A case study in power, control and abuse

[Kajira Callista]

Sorry, very quick hijack. I've read the term sammy before in other posts. What does it mean exactly?

smart assed masochist

 

[JMohegan]

Sadists who DON'T have limits scare the hell out of me.

As well they should.

I want my Mister to hurt me because he loves me, not because he's angry at me. That would not make it a good pain, it would crush me...and probably break my heart.

You are bringing up a very important point here, satindesire, by acknowledging the mental aspect of what goes on in a D/s relationship.

Leaving aside the issue of punishment, I know many subs who would be emotionally crushed if used as a punching bag by a Dom administering a beating in order to let off steam.

OTOH, I do know submissives who are used by their Dom as a means of relieving stress or tension when he comes home angry and frustrated after a really bad day. As long as both people understand and accept what's happening, and why, this works for many couples.

 

[JMohegan]

There is something very attractive about knowing that at a persons core exists this sadist who can beat the hell outta me and send me to the ER... or dare i say...possibly end my life.

I, at times, have been known to taunt that tiger. (no i'm not sammy i'm edgy...well i can be sammy, but that's another subject.)

Even more attractive is knowing the person won't do that because they are in control of me, the moment, and their sadist.

The first attraction may perhaps make a submissive seem self-destructive, but it is the second that saves her health, her sanity, and indeed her life.

Brilliantly stated, KC.

I agree.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

smart assed masochist

Thanks very much KC

 

[JMohegan]

My pertinent feelings on anger, in a sentence:

Cruel master, great servant.

The accuracy of that statement, I would say, depends on the type of service you seek.

In any case, Marquis, the master will still need practical boundaries on his own behavior, in order to avoid the appearance of being an "overgrown baby" (to borrow your description of Norman in post 89, above).

And even if he cares nothing for the regard of others, he will still need practical boundaries in order to avoid being plugged in the head. RJ's point, and well taken.

 

[Pure]

note

i am going to spin off a thread and poll about cruelty, since that is treatable as a separate issue from others in this thread.

drop in, vote, express yourself.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=451938

 

[Marquis]

Do you think that maybe that is why you can identify with the guy in this case and even feel some pity towards him?

As far as Cruel master, great servant goes:

Cruelty leads often to rebellion. Being a cruel master does not in anyways ensure a great servant. That is a bunch of bullshit. And even if you want to take it to the notion where fear, created through the cruelity will make for an obedient servant, the servant will never have your intrests at heart and will fuck you over or be lazy whenever they can get away with it. Doesn't sound so great to me.

In truth it sounds to me like you should take care that they are locked up before you go to sleep at night, because they might just rebel against said cruelty and put 3 slugs into the back of your head while you sleep, or maybe just use a knife.

The accuracy of that statement, I would say, depends on the type of service you seek.

In any case, Marquis, the master will still need practical boundaries on his own behavior, in order to avoid the appearance of being an "overgrown baby" (to borrow your description of Norman in post 89, above).

And even if he cares nothing for the regard of others, he will still need practical boundaries in order to avoid being plugged in the head. RJ's point, and well taken.

1 misreading, shame one you. 2 misreadings shame on me.

Read my comment as "Anger (like fire) is a cruel master but great servant"

Cruelty in and of itself is not necessarily a reflection of anger.

 

[Netzach]

Sadism and punishment fit together like a hand in the glove. I don't see why you're drawing a distinction between the two in that way. Sadists love to inflict pain. Pain is NOT always considered a sexy thing. Ergo, if it's not sexy, it must be something else. My mindset was "that other not-sexy thing must be punishment." Do you see where my mind was at when I typed it now?

I consider myself a sadist, and a sexual sadist. I do not use punishment in my relationships.

I realize that that's probably uncommon, but I can't be the only one.

 

[Netzach]

What's with the negativity on cruelty?

When I'm cruel it's usually with a very large smile. It means I'm on top of my game. It's my special way of saying "I love you."

 

[AngelicAssassin]

I consider myself a sadist, and a sexual sadist. I do not use punishment in my relationships.

I realize that that's probably uncommon, but I can't be the only one.

Depends on the definition of punishment Q-BoU. Under Pure's m-w def part one, i'm there, but not in smack mode.

 

[Pure]

well, AA, Netzach is not so mysterious: good dog (horse, seal) trainers rarely punish either [sense 1; m-w].

which leads one to believe that lots of the 'punishments' talked of in these parts, are not rational modes of shaping behavior, but demonstrations of power or exercizes in godknowswhat.

 

[Netzach]

Depends on the definition of punishment Q-BoU. Under Pure's m-w def part one, i'm there, but not in smack mode.

I align with Ebonyfire's attitude on this concept, if I'm not putting words in her mouth -- if someone is at the point where I need to consider "punishment" then they're more likely out the door. Obey or be gone.

Mistakes happen, and there is correction.

Bad days happen, and there is dialogue.

But when I can't assume that you are doing your damndest to make me happy and carry out the few things I get insistent on, there's not a lot of "there" there, as you might say.

 

[CutieMouse]

What's with the negativity on cruelty?

When I'm cruel it's usually with a very large smile. It means I'm on top of my game. It's my special way of saying "I love you."

[mini hijack]

You just summed up what I was trying to sort out in the erotic cruelty thread...

There are a *lot* of things I need in my life (and that a Lover may need, as well) that could be defined as cruel, but I view it as loving, because (IMO) it takes a deep, mindful, spectacularly kinky kind of Love to be the (consensual) source of another's pain...

[/mini hijack]

 

[AngelicAssassin]

I align with Ebonyfire's attitude on this concept, if I'm not putting words in her mouth -- if someone is at the point where I need to consider "punishment" then they're more likely out the door. Obey or be gone.

You're not putting as i remember. Guess i'm just a tenderhearted soul ...

that ain't eyerolling, it's checking for impending lightning strikes.

chuckle

 

[RJMasters]

What's with the negativity on cruelty?

The negativity comes from a disagreement in the underlying motivation and identification.

Norman was an alcoholic. He had begun to drink and to beat defendant five years after they were married. The couple had five children, four of whom are still living. When defendant was pregnant with her youngest child, Norman beat her and kicked her down a flight of steps, causing the baby to be born prematurely the next day.

The negativity comes in when it is postulated by some that the cruelty stated in the above paragraph is some how comparable to the cruelty that happens within a S/m or D/s-BDSM context.

If I were to ask you Netzach about the range, scope, motivation etc... surrounding your cruelty...I very much doubt you would agree to any of the following...

- You are cruel because you are an alcoholic and out of control.
- Your cruelty allows for throwing a pregnant woman down a set of stairs?
- Your cruelty is characterized as something you would do when consent is in doubt or not present?
- Is anger based rather than sexually motivated

So the negativity isn't towards cruelty known to exist within D/s-BDSM and S/m relationships(see pure's poll on cruelty to show that most here do not see cruelty negatively), it is more directed at the notion to widen the acceptance of all forms of cruelty, including the Mr. Norman varitety.

 

[Pure]

note to rj,

with all due respect, i partially disagree with...

rj So the negativity isn't towards cruelty known to exist within D/s-BDSM and S/m relationships(see pure's poll on cruelty to show that most here do not see cruelty negatively), it is more directed at the notion to widen the acceptance of all forms of cruelty, including the Mr. Norman varitety.

P: i've not seen anyone proposing "the notion to widen the acceptance of all forms of cruelty, including the Mr. Norman variety."


i, of course, prefer my own solution--which respects common usage.

P: "Cruelty" I define as the infliction of pain, physical or mental distress where there is no 'rational,' means-end justification as regards punishment, retribution, deterrence, etc, or as regards furtherance of health or safety***.[=undertaken to further health or safety, like an surgical operation].

P: Notice that the notion of cruelty is wide; then i move to limit the types under discussion:

P: Needless to say, for purposes of this discussion, ILLEGAL cruelties, e.g. those of Mr. Dahmer, are NOT the topic, i.e. murder, confinement, mayhem, infliction of serious bodily harm.


P: Because the notion is wide does NOT mean that wide 'acceptance' of all such behavior is called for; merely that we 'accept' [identify] that said behavior is cruel.

Parallel example: it is 'forceful' 'coercive' and 'violation of a person' to grab someone off the street and bundle them into a car and drive them to where they DONT want to be. But if the cops do this, under the rules, then said 'force' 'coercion' etc. is lawful.

Example in the present case: Based on what Chiclet said, it would be cruel for her Dom to tie her to the wall, kneeling, call her a whore and piss on her. It is also cruel for Mr. Norman to kick his pregnant wife. But there are several obvious differences, for example: in the first case Chiclet [or some other person] might get a wet pussy, and come back for more.** AND she is not seriously harmed. In the second case, Mrs. Norman does not get wet and, except out of fear for her life, come back for more. Further she, like the fetus, is injured. Do you see the difference?

i'm not sure why these sorts of issues just go on and on. it's like being in the Bible Belt, and being told, whenever i write about premarital sex in the high schools, that i'm advocating it.
---

**I realize the C has explicitly said that she is NOT turned on by such, but I am contemplating it for the sake of argument.

For another example, N calls her partner a scumsucker and has him kneel and jerk off and come on the floor; he's then ordered to lick it up.

 

[RJMasters]

with all due respect, i partially disagree with...

rj So the negativity isn't towards cruelty known to exist within D/s-BDSM and S/m relationships(see pure's poll on cruelty to show that most here do not see cruelty negatively), it is more directed at the notion to widen the acceptance of all forms of cruelty, including the Mr. Norman varitety.

P: i've not seen anyone proposing "the notion to widen the acceptance of all forms of cruelty, including the Mr. Norman variety."


i, of course, prefer my own solution--which respects common usage.

P: "Cruelty" I define as the infliction of pain, physical or mental distress where there is no 'rational,' means-end justification as regards punishment, retribution, deterrence, etc, or as regards furtherance of health or safety***.[=undertaken to further health or safety, like an surgical operation].

P: Notice that the notion of cruelty is wide; then i move to limit the types under discussion:

P: Needless to say, for purposes of this discussion, ILLEGAL cruelties, e.g. those of Mr. Dahmer, are NOT the topic, i.e. murder, confinement, mayhem, infliction of serious bodily harm.


P: Because the notion is wide does NOT mean that wide 'acceptance' of all such behavior is called for; merely that we 'accept' [identify] that said behavior is cruel.

Parallel example: it is 'forceful' 'coercive' and 'violation of a person' to grab someone off the street and bundle them into a car and drive them to where they DONT want to be. But if the cops do this, under the rules, then said 'force' 'coercion' etc. is lawful.

Example in the present case: Based on what Chiclet said, it would be cruel for her Dom to tie her to the wall, kneeling, call her a whore and piss on her. It is also cruel for Mr. Norman to kick his pregnant wife. But there are several obvious differences, for example: in the first case Chiclet [or some other person] might get a wet pussy, and come back for more.** AND she is not seriously harmed. In the second case, Mrs. Norman does not get wet and, except out of fear for her life, come back for more. Further she, like the fetus, is injured. Do you see the difference?

i'm not sure why these sorts of issues just go on and on. it's like being in the Bible Belt, and being told, whenever i write about premarital sex in the high schools, that i'm advocating it.
---

**I realize the C has explicitly said that she is NOT turned on by such, but I am contemplating it for the sake of argument.

For another example, N calls her partner a scumsucker and has him kneel and jerk off and come on the floor; he's then ordered to lick it up.

You can respectfully disagree all you like, but in answer to your question---Why does it go on and on? You must be joking right? Face it pure, all you ever talk about is Amoral selfish sex and sadism. That's all you advocate. It is not a once in a while type of thing, it is a consistent presentation of abusing the other person for self gratification and if one can circumvent consent(see your own words below), all the better. The only time you mention consent or restraint is the obligatory coment or two that mentions it a good idea to stop short of breaking the law or putting someone in the ER and thats only if someone gets in your face and pins you down.

Its one thing to be balanced, but your not even close. Let's take a little look at some of your more recent threads you have started and what you have had to say in them...

_________________________________________________________


https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=222209
SMACK--a concept, a gathering. Welcome.

- SMACK is Sadism, Masochism & Amoral, Cruel Kink

Why is SMACK Amoral?

- As 'the stiff prick has no conscience,' neither does the streaming pussy. Urges and impulses, especially perverse ones, do not come with 'respect,' or 'concern' for others, attached. Art, expressing these impulses, is likewise outside morality. SMACK attends, particularly, to those impulses, actions, and expressions which are transgressive of social norms.



https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=244070
Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

Get yourself off; use the other as necessary. Even stimulate some of their parts, if a bit of swelling would suit you. A bit sadistic: Your orgasms are a primary goal of these acts, of the 'game.' Another is your power, exercized through eroticism...

It was called Libertinism*; now, maybe self absorbed sex (encounters) would be a good label, if you add, "avid pursuit" and "taking your 'prey.' " As practiced, it's as an activity that falls short of illegal assault. The acts needn't be practiced every hour of every day; they may be occasional. Where there's a pattern, however, an ongoing routine, even an addiction, then the person may be labeled a 'libertine.'

Generally, yes. I've added a line to the first posting of the thread. Ignoring his reluctance, getting his pecker up, being unconcerned with his guilts that may follow, that's the sort of 'taking' that's being described as 'self absorbed' or 'libertine.'

Without trying to write a handbook, you stay outside the rape area by drawing out a kind of implicit consent; seeing to it that the other appears careless, if not complicit, aware of what may happen up the road-- and acts in ways that take him up that road.


https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=433239
Lack of Respect--When is it hot?

I mean *real* lack, not roleplayed, simulated.

--------------------------------------------------------------

This is only from the top half of a search result on the threads you have started. You hide behind a thinly veiled pretense to ascert your claims and the sheer amount of proof makes it to hard to ignore.

You and Marquis have been tag-teaming this thread all along. Pushing the phrase "Urges and impulses" which is the exact same phrase found in your SMACK thread. Marquis clouds and fogs the line of consent, then you argue amoralism to divorce any conotation of good and bad/right or wrong, to arrive finally at isolated truth divorced of any responsibility. Then want to have a wide eyed expression of innocence?

I'll remind you that the issue of consent was not truly resolved in this discussion, but was set aside by you and marquis under the guise of not being of any signifigance to the discussion at hand. Also by framing the discussion in amoral terms, you by pass anyone's objections about personal responsibility.

This is not a discussion...its you and marquis espousing the SMACK ideology.
- Brute force dominantion
- Consent is a gray area and therefore an opportunity to take advantage.
- Amoral attitude to avoid personal responsibility
- Its ok to fuck anyone over as long as they don't end up in the ER or you in jail.

 

[JMohegan]

Leaving aside issues of semantics or nitpicking over word usage, I read RJ's post 140 above as asserting that he (like me) does not believe that Norman's behavior is properly placed in a discussion of the spectrum of behavior relating to *erotic* cruelty.

i, of course, prefer my own solution--which respects common usage.

P: "Cruelty" I define as the infliction of pain, physical or mental distress where there is no 'rational,' means-end justification as regards punishment, retribution, deterrence, etc, or as regards furtherance of health or safety***.[=undertaken to further health or safety, like an surgical operation].

P: Notice that the notion of cruelty is wide; then i move to limit the types under discussion:

P: Needless to say, for purposes of this discussion, ILLEGAL cruelties, e.g. those of Mr. Dahmer, are NOT the topic, i.e. murder, confinement, mayhem, infliction of serious bodily harm.

Pure,

You have further attempted to "limit the types under discussion" on this thread by attempting to place Norman's behavior on the spectrum of *erotic* cruelty, have you not?

Post 82:

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

In response to my request for evidence of the same, you wrote in post 94:

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.

 

[JMohegan]

Christ almighty.

No wonder he dismissed my comment about the potential for "guilt, shame, and inner self-flagellation" as hyperbole.

 

[cati]

My understanding of all this BS is that Marquis asked in his initial thread if there could be some kind of "basic"correlation between the domineering cruelty of Mr. Norman and the type of cruelty practised by (some) lifestyle Dominants.
Pretty damn simple question if you ask me.

 

[Kajira Callista]

My understanding of all this BS is that Marquis asked in his initial thread if there could be some kind of "basic"correlation between the domineering cruelty of Mr. Norman and the type of cruelty practised by lifestyle Dominants.
Pretty damn simple question if you ask me.

It was the question I thought he was asking also.

 

[RJMasters]

Leaving aside issues of semantics or nitpicking over word usage, I read RJ's post 140 above as asserting that he (like me) does not believe that Norman's behavior is properly placed in a discussion of the spectrum of behavior relating to *erotic* cruelty.

Basically I see this guy as nothing more than a bully. Like the playground bully who takes a perverse pleasure(one could say it is sadistic and cruel in nature) in taking weaker kids lunch money and sticking their head in the toilets or throwing them in the dumpster just because they can and then threaten them with more severe beatings if they tell or try to escape furture payments.

The example of a bully fits the following criteria.

- They display the simplist of definition in the use of the word dominant. I.E. Brute strength.
- A bully takes a perverse pleasure in hurting others and doesn't care. Amoral type behavior without guilt or remorse.

Mr Norman was a bully, that's all he was. He probably did have a smug satisfaction in the beating of his wife. This is no more accepted as being simillar to D/s-BDSM practiced sadism, than vanilla sex being called D/s-BDSM because there is pleasure involved from sticking your dick in a pussy and having normal sex.

 

[NemoAlia]

I consider myself a sadist, and a sexual sadist. I do not use punishment in my relationships.

I realize that that's probably uncommon, but I can't be the only one.

You're not! I think you and my darling Dom have lots in common.

 

[Pure]

to cati and jmo

right on, cati; it's simple, but somehow obscure to many! 'domineering cruelty' is essentially the issue, and whether Mr. N represents an extreme and illegal form of it. (more a difference of degree than of kind, from the actions of legal doms ).
also raised was the issue of the 'consent' of Mrs. N, compared to the consent of those being legally subject to harsh measures.

====
jmo said,

Pure,

You have further attempted to "limit the types under discussion" on this thread by attempting to place Norman's behavior on the spectrum of *erotic* cruelty, have you not?

Post 82:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pure
P: Mr. Norman 'got off' on prostituting his wife, and her degradation in this prostitution.

JMO: In response to my request for evidence of the same, you wrote in post 94:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pure
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.

P's present response: I conceeded your point that there was no evidence of N's arousal in Marquis's account of the case. What else do you want.

Getting back to the first point. SUPPOSE, for the sake of argument Norman did 'get off'.

Would his behavior count as 'erotic cruelty'? Yes, as per my definition. But it is ILLEGAL erotic cruelty. Just as some 'cruelty' is illegal; some 'erotic cruelty' is illegal, say Jeffrey Dahmer's.

BUT note that my poll thread is NOT about any old 'erotic cruelty'-- it's about that practiced legally in ongoing kinky relationships.

===
So jmo, what IS your point? "cruelty" like "violence" has has many types and falls in various places as regards the law. I believe my poll question was quite clear in legal respects.

 

[JMohegan]

Post 13:

What I find most interesting, however, are the similarities between this relationship and the realities of D/s that many of us live out. Unlike the differences, the similarities are far more subtle, and far more worthy of provocative intellectual discussion.

My position:

I do not see Norman's behavior as properly placed on the spectrum of *erotic* cruelty in human behavior.

However, I do see some relevant points of similarity if the discussion focuses solely on the psychological processes involved when one person dominates another. To me, the most valuable post on this thread was written by Marquis, when he noted the behavior of some submissives and expressed concern over the same.

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=18660993&postcount=73