A case study in power, control and abuse

[Pure]

note to jmo and response to rj

jmo, yes i like that posting of marquis'. it is a valid issue whether some self labeled 'subs' have in effect lost power to meaningfully consent. a pathological desire to please may undermine any autonomy. thus there is a parallel with the pathological 'love' that some abused women profess for their hubbies, which also negates their power to meaningfully consent.
--

rj,
you seem to want to reduce Norman to a bully, an especially violent one.

i know of violent bullies and he was far more:

1) he prostituted his wife; he's more like a pimp.

2) as the doctor testified

Dr. Tyson explained that in defendant's case the situation had progressed beyond mere "'Wife battering or family violence'" and had become "torture, degradation and reduction to an animal level of existence, where all behavior was marked purely by survival . . . ."

The stuff with the dog food is more than the stuff of bullying, even the most violent bullying. It is an illegal and almost insane level of cruelty designed to completely efface the other.

 

[cati]

RJ Masters said 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.


Ok point taken RJ. Lets put this "cruelty" thing on a continuum for a minute.
He "the bully" who "dominates by brute strength" is at the very bottom. However I'm not too keen on this definition, unless your talking about big horned sheep.

He who dominates by consent is not a bully, since he appears more civilized and practises sadism within legal boundaries. Lets put him at the other end of the continuum.

So what's left in the middle.....the GREY area.


Now, do sadists and I mean "true" sadists, care whether or not they hurt their partners? I doubt it. Do they, just as a bully might, derive some sort of perverted pleasure from their actions ...absolutely. Does he care? He may only care enough to ask if the "bottom" masochist understands that he is a sadist and what the term means.
Do they (the sadist) need to get "hard" to prove that they are enjoying themselves...of course not.
IMHO just as a true blue masochist would have no problem taking whatever the sadist doles out for the duration of their partnership (scene),perhaps Mrs. Norman reached a point that she didn't want to "play" the part of the masochist any longer and so she shot the bastard.

 

[Marquis]

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.

Agreed that punishment in any relationship I've been in has been more about cathartic release and an exercise in power than shaping behavior.

However, I still find the bolded statement most curious. Does this also imply that punishment is an ineffective way of influencing the behavior of your children? That seems rather extreme.

 

[Pure]

punishment and kids,

that's right, marquis


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

marquis said,
M: However, I still find the bolded statement most curious. Does this also imply that punishment is an ineffective way of influencing the behavior of your children? That seems rather extreme.

P: in child development literature for the last several decades authorities have recommended rare use of punishment (in the over twos). they've even dropped the word, and speak of 'consequences.' some of that change of terms is just whitewashing, but there is a real difference between the consequence that a child's bike gets rusty, on being left out, and his allowance goes to help recondition it; versus a direct punishment for not bringing the bike in, e.g., no TV or movies for a month.

an exeption is cases where immediate results are needed as with two year olds (not) crossing the road.

but this is not to say that punishment does not 'influence' children. it does. it often makes them outwardly conform, but makes them hateful, sneaky [same inclinations and behavior], etc. the point is that by-and-large punishment does not influence children in the way we would like them influenced, to become self respcting and self directing human beings.
---

incidentally, i acquired a parrot and he's often naughty. so i looked at books on raising parrots and how to shape their behavior. the books said: 'never punish the parrot' and in particular 'never hit the parrot' and 'never scream at the parrot.'

a book i read by dog training experts recently, stated, 'never hit the dog, even with a newspaper.'

 

[Marquis]

You learn something new every day.

 

[cati]

Dr. Tyson explained that in defendant's case the situation had progressed beyond mere "'Wife battering or family violence'" and had become "torture, degradation and reduction to an animal level of existence, where all behavior was marked purely by survival . . . ."


...ahh the reduction to an animal level. That may be the key to all of this.
I can see a similarity between what we (some of us) do with our partners as BDSM practicioners and what Norman was doing to his wife only at that most basic animal level. Male Dominants love to talk about bringing out the beast in themselves and some submissives becoming "feral" during extreme play.

 

[Marquis]

Dr. Tyson explained that in defendant's case the situation had progressed beyond mere "'Wife battering or family violence'" and had become "torture, degradation and reduction to an animal level of existence, where all behavior was marked purely by survival . . . ."


...ahh the reduction to an animal level. That may be the key to all of this.
I can see a similarity between what we (some of us) do with our partners as BDSM practicioners and what Norman was doing to his wife only at that most basic animal level. Male Dominants love to talk about bringing out the beast in themselves and some submissives becoming "feral" during extreme play.

I think there's a lot of insight in this post.

In many ways I see the Normans' behavior as a D/s relationship without the humane constraints that seperate us from the animals. This is largely the point I was making all along.

And yes, as you indicated, it can be fun to vacation in that territory every once in a while. Less fun to live there.

 

[cati]

For those who may be interested.

This was an interesting read Link

 

[cati]

In many ways I see the Normans' behavior as a D/s relationship without the humane constraints that seperate us from the animals. This is largely the point I was making all along.

Uhuh. I think many people don't want to look that deeply inside themselves.

 

[Pure]

nice link, cati!

 

[Pure]

found out!

note to rj.


you said, a while back,
rj to marquis

I see that in many of the threads you begin a reoccurring theme that stems from a deep-rooted philosophical belief and approach toward domination. This belief that is held, is also influenced by your sadistic nature. The subject matter may change, but essentially the underlying message is basically the same.

The questions you raise concerning this case are no different than the same ones you raise in the pimp thread.

You said most recently,
rj to pure

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...

P: well, rj, at least you do your homework. and i'm flattered you read me. it appears that just as you caught the Marquis out, now it's me. guilty of having a couple main interests. and you've masterfully brought them out into the harsh light of day.

surely one of these is central in the area of sexual behavior: concern for self gratification, and duties to others.

but generally you misrepresent the range of my interests and postings.

looking just at *threads* (not postings to others') I've started here in the last four months, besides the ones you mention are ones on 'not dom, not sub' 'the term "slut" ' 'SM and the "dark side" ', 'illegals in domland,' Miewes case, consent, and question on running this forum. (there are many threads also in AH).

looking at postings in AH, here, and Story Discussion circle, I think there's a pretty broad range, which often got more than minimal responses, not that I need to convince you. if they bore you, ignore them.

 

[Marquis]

This was an interesting read Link

Fascinating article.

Most curious though, is the apparent lack of any morally judgmental attitude in his exploration of this phenomenon (I'm only halfway through). This sort of obsession with amoral behavior clearly shows that the author is an abuser.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

This was an interesting read Link

Dr. Tyson explained that in defendant's case the situation had progressed beyond mere "'Wife battering or family violence'" and had become "torture, degradation and reduction to an animal level of existence, where all behavior was marked purely by survival . . . ."

In this link, stockholm syndrome (SS) is said to be a strategy for survival. SS is described as a largely subconscious psychological response to sustained imprisonment or abuse.

Mrs Norman behaved as though she accepted the abuse most of the time as a survival instinct. I always ask myself why they didn't just leave after the first punch was thrown and undoubtedly at some point early on, leaving was still a viable alternative for Mrs Norman. Although this behaviour over time perpetuated further and progressively more hideous abuse I don't feel IMHO that Mrs Norman can be said to have consented to the abuse by complying with Mr Norman's demands. She was simply trying to endure what she felt couldn't be avoided or escaped.

It's also interesting that SS often begins to occur when a prisoner tries to form a relationship with a captor in order to prevent them from dehumanising/objectifying them to the point where they can be abused/killed without remorse. An abusive marriage is IMHO ideal conditions for SS to devlop.

I would venture to imagine that in a small number of D/s relationships this could also happen. If for example a pyl consistently accepts what a PYL dishes out irrespective of their own tolerance in a misguided endeavour to please and the PYL continues to push pyl further and further simply because PYL can, arguably a similar situation could develop if left unchecked. This is a clumsily worded thought by my own admission but it's something that this thread has made me wonder.

 

[satindesire]

As a survivor of an abusive relationship I can tell you that the way it started with me was after a few months passed and the 'honeymoon' phase was over, he began giving me 'advice' on how to better myself, or in reality become a more suitable partner for him. Even though he passe dit off as trying to help me, he often cut me down verbally, told me that I was lazy, a slob, that I would never make anything of myself and that I could nevfer be a functioning member of society without his 'help'.

Eventually, it wears own your self esteem. After all, if he loves you, he wouldn't say those things unless they were true, right? And he would never hurt you, right? He's just trying to help you.......right?

Well, after the self esteem and therefore the ability to make well informed judgement calls is gone, the physical abuse starts. At first it's only once and they PROMISE that they feel TERRIBLE and it'll never happen again...but after a little while it happens all the time. And it's your fault. If only you wouldn't piss them off so much.

After just a little while of this, you start to believe that it IS your fault. You'd do ANYTHING to keep them from getting angry at you. And through being put in the hospital TWICE by him I never once reported him to the police.

If you try and leave, they'll do something crazy, like try and kill you. Steal your car and your keys and your wallet. Take your phone so you can't call anyone.

After three and a half years of this, I decided that I, in fact, wasn't a lazy slob who would never make anything of herself. I was, actually, a great cook and a fantastic housekeeper and I had a very sucessful career in front of me. I was, honestly, quite a beautiful young woman who any man would be lucky to have.

So I left.

It didn't mean that it was easy to leave. I had to move across the country and put restaining orders on him (Notice the PLURAL on 'orders'). He almost ruined my life. But some people I think get worn down too far. Some abusers are far more posessive. Some are way more crazy.

Some of the abused may feel like they have no other choice than to either kill themselves or the abuser. I know what that's like. I've been there. I'm lucky I'm still here today.

Did I used to think that I deserved that treatment? Yes. Do I now? Absolutely not. I think that says something for the human psyche's ability to recover even after extreme conditions!

I know that's a bit of a tangent, but I thought that the perspective of an abuse survivor might give ya'll a bit more fodder for discussion. Sorry if I hijacked, I was merely trying to apply my experiences in a useful way!

 

[Pure]

so satin, are you now 'subbing' to someone? would you like to?
how do you think carrying out someone else's wishes and directions would sit with you? does giving over or 'exchanging' your power appeal to you?

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I can't comment on satin's experiences, obviously.

My upbringing was religous and I thought for a long time that my sub side was a symptom of that, something 'wrong with me' that needed correcting.

A few years down the line I've come to accept it as part of myself. I would not want to marry and submit to a man for religous reasons and indeed would not do so. For my own emotional and sexual fulfillment I will absolutely submit to a man.

 

[satindesire]

so satin, are you now 'subbing' to someone? would you like to?
how do you think carrying out someone else's wishes and directions would sit with you? does giving over or 'exchanging' your power appeal to you?

I am a sub, actually. I've known my Dom for nearly a year now and been together almost six months. Carrying out his wishes sits very well with me because 1. I know and trust that his wishes are for the best of us both, and 2. He has -no- desire to be cruel and harm me. (Okay, so the word cruel seems to be highly relative. I mean cruel in the sense that it's an UNWILLING harm and hurt that is not pleasureable, sexual, or helpful in ANY way) Yes, it does appeal to me, in giving him this wonderful gift. It appeals to me because it's who I am...But as I've said before in other threads, there's a difference between a Domineering person and a Dominant person. My ex was Domineering, not controlling in a way to help me. He was controlling in a cruel way, in no way did any of his actions have my best interests at heart. He had no respect for me, and he did not trust me. Therefore, the relationship obviously didn't last.

I learned the hard way the difference between the two kinds of Doms. Good Doms will ALWAYS look out for their subs, and I know that's my position now.

ADDED IN EDIT:

And on another note, the religion thing peaked my interest. I, too, was raised in a deeply religious household, where my mother and father always taught me to respect myself, respect my instincts and KNOW myself most of all, and use the morality that had been instilled within me to nurture myself and the people I loved. I'm not a sub becuase I'm a Christian, I just happen to be a Christian sub. So it's good to see other religious people here. Comforting, really.

 

[cati]

I appreciate your sharing your experience with us satindesire. I admire your strength...hugs.

 

[satindesire]

I appreciate your sharing your experience with us satindesire. I admire your strength...hugs.

Thank you!! I really do appreciate that a lot.

 

[Pure]

thanks, satin, for setting out your story

it helps the discussion.

If I may confirm an impression:

When you say,
...But as I've said before in other threads, there's a difference between a Domineering person and a Dominant person. My ex was Domineering, not controlling in a way to help me. He was controlling in a cruel way, in no way did any of his actions have my best interests at heart. He had no respect for me, and he did not trust me. Therefore, the relationship obviously didn't last.

You are then saying that your present "Dom" controls in a way that helps you.
And does not control cruelly.
And takes his actions with your best interests at heart.
He respects you.
He trusts you.

To summarize. He is--had been made--a benevolent authority and compassionate director of your life.

Correct?

Would his exercize of that authority be, or not be, sexually arousing *for him.*? or simply yield a more general sense of personal gratification/satisfaction?

Best,

J.

 

[Pure]

a reference

hi cati,
perhaps you or others are aware of experiment showing that the prolonged, extreme conditions precipating "Stockholm Syndrone" are not necessary to induce a compliant state; and there need be no threats to life, or of grave bodily harm. indeed, the door, so to say, may be left open [to allow leaving, upon request].

there was a thread a while back (2003) on the zimbardo experiments, with some links, which might interest you or others.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=156614

in particular, look at posting #10, dated 3-09 from "lark sparrow."

 

[RJMasters]

RJ Masters said 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.


Ok point taken RJ. Lets put this "cruelty" thing on a continuum for a minute.
He "the bully" who "dominates by brute strength" is at the very bottom. However I'm not too keen on this definition, unless your talking about big horned sheep.

He who dominates by consent is not a bully, since he appears more civilized and practises sadism within legal boundaries. Lets put him at the other end of the continuum.

So what's left in the middle.....the GREY area.


Now, do sadists and I mean "true" sadists, care whether or not they hurt their partners? I doubt it. Do they, just as a bully might, derive some sort of perverted pleasure from their actions ...absolutely. Does he care? He may only care enough to ask if the "bottom" masochist understands that he is a sadist and what the term means.
Do they (the sadist) need to get "hard" to prove that they are enjoying themselves...of course not.
IMHO just as a true blue masochist would have no problem taking whatever the sadist doles out for the duration of their partnership (scene),perhaps Mrs. Norman reached a point that she didn't want to "play" the part of the masochist any longer and so she shot the bastard.

Cati,

Where would I put Mrs. Norman? I certainly would not put her in the submissive category, and to say she was a masochist would be only a guess.

Here is the problem as I see it.

Mr. Norman could very well be one example of what a "true-sadist" is. Meaning the classical sense or definition, the question though is....is sadism practiced in the classic sense deemed accepted in the D/s BDSM culture?

To answer that question "no" there is then somewhere a line that is drawn that distinguishes classic sadism with sadism that is practice. That line is not necessarily the same for each person, however I and others have raise valid points in how this line is drawn.

What is being postulated is that we are but mere victims of our impulses and urges. We cannot help being the sadist or the masochist, dominant or submissive that we are. And what is being pointed at to prove that this is true is a fucked-up reality of the Normans, and the general acknowledgement that "unhealthy-BDSM" relationships exists. Because these realities exist, are we expected to then accept these realities and then draw conclusions about our own nature based upon them?

You see what is being carefully avoided here is an acknowledgement of personal responsibility to shape one's own direction and reality in life. We are not victims, we are beings capable of "self-control". Further, dominants and sadists are required to be self-controlled, because they are the one's leading or in control. Those that are following them or under their authority are the ones who end up facing the consequences, either good or bad. That is why it is considered a position of trust.

What do you say to a person who says, they do not wish acknowledge the responsibility that goes along with being a sadist or a dominant? What does it say about the person who claims that consent is a skirtable issue or that they have adopted such a fuzzy view of consent that it is a useless means of checking what they will or won't do to someone else? Further more, in the pursuit of self gratification, it is encourage to take an amoral view.

Can there be any doubt that such a person will not shape their destiny towards a reality that is similar to the Norman's reality?

My beef here and why I have been so blunt, is because I think it is wrong to look at unhealthy realities, and then draw comparisons and similarities in order to justify the path of least resistance or use them as some sort of victimized excuse of human behavioralism. The truth is, Marquis, Pure or I are responsible as men for our own realities, regardless of other people's realities.

"I choose" whether I will or will not operate with clear consent. To choose to act when consent is not clear....IS A DECISION. And there are consequences to such decisions or non-decisions.

"I choose" whether or not I will act from a moral or immoral or amoral perspective. The decisions I make will affect the reality I live. Because of the nature of consent and moral code of behavior, my decisions regarding these will also affect the realities of others whom I act with. It is irresponsible and immature to think otherwise.

No it is not always black and white, but IT DOES MATTER "how" you choose to face these things.

So no its not a matter of not being willing or being afraid to look deeper inside myself, it a matter that I take responsibility for who I am, have made responsible decsions in how I will express that, and it is for that reason I distinguish myself from a fuckhead like Mr. Norman. It is a mistake to think that because I choose to operate behind the line of consent that many of my fantasies would not rival some of the things Mr. Normal did. I accept that in doing or acting on such could earn me up to 20 to life in prison. I don't share them publicly and rarely privately to even my most trusted of friends.

Male Dominants love to talk about bringing out the beast in themselves and some submissives becoming "feral" during extreme play.

A valid and good point.

As to your spectrum analogy...I disagree. The grey area is not the middle ground, it is the ground that shrinks or grows in proportion to one assuming personal responsibility for their own reality. It is why self-control is widely accepted as an important trait of a Domme/Dom or practising Sadist in BDSM.

 

[cati]

Mr. Norman could very well be one example of what a "true-sadist" is. Meaning the classical sense or definition, the question though is....is sadism practiced in the classic sense deemed accepted in the D/s BDSM culture?

RJ come on, we both know that Mr. Norman isn't/wasn't a true sadist. My problem was with your equating being a bully with being a sadist. Lifestyle sadists aren't bully's.
Mr Norman was an alcoholic with a severe personality disorder. He may have been a dominant but not by "our" D/s standards, he was domineering and a whole lot of other things... and yes he bullied his wife.

To answer that question "no" there is then somewhere a line that is drawn that distinguishes classic sadism with sadism that is practice. That line is not necessarily the same for each person, however I and others have raise valid points in how this line is drawn.

There are many threads covering these same issues.

What is being postulated is that we are but mere victims of our impulses and urges. We cannot help being the sadist or the masochist, dominant or submissive that we are. And what is being pointed at to prove that this is true is a fucked-up reality of the Normans, and the general acknowledgement that "unhealthy-BDSM" relationships exists.
Because these realities exist, are we expected to then accept these realities and then draw conclusions about our own nature based upon them?

I don't think that is what has been suggested in earlier posts.

You see what is being carefully avoided here is an acknowledgement of personal responsibility to shape one's own direction and reality in life. We are not victims, we are beings capable of "self-control". Further, dominants and sadists are required to be self-controlled, because they are the one's leading or in control. Those that are following them or under their authority are the ones who end up facing the consequences, either good or bad. That is why it is considered a position of trust.

Absolutely.


What do you say to a person who says, they do not wish acknowledge the responsibility that goes along with being a sadist or a dominant? What does it say about the person who claims that consent is a skirtable issue or that they have adopted such a fuzzy view of consent that it is a useless means of checking what they will or won't do to someone else? Further more, in the pursuit of self gratification, it is encourage to take an amoral view.

There are people out there who do not wish to claim responsibility for another's actions. Even if they themselves are the instigators of said actions.
Remember RJ that masochists and submissives have a responsibility to look after themselves first and foremost. Trust or not it would be very foolish to put 100% faith in your partner.

Can there be any doubt that such a person will not shape their destiny towards a reality that is similar to the Norman's reality?

You don't seriously believe that do you? Sorry, but I think thats pure nonsense.

My beef here and why I have been so blunt, is because I think it is wrong to look at unhealthy realities, and then draw comparisons and similarities in order to justify the path of least resistance or use them as some sort of victimized excuse of human behavioralism.

I understand your not wishing to make a comparison, since it can be very uncomfortable for many people to realize that there may be some truth in the matter.
I too think it's wrong to look at these unhealthy realities to justify one's taking the path of least resistance, make excuses and not have to take responsibility for one's actions.
Do you realize just how common that is...look around you, it's practically human nature not to accept responsibility... why not blame the other guy.

I believe in the old adage to "know where you're going, you have to understand where you've been." In other words, to fully understand ourselves as "healthy" sexual beings we have to look at "our own" dark sides and in this case the dark side of others.

Did Mr. Norman or any one else here cry "victim"? if so I must have missed it.

To really and truly understand ones dominant or submissive nature I personally feel it's important to look at how deviant personalities develope.

The truth is, Marquis, Pure or I are responsible as men for our own realities, regardless of other people's realities.

In spite of "all" the arguments posted here I would hope that is true.


I choose" whether I will or will not operate with clear consent. To choose to act when consent is not clear....IS A DECISION. And there are consequences to such decisions or non-decisions.

True.

"I choose" whether or not I will act from a moral or immoral or amoral perspective. The decisions I make will affect the reality I live. Because of the nature of consent and moral code of behavior, my decisions regarding these will also affect the realities of others whom I act with. It is irresponsible and immature to think otherwise.

and maybe a wee bit narcissistic?

No it is not always black and white, but IT DOES MATTER "how" you choose to face these things.

I agree wholeheardedly.

As to your spectrum analogy...I disagree. The grey area is not the middle ground
Perhaps it would have been better if I asked "what's in between these two
points?"

I know there's a thread somewhere discussing/defining "safe, sane, consentual"
Perhaps it can be revisited.

 

[Marquis]

I know there's a thread somewhere discussing/defining "safe, sane, consentual"
Perhaps it can be revisited.

I'm sure there have been several, but here 's one I'm partial to.

 

[cati]

Thanks M, it sounds pretty good to me.

Even though I have read this thread from the beginning, can someone quickly refresh my memory and tell me where and when the issue of consent entered into the discussion?

Wouldn't it open a huge can of worms if someone suggested that Mrs. Norman gave consent to Mr. Norman to continue abusing her. That by merely staying in the relationship and not accepting help from the authorities (inclusive) she was in fact consenting to further abuse OR we could go the other way, just as Marquis stated in an earlier thread... "saying nothing (doing nothing) is not giving consent"

Pardon me if I seem confused.