmud​

Creative milks the system for every social support dollar available, makes sure "sits in shit" gets the absolute minimum to stay alive, and enjoys life beyond measure thereafter.

I'm not sure what you see the question at hand is, but you seem to be answering the question "Was Norman a "Dominant"?

Actually, i answered this.

 

[Marquis]

Actually, i answered this.

Fair enough.

 

[SpectreT]

There are a few things that I want to highlight:

1. Amoral sex is not immoral sex. It's not nearly as hot (kidding (somewhat)). I bring this up because I've seen at least one response that seem to confuse these words.

2. Any ethical code is filled with nuances, interpretation and circumstances that make it infinitely complex. Your example about unrealistic expectations makes me think of an all too common exploitation of the loophole you quoted above.

I am flirting with an unfamiliar female at a social venue.

She asks me: "Do you have a girlfriend?"

This is a highly loaded question. It is often a simplified way of asking "are you emotionally committed/available?" In my case, I find it particularly hard to answer accurately, since not being monogamous, I am both committed and available. Of course, my emotional availability is much more restricted than my sexual availability.

I answer, truthfully: "I date a lot of people."

She now assumes, with almost absolute certainty, that there is no one special in my life. I know that she will assume this because of experience, does that knowledge create a duty for me to correct her misinterpretation of my comment?

Finding me very likable, she says: "You are witty/attractive/confident, why don't you have a girlfriend?"

She is looking for warning signs.

I answer, truthfully: "I was engaged a few years ago, but since then I have yet to meet a girl who could motivate me to be exclusive."

While being the gospel truth, this is more manipulative than my previous response. I am purposefully giving her the impression that I am not incompatible with commitment, I merely haven't met anyone worthy. I am also purposefully answering the question I feel like answering, and not the one she asked.

Feeling hopeful, she asks "Well, what kind of girls do you like?"

I describe whatever flattering physical characteristics she possesses and add something about "I enjoy women who aren't afraid to be true to their own desires. Bold, intelligent and uninhibited women."

I'm sure you can see where this goes.

While everything I've said is true, it is the truth, as you pointed out, as legal advocates might present it, in the light most favorable to your own case. I understand that there are others, like Spectre for example, who might consider this type of subtle manipulation outside the bounds of ethical behavior, but I'm curious as to where this stops.

Let us say, for example, that you have herpes, or perhaps an unsightly growth on your back. Despite the possibility of either of these two being present when we meet a stranger, I think it is fairly standard to assume that a person is std free and clear of unsightly tumors. In fact, although unreasonable, most people tend to be very naive in their assumptions about another person. In that case, don't you have a duty to make this person aware of this fact as soon as possible, so as not to mislead them? In fact, if you don't reveal every undesirable bit of information about yourself immediately, aren't you no better than me?

I can imagine it must be hard to get laid with ethical boundaries like that.

Contrast this with an acquiantance of mine who, resembling a famous hip-hop personality, tells everyone from club bouncers to teenyboppers that he is Jay-Z's brother.

Actually, there is another layer of this as well that I find interesting. Let's say you pay a visit to a prostitute. She moans loudly while you fuck her, and when you are done she tells you that you were "the best she's ever had."

Do you fault her for trying to create a more satisfying fantasy for you?

Likewise, no girl will sleep with you if told "I have no interest in you other than for a singular sexual encounter," even if all she desires is a one night stand. To some degree, she expects you to maintain the fantasy that this may be the first night of the rest of your lives together, even if you both quite clearly know the deal.

So I guess the question is, do you respect her as an intelligent human being, capable of analyzing a situation shrewdly and acting in her own best interest; or does this egalitarian treatment fall secondary to what you, Pure, referred to as the "paternalistic duties?"

Okay - I can work with this, and offer my answers to the questions raised.

Immoral/Amoral - Amoral makes no distinction between moral and immoral, thus includes immoral without exclusively being immoral. No confusion, just a certain perception.

Unrealistic expectations and the dating scenario: You're right, I'm uncomfortable with the scenario you presented. You may have noticed, I have a hard time letting anyone's perception rest on anything more slippery than fact, which is slippery enough - no three people's "facts" line up perfectly. I won't say I'm an absolute paragon of complete honesty - I play poker, after all - but bluffing is something I save for the table. I don't let anyone get emotionally invested in me if I can't live up to their expectations. Something I learned from my mistakes in previous relationships, I might add. (although I'm obviously still capable of being obtuse, and missing signs that I may be building unrealistic expectations.)

On to unsightly growth/std's.

I've got a serious body hair problem. I make jokes about it, online, and with the people who know me. A while back, AA posted a picture in another thread that could've been me. I don't just march up to someone I may be interested in and start off with, "Hey, I could be responsible for summer Sasquatch sightings if I took this shirt off." I do wear shirts that show my arm and some chest hair, so people might make the inference that I'm furry. Subtle, but if I'm asked flat out - yes, I tell them I'm a human bearskin rug.

STD's are a separate issue. If you've got herpes, HIV, whatever, and you know it, anyone considering being intimate with you needs to know. Period. You don't need to wear a sign around your neck, but some point in the relationship before you're naked together, the other person needs to know.

I can imagine it must be hard to get laid with ethical boundaries like that.

Nigh on impossible. Trust me. Then again, I'm never out to just "get laid".

As to the prostitute, I answered this a long time ago in a thread dedicated to the question. A thread that devolved into discussions regarding Escorts, Prostitutes, Call Girls, Whores, and the differences. I'll repeat my answer here, in paraphrase.

Like any other profession, prostitutes provide a service for money. (It's illegal in most of the country, mind you, but that's neither here nor there) Like any other professional, what's important is their attitude and their technical skill in their job.

I would neither expect, nor want, a prostitute to fake an orgasm, or tell me I'm the best ever. The reverse of that coin is, I wouldn't want to hear it if she thinks I'm a talentless pencil-dick, either. There's a difference between honesty, and blunt, brutal honesty. (Plus, humiliation is on my hard limits list )

So I guess the question is, do you respect her as an intelligent human being, capable of analyzing a situation shrewdly and acting in her own best interest; or does this egalitarian treatment fall secondary to what you, Pure, referred to as the "paternalistic duties?"

Yes, I respect her as an intelligent human being, capable of analyzing a situation based on the information she's been given. Garbage in, garbage out. If she's being deliberately misinformed, and possesses no avenues to determine this, she is capable of acting against her own best interests, following an unreasonable expectation intentionally fostered by another person.

It's a tough juggling game, what to reveal and when. Made all the more difficult by my ethical boundaries. Determining when there's a "need to know", versus the trust and rapport that makes sharing very personal information (like kinks) possible.

I suppose I prefer to err on the side of honesty. If others wish to interpret that as "paternalistic duties", so be it.

 

[JMohegan]

I agree with the comment you make in a more recent post about there being a lack of evidence that his sadism was sexually motivated. I also agree with your reading of Norman's character to a degree. I also see him as someone with little self control, a sort of overgrown baby.

However I think that relating our impulses to our sexuality is always difficult to do. There are a million things that motivate us to have sex: love, money, physical attraction, revenge, boredom... the list goes on almost forever. For that reason I've come to believe that our sexual identity is largely a derivative of our overall identity. In that case, I think it's likely that Norman received some psychosexual satisfaction from torturing his wife. I think it was their twisted way of reaffirming their intimacy, much like vanilla sex is for most vanilla relationships and kinky activity is for many of us.

Another possibility is that Norman's behavior is closer to that of an abusive employer using (and abusing) workers in the old silver mines of Central America, or a Dickensian factory in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

It seems possible (indeed, probable) that had a feasible alternative to a spouse or sexual partner presented itself, he would have dominated and abused him/her in a similar fashion.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I just don't understand how the word "intimacy" could be applied to a relationship in which the guy had so little regard for even the most basic physical & mental health of his partner. I accept what you are saying as theoretically possible, but it is simply beyond my power to comprehend.

While you are correct that the traditional meaning of "sadism" as coined by Kraft-Ebbing denotes sexuality, I sometimes wonder if that term shouldn't be expanded to encompass a non-sexual appreciation of inflicting pain.

I think I could appreciate pleasure from a violent act (in revenge, for example) towards a male (or a female for that matter) that would not cause sexual arousal but would otherwise largely emulate sadism.

Then again, that makes me wonder if all of our impulses aren't somehow tied to our sexuality (an idea supported by many psychologists and biologists). I seem to recall a propensity towards conflict with other males being inversely proportional with my sexual fulfillment.

As an intellectual exercise, I see the value in what you are postulating here.

However, as a practical matter I find it enormously helpful to maintain a careful distinction in my mind between the urge to inflict pain that results in my own arousal, and the urge to inflict pain that is borne of impulses tied to anger, revenge, etc.

What works, for me, is to view one as a legitimate expression of my sadistic self and the other as unacceptable behavior that is beneath me. Sort of like a toddler throwing a tantrum, or an adolescent punching the wall when he doesn't get his own way.