A case study in power, control and abuse

[Pure]

Threads about consent.

They are numerous, but here are a few based on interesting examples or real cases:

etoile's on castration arrests
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=426056

quint's thread on consensual
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=100659

cat's on tpe ethics

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=227468

rosco's on rape

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=262577

posie's on nonconsensual abuse

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=279124
-----

pure's :

on miewes
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=225273

on consent, with examples in postings #1 and #7, Spanner #17

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=423490

 

[Pure]

reply to cati

hi! you said

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.

P: You seem to have answered your own question. Just as one may parallel and compare Mr. Norman with a Dom, one may parallel Mrs. N with (various kinds of) a sub, particularly as regards 'training,' as regards her consent or lack thereof, etc.

---
As to:
C: 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

P: Yes, that would be can of worms, since it makes the preconditions for "consent" very weak. Further the issue of exclusions comes up, i.e., you don't 'consent' when you do something out of fear for your life, as caused by someone's threats.

Absent a bunch of exclusions, continued 'presence' or continued 'showing up' [at the partner's apartment] and the occurrence of sex does suggest a kind of generalized consent. At any rate, consider an alleged rape of B by A on a given day.

Example 1: B has shown up at A's apartment and had sex ten times on ten days, before the given day.

Example 2. B shows up at A's apartment on ten more days spanning several weeks after the given day, and sex occurs without any objections.

Neither of these decisively show that rape did not occur, but they would be devastating, if not fatal, in a prosecution for rape.

As to
C: we could go the other way, just as Marquis stated in an earlier thread... "saying nothing (doing nothing) is not giving consent"

P: Marquis is right in some obvious cases, e.g. when you're drunk and passed out.

Forcing yourself on a woman who says nothing, but resists is rape.
Forcing yourself, at knife point, on a woman who says nothing and does NOT resist, is rape.

However, Suppose the sequence is this and both of us are sane and sober and no threats have been made.

I say, "unless you object, i'm going to undress you." on hearing no objection, i proceed. I say, "unless you object, i'm going to get undressed.' on hearing no objection, i proceed. I say, "unless you object, i am going to fuck you." i hear no objection, and i proceed.

Has there been a rape? Did silence mean consent?

 

[satindesire]

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?

You know, he's at work right now and I wish I could ask him personally, but I'm guessing it's probably both. I know that when he asks me to do things for him like wear certain things for him, or make dinner, he often is very aroused and affectionate afterwards. So I think it's probably pretty fullfilling in a personal gratitude sense, and in an sexual way.

I hope that makes sense. >_<

I know he has very strong paternal, protective, and posessive feelings towards me, as well. And some things he's asked me to do I haven't wanted to, or felt like it wasn't necessary, but I do them anyway. I'm not meaning to say he's never asked me to do something distasteful, because he HAS, I'm saying he's never done anything cruel to me.

I wanted to make that clear just in case you were drawing some kind of conclusion otherwise.

 

[cati]

Pure you asked... Has there been a rape? Did silence mean consent?

Yes, in your example it means consent.

Now, I'm going to tell you about an incident that occurred when I was in my twenties. This may raise a few eyebrows.
A girlfriend and I were in a club. We met her Boss and his friend while there.
Although we had a couple of drinks I was sober and clearminded. Later on, I went back to the friend's apartment where we shared a drink. Eventually he carried me into the bedroom where we proceeded to have sex. I told him several times albeit half heartedly that "I really didn't want to do this" but I didn't fight him off in any way shape or form. Afterwards he apologized for what he had done, knowing that "I really hadn't wanted to have sex".

Was it rape. Yes, by todays standards a "date rape" A definition I still have difficulty accepting. Nevertheless, I barely knew the guy, and "maybe" knew that he wanted to get laid, yet I thought that I could handle it...shoot I just wanted to make out for a bit. Of course in hindsight I should have gone home when my girlfriend did.

Personally speaking I believe I gave consent to the possibility of sex by going back to his apartment alone with him and gave further consent by letting him carry me into the bedroom and then by not fighting him off when we were in his bedroom. I don't think I was a very enthusiastic partner.

So what if I said that I really didn't want to have sex. I shouldn't have put myself in that situation in the first place.
Being submissive, I was naturally complacent and delusional....chuckles (speaking for myself of course)

9/10 alcohol has played a roll in my history of one night stands. Again I'm going back twenty years or so. Also if the man was a dominant (of sorts) or in control, he usually had his way with me and I was very eager to please.
Gawd but I hated being called a "slut" or "easy" (so not fair) when all I actually was ...was submissive.

Comments always welcome.

 

[Pure]

Gawd i wish i'd met more of you 'easy' women back then!

Your illustrations show that even for straight sex, short encounters, 'consent' is not always so clear. Some alleged 'date rates' being one example.

I recall a similar instance in those halcyon days. A friend came to town for some reason and needed a place for the night. I said she could stay in my coop. In my room. But as she quickly saw, there was just one bed, but she accepted that with grace. I managed, with minor cooperation to get her clothes off. She then physically rebuffed periodic attempts at intercourse over a few hours --while remaining nude in bed with me. But she was happy to do various 'lesser' things. IOW, she was content to 'make out' and didn't want --get this--to be unfaithful to hubby.

Was i guilty of attempted rape? I didn't escalate the force to overpower her, but some was used; and blocked. So that qualifies as assault. OTOH, was her remaining there nude for the night, consent? Surely she could have called a taxi and headed for a hotel.
(ADDED: And one might ask, was she guilty of adultery?)


==
All of these problems do not even embrace relationship issues, where parties have learned each others strengths and weaknesses and have ways of getting what they want. The "desire" to please one's mate is often so strong; perhaps more in women. As you say, in labeling yourself "sub", this may effectively negate consent, which requires autonomy and willingness to give up the relationship.

Were we to have another case of grave neglect and belligerence, but no physical abuse, the parallels would be clearer. The hubby who emotionally berates his spouse, and in a pinch suggests she's crazy, while he 'does his thing' (e.g. has a girl friend, or ten--take Tony Soprano) A degree of 'emotional battery' of wives is a common as dirt. And there are parallels with what happens to the thousands of self-said subs--some of those in this forum--whose relationships are onerous and painful for them (in nonerotic ways!).

 

[Marquis]

Pure, you dog.

 

[cati]

Halcyon days...that's funny...chuckles.


As you say, in labeling yourself "sub", this may effectively negate consent, which requires autonomy and willingness to give up the relationship.

That's an interesting comment Pure, now let me take a minute to understand what you meant by it *s

Was the lady guilty of adultery? Not quite, as there was no "penetration" of her person, mind or soul. (I think I'm joking.)

 

[Pure]

hi cati,
here is a clarification, in case you wanted it

Also if the man was a dominant (of sorts) or in control, he usually had his way with me and I was very eager to please.
Gawd but I hated being called a "slut" or "easy" (so not fair) when all I actually was ...was submissive.

The submissive you say, is 'eager to please'. In that case, he 'had his way.'

Where a need to please (or be loved, or whatever) is very strong (overpowering), then the woman will not see an alternative to giving in to whatever.

In simple terms, being too passive might take away the ability to consent meaningfully. In the case above, the fellow 'had his way.'

Were a dom to say, 'I must do X to you.' --be it whip you, have sex with another, etc.-- then if 'eagerness to please' trumps all other desires you will accept.

This is not unlike the abused wife who sees no alternative to staying.

I'm saying if some man says, "I want to do X" (shove tongue up your ass), a person needs a degree of autonomy to say, "I don't want that," and if the man says, "Bend over or else," she has to be ready to say, "You're putting everything in jeopardy." GIVEN that these events (refusal) could occur THEN, should she in fact say "Yes, do me," THAT is consent. it is exercize of a choice. it is an act of will, uncoerced by the compulsion to please (or whatever).

Now, someone will say, "I'm a natural pleaser; it's my nature always to do what pleases (any sane person). In particular, if I feel loved, I generally do whatever it takes to retain that love." So she says, "Pure, are you saying i dont consent or that my consent is not meaningful."

I reply: If "natural" mean "Inevitable", then 'yes.' If your 'natural' desire is so overpowering that you can't help but follow it, no matter how unwise or inadvisable, then there is--in moral terms-- no possibility to choose, hence to consent.

But is "natural" refers to a general pattern (with exceptions that make sense), then sure consent is genuine.

For example, the door-to-door salesman puts his foot in the door, after you say, "I don't need any brushes." You continue, "I have a good nature, and am almost always kind. I am an "easy sell," but your obnoxiousness is going to cause me to smash your foot or call the cops."

 

[Netzach]

I recall a similar instance in those halcyon days. A friend came to town for some reason and needed a place for the night. I said she could stay in my coop. In my room. But as she quickly saw, there was just one bed, but she accepted that with grace. I managed, with minor cooperation to get her clothes off. She then physically rebuffed periodic attempts at intercourse over a few hours --while remaining nude in bed with me. But she was happy to do various 'lesser' things. IOW, she was content to 'make out' and didn't want --get this--to be unfaithful to hubby.
==

Oh. Lesbian one night stand with a straight girl, who said anything about date rape?

 

[Netzach]

- 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

No to the first three, some of each to the last. If I didn't admint I'm shaped by the way men and women interrelate and what I personally think of that, I'd be lying.

 

[Never]

Marquis:
"He often forced defendant to sleep on the concrete floor of their home and on several occasions forced her to eat dog or cat food out of the dog or cat bowl."

What is the best dog food to feed one's sub? I hear Purina is the easiest on their bellies and gives their hair a healthy shine.

 

[RJMasters]

No to the first three, some of each to the last. If I didn't admint I'm shaped by the way men and women interrelate and what I personally think of that, I'd be lying.

Fair enough. Ty.

I guess an honest admission as well is that at times anger wells up inside of me too, though I have so many fail safeties in place where it comes to expressing anger through sadistic means. Mentaly though I find I have fewer hang-ups, and after one or two warnings, if one wishes to still push my buttons, its like painting a target on their heart and or mind.

Its part of my personality to lose control when I become angry. I have learned that to be true and so I have just made it a non-option for me. I guess its a fair admission then to say that yes "sometimes" my sadistic urges are triggered by anger, but I repress them. So it means they still exist, but they are just controlled.

Mr. Norman it would appear felt no need to control his anger...and is also why I would draw a distinction between him and me.

 

[cati]

Pure..I appreciate your explanation.

I'm only going to say that it's one thing being 20 years old and not knowing that you are naturally submissve (something I found out many, many years later by frequenting the D/s rooms online and then doing extensive research on the subject).
For example, I didn't stop for a moment and think..."well hey I'm naturally submissive and eager to please... so I'm not easy and not a slut, no matter what my behaviour may imply."
Today I'm quite proud of my slutty ways, but I only share "that" with one person.

Another point...not to argue anything you have said in your post.

Getting fucked by someone other than your spouse may imply adulterous behaviour to some, just as giving a blow job or lying naked with another man may seem adulterous to some people. It all depends on where you draw your own personal line.

Most men don't call it cheating or adultery since screwing another woman is just sex, nothing else involved... no head, no heart (or so they tell their wives).

Another point is this...
It's understood by nearly everyone who practices BDSM that you don't
whoop your partner if you are angry, just as a precautionary measure.

There really is no way around that issue, no matter how well one wishes to argue that point.

 

[Pure]

i was hoping you'd comment on my post #183, on the problem when 'natural' becomes 'can't do otherwise' and how that affects capacity to consent.

??

==
your above post sounds like you kneed another coffee. i don't think 'personal lines' count for much in adultery issues w. spouses. i think that Hillary's def, ensorsed by many women, is pretty good: penetration other than French kissing. But as you know most of us males in the end go with Bill's: [for the het case] no cock in pussy, no adultery.

 

[cati]

Geeze Pure I was hoping you wouldn't notice... goes back to post #183 to see if she can get the gist *s

 

[cati]

Pure, I went back and read your post, trying to understand what you've written and I'm not ashamed to admit that it's a little over my head and so... I'll have to leave the discussion right where it is...Sorry Bud, but my brain fries too easily.

 

[Pure]

i was somewhat verbose, but the point was,

depending on how you see this 'natural submissive' (a label you suggested applied to you), she may not be meaningfully consenting.
this would be just like Norman's wife.

IF "natural submission" means "cant help doing it, by nature", then this 'natural submissive', like N's wife, sees no viable alternatives. hence for her there are no choices. hence no consent.

 

[Marquis]

Careful how you word that.

No consent and blanket consent may appear very similar, conceptually, but one lands you in jail and the other does not.

 

[cati]

IF "natural submission" means "cant help doing it, by nature", then this 'natural submissive', like N's wife, sees no viable alternatives. hence for her there are no choices. hence no consent.


nice post Pure. but I don't know if that's really true, but please don't ask me why. I'm sure there are a whole lot of other things involved like poor self esteem etc.
Nevertheless I get the point you are trying to make.

I'm going to blame it all on Cosmo magazine, a rag that I began reading faithfully at the tender age of 16. A part of me no doubt felt sexually liberated and cool, while the real me felt used and misunderstood... ah well..live and learn eh?

I've kept wondering about the flinging of ashtrays in the Norman home. I mean how good is a drunk's aim?

 

[Never]

cati:
"It's understood by nearly everyone who practices BDSM that you don't
whoop your partner if you are angry, just as a precautionary measure.

There really is no way around that issue, no matter how well one wishes to argue that point."

Oh? I used to take my anger out on my s/o.

What's wrong with it?

Pure:
" IF "natural submission" means "cant help doing it, by nature", then this 'natural submissive', like N's wife, sees no viable alternatives. hence for her there are no choices. hence no consent."

We're all slaves to our nature.

That said, a person can see themselves as a natural submissive and still have limits to their submission. For example, the majority of those who see themselves as such would have little problem saying "No" to an order to kill someone. Likewise, just because a person considers themselves naturally submissive, doesn't mean they have to submit to everyone they meet.

To submit means to yield control. To be abused means to have control taken from you.

 

[RhymeFairy]

If I were her, I'd have gotten the gun, then gone in and told him I was leaving him. When he came for me I'd have shot him then. Then it would have been self defense.

I am thinking to her ... He was the one in power always.

So if she had gotten the gun. He would have told her ... let'me have it and she would have. May have even shot her. In these cases it is a cycle that tends to get worse and worse. Once the abuser does so much of the same, they wanna try new ways to demonstrate their power.

I think she did what she felt she had to do. That there truly was no other way out for her.

Just me ~

 

[Pure]

good points, never. i did talk about 'limits' for some 'naturals' in my previous post.

'slave to one's nature' is a kind of paradox, isn't it? for 'freedom' and 'authenticity' and 'self realization' are usually held to be a fulfillment of one's nature.

but i do see a difference. if a gay person does only gay sexual acts when he's sexual, because that's his nature, i see no problem saying he's gay. 'can't help it' doesn't matter. one might say he's compulsively gay, but so what.

but if a self styled 'submissive' person only does acts of submission, because that's her nature, and she 'can't help it' then her submission lacks the element of voluntariness; hence consent.

in cati's case, years back, if we suppose that whatever the man says, she will say 'yes', is that submission or just a blind 'going along with things' like a leaf in the wind. indeed we might say such a person, at least in the area of sex, hardly 'acts' at all; in fact they're totally passive in sex, i.e. on the receiving end of various acts by others.

i agree we can distinguish submitting to one from submitting to all. but surely cati's is more the latter (in the past).

so, ftsoa, i will say that the person who submits to only one cannot say that s/he is 'by nature' submissive. just as a person who is a 'follower' in only one situation--say, in the local volunteer fire department--and a leader in all others--say, a CEO, a general, a senator, church elder; all of these-- can hardly say he's a 'natural follower' or 'follower by nature.'

 

[cati]

Interesting points Pure.

 

[Marquis]

To submit means to yield control. To be abused means to have control taken from you.

I don't agree with that definition of abuse. It seems that the term "abuse" as we tend to use it here refers to a misuse of control yielded.

 

[Pure]

N: To submit means to yield control. To be abused means to have control taken from you.



M: I don't agree with that definition of abuse. It seems that the term "abuse" as we tend to use it here refers to a misuse of control yielded.

==

If you are actually, literally, enslaved, like the victims of Lake or Jamelske, then control is taken from you; or, putting it better, absolute power is exercized over you.

"abuse" is not that common a term in the law relating to adults, but it's roughly "mistreatment", like giving your spouse a black eye, hitting her with a stick etc. (these examples constitute 'battery')

often the goal is intimidation, as in the example of a nasty pimp. roughly, that's using fear to get someone to do something.

in that moment of successful intimidation (the other says, "OK, i'll do it.") one might say 'control has been taken from them' OR equally well, 'they have surrendered control [out of fear]"

i prefer the latter, since it helps explain why the woman doesn't run off, once she leaves for 'work'. i.e. i would say, 'she continues to surrender control' either because the fear continues, or because she can't see any alternatives.

[regarding the Norman case, i prefer to use the names, John Thomas Norman and Judy Ann Laws Norman]

so i would prefer to say Mr. John Norman, in his program of battery and intimidation, until his timely end, caused his wife, Judy Ann to abjectly and continuingly surrender all control.