Another Attempt at Abuse

[Netzach]

We're on the same page here. I recalled Marquis' idea and mentioned it here not because it was contentious, but because I thought it was pretty accurate.

I am also of the opinion that the destruction of essential personhood is not what we need to be about.

Interestingly, I was at a convention, and Midori gave a talk on humiliation play, and she was very serious about identifying core values and principles, and not tearing them to shreds. Yes, you can mess with a person's identity and dick with the things they hold dear, but don't rend them asunder.

The other thing that happens when you bump into these immutables isn't always abuse and breakdown of the person, but unintended humiliation of you, the top. Go ahead. Ride that bike across the frozen lake.

I can't be the only person to ever encounter epic fail. The dark abusive bad bad bad worry assumes success. A lot of people are really either strong or so flexible that your shit zooms back at you very swiftly off them. Weak isn't weak.

 

[ownedsubgal]

on the whole "love and care" thing: i think love can sometimes be the defining factor of abuse. example...causal Dominant partner takes you to the private home of total stranger he's briefly chatted up online and phone. stranger is described as sadist who will beat you in various ways until your partner comes to pick you up after a couple hours or so. you are left alone with big bubba in his scary dungeon. that's mean, but wouldn't strike my core enough to be emotionally or mentally abusive.

but the love of your life, who claims to love you just as much, doing the same thing? that's when you start questioning things, when the confusion starts, when your head and heart are totally screwed with, and what makes the same situation abusive, imo.

 

[Ravenwind]

There's a practice known as bride stealing... Stockholm syndrome...

I think we'd still agree that this sort of behaviour is abuse.

I am not arguing that what we kinked people do is necessarily abusive or wrong. I do it, and I plan to continue. But it is undoubtedly very close to, geared to the same primitive drives and needs as, some behaviours which clearly are abusive.

Agreed... But I'm certain after that first rape the bride or abductee is mentally, if not physically, pushing the rapist away, and certainly takes no pride or joy in what's happening to them. At that point, it is indeed abuse. ...Is it still, after they have become conditioned to accept it? Yes, because they are no longer in control of themselves enough to acknowledge how much it is hurting them, nor are they in their right mind enough to tell the difference between "what brings them pleasure and fulfills their wants" and "what they have been led to believe they need". When that sort of control is stripped from a person either coersively or forcefully (as opposed to being willingly and wholeheartedly given as a sign of trust and/or love), therein lies the difference.

 

[eastern sun]

on the whole "love and care" thing: i think love can sometimes be the defining factor of abuse. example...causal Dominant partner takes you to the private home of total stranger he's briefly chatted up online and phone. stranger is described as sadist who will beat you in various ways until your partner comes to pick you up after a couple hours or so. you are left alone with big bubba in his scary dungeon. that's mean, but wouldn't strike my core enough to be emotionally or mentally abusive.

but the love of your life, who claims to love you just as much, doing the same thing? that's when you start questioning things, when the confusion starts, when your head and heart are totally screwed with, and what makes the same situation abusive, imo.

First, this totally resonates with my experience of abuse. But it also brings up a semantic issue that feels relevant to the conversation.

There is a difference between the verb, "to abuse," and the noun, "abuse."

You can abuse something once or twice, without developing any long-term relationship that would lead to a chronic pattern of abuse with its potentially devastating effects.

It seems relevant to the discussion, because certain abusive activities/behavior can be tolerated for short periods. Other, milder activities repeated over a long period of time might destroy someone.

If the verb is within the PYL's domain, the noun is in the pyl's. What do you think? Does that then mean that the pyl is responsible for letting it become destructive?

 

[Homburg]

The other thing that happens when you bump into these immutables isn't always abuse and breakdown of the person, but unintended humiliation of you, the top. Go ahead. Ride that bike across the frozen lake.

I can't be the only person to ever encounter epic fail. The dark abusive bad bad bad worry assumes success. A lot of people are really either strong or so flexible that your shit zooms back at you very swiftly off them. Weak isn't weak.

No, you are not alone there. And, yes, it comes right back to you when you do something like that.

Do not want.

--

First, this totally resonates with my experience of abuse. But it also brings up a semantic issue that feels relevant to the conversation.

There is a difference between the verb, "to abuse," and the noun, "abuse."

You can abuse something once or twice, without developing any long-term relationship that would lead to a chronic pattern of abuse with its potentially devastating effects.

It seems relevant to the discussion, because certain abusive activities/behavior can be tolerated for short periods. Other, milder activities repeated over a long period of time might destroy someone.

If the verb is within the PYL's domain, the noun is in the pyl's. What do you think? Does that then mean that the pyl is responsible for letting it become destructive?

This is quite relevant, aye. Especially the bolded part. I have no specific response to it other than, yeah, it made me think. Waiting now to see if those thoughts bear fruit.

Thank you.

 

[Netzach]

First, this totally resonates with my experience of abuse. But it also brings up a semantic issue that feels relevant to the conversation.

There is a difference between the verb, "to abuse," and the noun, "abuse."

You can abuse something once or twice, without developing any long-term relationship that would lead to a chronic pattern of abuse with its potentially devastating effects.

It seems relevant to the discussion, because certain abusive activities/behavior can be tolerated for short periods. Other, milder activities repeated over a long period of time might destroy someone.

If the verb is within the PYL's domain, the noun is in the pyl's. What do you think? Does that then mean that the pyl is responsible for letting it become destructive?

This is really food for thought. As I'm interpreting it, I do things that are abuse/abusive to H.

But I feel bound not to do things that are abusive to the relationship. An abusive relationship. Abuse in a relationship. Maybe this is the distinction.

 

[ownedsubgal]

An abusive relationship. Abuse in a relationship. Maybe this is the distinction.

hmm. this is interesting...abuse in a relationship, for some folks, perfectly acceptable and good. an abusive relationship, the line has been permanently crossed.

 

[Netzach]

hmm. this is interesting...abuse in a relationship, for some folks, perfectly acceptable and good. an abusive relationship, the line has been permanently crossed.

I guess I see "an abusive relationship" as one that is characterized overwhelmingly by the abuse, the pussy eating every week for you! kind of relationship, where abuse is not a strategic pushing of boundaries, but the only response the abuser has in their toolkit - I guess "overuse". Abuse is also, often, a reactionary stance. The abusive actions of a Dominant are usually not taken up fearfully.

Your owner may have the right to do all and sundry 24/7 should he choose, but there are things that will just get damn tiresome for both of you, probably, if done to the point where significance is lost to routine.

 

[BiBunny]

Abuse in moderation, then?

 

[YourCaptor]

This reminds me of Marquis' idea that it not abuse until the pyl leaves the PYL. He caught some heat for that one.

I didn’t like that one. Problem is when it comes to stay or leave in a relationship its not as simple as cost and reward. 2 other factors go into it, how much the person has already invested, and if they see alternative relationships (including being alone), as more or less rewarding. The more someone has invested, such as kids, marriage, same house, etc, the less likely they are to leave even if they pay a high cost. Also if they see all other situations as being worse then what they have, they will also not leave. Hence you get those that are in obvious abusive relationships who stay. Thats why I don’t like that one.

When it comes to individual acts though, I think things are less complicated. Thats why abused people often run away for the night and spend it with someone they trust. That’s why I’m thinking that may work to see if an act was good abuse or bad abuse.

Abuse
* Abuse is not negotiated
* Abuse is an out of control environment
* Abuse does not have safe words
* An abuser does not give a damn about the victim
* Abuse is always one sided
* Abuse is never negotiated.
* In abuse, no one is enjoying the results
* The abuser is into non consensual violence
* The victim has no respect towards the abuser
* In abuse the victim is harmed
* In abuse both parties are left unfulfilled
* The abuser always feel they are superior
* A person does not ask for abuse
* In an abusive relationship there is no trust
* The abuser does not care for consent
* Abuse has no trust
* Abuse destroys self esteem
* An abuser destroys the spirit of the victim

Now the above is *not* a list I composed. Rather, I got it from the site of a local BDSM club. I bolded the couple of points I think are the most important.

I’m not a fan of how the community does things.

Bonobos are also close relatives and they tend to fuck around for social dominance AND social cohesion.

I love bonobos, BDSM monkeys they are. Did you know they are matriarchal. Possibly the secret to empowering women could be the total free availability of sex at all times. It totally chills those male bonobos, apparently they have no more motive for trying to take charge.

Also I think they are "the" closest, they are genetically just as close as chimps, but bonobos do things much more closely to how humans do things.

secondly, i'd define abuse generally as the intent to cause real psychological, emotional, or physical harm to another. also i think it needs to happen repeatedly over the course of time...a one-time thing which both parties are able to move past, i would not label as abuse.

I think its possible for a PYL to intend harm while all still remains as it should.

For example, what if the whole point of a specific activity is to cause harm.

on the whole "love and care" thing: i think love can sometimes be the defining factor of abuse. example...causal Dominant partner takes you to the private home of total stranger he's briefly chatted up online and phone. stranger is described as sadist who will beat you in various ways until your partner comes to pick you up after a couple hours or so. you are left alone with big bubba in his scary dungeon. that's mean, but wouldn't strike my core enough to be emotionally or mentally abusive.

but the love of your life, who claims to love you just as much, doing the same thing? that's when you start questioning things, when the confusion starts, when your head and heart are totally screwed with, and what makes the same situation abusive, imo.

I don’t see it, I think the first is far more abusive.

Abuse in a relationship. Maybe this is the distinction.

But where is that switchover. How do you identify it it.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I think its possible for a PYL to intend harm while all still remains as it should.

For example, what if the whole point of a specific activity is to cause harm.

i agree, but it may still be abuse. that's why my position has always been that for some people, in some relationships, abuse is okay. why the assumption by the masses that abuse is never warranted, needed, desired, and something one can willingly consent to?

I don’t see it, I think the first is far more abusive.

i just have to disagree with you on that one. for me, a casual partner, someone with whom i have no emotional ties, treating me in such a manner would not feel like abuse, it would just feel like life being life (maybe that's the pessimist/depressive in me). but that treatment from a loved one would chip away at my spirit.

abuse will always be subjective, tho.

 

[Homburg]

i just have to disagree with you on that one. for me, a casual partner, someone with whom i have no emotional ties, treating me in such a manner would not feel like abuse, it would just feel like life being life (maybe that's the pessimist/depressive in me). but that treatment from a loved one would chip away at my spirit.

abuse will always be subjective, tho.

Exactly why I gave a subjective answer initially. Abuse must be looked at in context.

 

[YourCaptor]

i agree, but it may still be abuse. that's why my position has always been that for some people, in some relationships, abuse is okay. why the assumption by the masses that abuse is never warranted, needed, desired, and something one can willingly consent to?

But even in relationships in which abuse is ok, their is also abuse that is not ok. How do you see the difference, that's what I want to find out.

i just have to disagree with you on that one. for me, a casual partner, someone with whom i have no emotional ties, treating me in such a manner would not feel like abuse, it would just feel like life being life (maybe that's the pessimist/depressive in me). but that treatment from a loved one would chip away at my spirit.

abuse will always be subjective, tho.

Hmm... see this is exactly what I'm talking about.

For you it seems that this situation is abusive, no way around that.

For another it is positive abuse.

What makes the difference.

At the moment it seem that it is the pyls impression that is the variable, which I wish it wasn't cause then I could get it in my hands.

 

[eastern sun]

At the moment it seem that it is the pyls impression that is the variable, which I wish it wasn't cause then I could get it in my hands.

I think the only way you as the PYL have total certainty is simply not to do the abusive action in the first place. And, of course, that is not the point, is it?

It's why trust is so crucial in these relationships, and/or parameters and limits are so clearly drawn. You, as PYL, have to trust your pyl not to cry abuse.

 

[eastern sun]

My husband wants me to add that the pyl can be abusive, too.

 

[Homburg]

My husband wants me to add that the pyl can be abusive, too.

Yes though the abuse is usually more in the emotional arena.

 

[ZRT]

Yes though the abuse is usually more in the emotional arena.

Yeeeeeeeeeeep.

My first one had me spinning myself in circles. I was new to the concept of being able to really enjoy myself, and she had me jumping through friggin' hoops.

Not strong abuse, by my lights, but the whole thing left me feeling utterly shitty.

 

[Homburg]

Yeeeeeeeeeeep.

My first one had me spinning myself in circles. I was new to the concept of being able to really enjoy myself, and she had me jumping through friggin' hoops.

Not strong abuse, by my lights, but the whole thing left me feeling utterly shitty.

Yes, this.

 

[SimonBrooke]

This is also core to my definition. One time thing, and it doesn't happen again? Probably not abuse. Intent to cause actual harm in some way, and repeated over the course of time? Probably abuse.

secondly, i'd define abuse generally as the intent to cause real psychological, emotional, or physical harm to another. also i think it needs to happen repeatedly over the course of time...a one-time thing which both parties are able to move past, i would not label as abuse.

Sorry to go back to steps in the conversation but I really don't buy this. If one abuses through ignorance, insensitivity or carelessness, it's still definitely abuse, in my book. I don't think 'but I didn't mean it' is an excuse.

This is really food for thought. As I'm interpreting it, I do things that are abuse/abusive to H. But I feel bound not to do things that are abusive to the relationship. An abusive relationship. Abuse in a relationship. Maybe this is the distinction.

OK, let's hang onto that, I think that's useful. It lets us say that taking a whip to someone is abuse (which on some level it clearly is), but doesn't mean the relationship is abusive.

Thats why abused people often run away for the night and spend it with someone they trust. That’s why I’m thinking that may work to see if an act was good abuse or bad abuse.

And this distinction, too. For my slave, taking a belt to her is 'good abuse'; ordering her to have sex with a third party would be 'bad abuse'. I'm sure there are other pyls for whom it would be exactly the other way around.

I think its possible for a PYL to intend harm while all still remains as it should.

For example, what if the whole point of a specific activity is to cause harm.

Well, again, trivially, using belt on her causes harm; she bruises. If you take a belt to someone you intend that. But if you intend 'bad abuse' and fail, it seems to me you're just as bad as if you had succeeded.

 

[YourCaptor]

I think the only way you as the PYL have total certainty is simply not to do the abusive action in the first place. And, of course, that is not the point, is it?

It's why trust is so crucial in these relationships, and/or parameters and limits are so clearly drawn. You, as PYL, have to trust your pyl not to cry abuse.

I'm not worried about legality at this point. If I broke a sweat every time I broke the law, well... that would be just gross.

I'm more worried about flexing the Dom thing too far and crushing her before I know whats what.

It sucks when you yourself are the greatest threat to the one you protect.

 

[eastern sun]

I'm not worried about legality at this point. If I broke a sweat every time I broke the law, well... that would be just gross.

I'm more worried about flexing the Dom thing too far and crushing her before I know whats what.

It sucks when you yourself are the greatest threat to the one you protect.

If you're paying attention to her, you will learn how far you can go. There isn't one line for every person. There isn't even one line for every relationship. The things people can tolerate shift and change from month to month, and year to year, depending on a number of factors.

You will probably cross the line if you hang around long enough, and do everything you ever wanted to do. If her behavior towards you changes. If she becomes less confident, more flighty, more frightened, you should probably back off, talk to her and find out what's going on, if you don't know already.

Most people know when they're doing something harmful. They just develop elaborate rationalizations to protect themselves from seeing it. We could all be here helping you with your rationalizations for all we know. You're the only one who knows for sure what you're doing.

The fact that you don't want to crush someone is probably a good sign, in my opinion. Since you don't want to go too far, you will probably keep your eyes open, and be less likely to continue putting pressure where it looks like collapse is imminent.

We talk a lot about sub frenzy. Is there such a thing as dom frenzy? Where you get so excited by the exercise of power that you lose your better judgement?

 

[Homburg]

Sorry to go back to steps in the conversation but I really don't buy this. If one abuses through ignorance, insensitivity or carelessness, it's still definitely abuse, in my book. I don't think 'but I didn't mean it' is an excuse.

I am driving and my pyl is with me in the car. I am not paying attention, and hit the car in front of me. My pyl is injured in the accident. My carelessness brought about her injury, thus, in your book, I have abused her.

I am investing our money in the market. I make a poor choice because I didn't do the research, and the stocks I choose tank, causing both of us to lose money. My ignorance has caused her harm, thus, in your book, I have abused her.

I am watching TV, and it is a particularly engrossing show. She comes in feeling down and unloved and whimpers a bit. I half hear it, but don't respond because she's been told time and again to verbalise her needs. She wanders off, feeling hurt because I didn't comfort her. My insensitivity caused her harm, thus, in your book, I have abused her.

I cannot possibly imagine a relationship what would not be abusive with those sort of guidelines.

--

We talk a lot about sub frenzy. Is there such a thing as dom frenzy? Where you get so excited by the exercise of power that you lose your better judgement?

The rest of your advice is spot-on, but I wanted to comment on this. Simply put - yes, there is. I've seen it, and been in it. It's not quite the same thing, as it is not as driven by the biochemistry of endorphins, excess of potassium, etc, but it can still be an irresponsible, power-mad trip.

 

[eastern sun]

The fact that you don't want to crush someone is probably a good sign, in my opinion. Since you don't want to go too far, you will probably keep your eyes open, and be less likely to continue putting pressure where it looks like collapse is imminent.

I had another thought about this standing in front of the deli counter. . .

A lot of pyls want to be pushed to the point of collapse. They want to feel the whole internal structure fall apart. I've talked a lot about it myself.

Even to the point where those core fibers are touched and sent vibrating.

That does make it a bit tricky for the PYL.

The tender aftercare that has become part of the BDSM lexicon is meant to address this, though it isn't a formula that we follow in our own relationship.

 

[SimonBrooke]

I am driving and my pyl is with me in the car. I am not paying attention, and hit the car in front of me. My pyl is injured in the accident. My carelessness brought about her injury, thus, in your book, I have abused her.

I am investing our money in the market. I make a poor choice because I didn't do the research, and the stocks I choose tank, causing both of us to lose money. My ignorance has caused her harm, thus, in your book, I have abused her.

I am watching TV, and it is a particularly engrossing show. She comes in feeling down and unloved and whimpers a bit. I half hear it, but don't respond because she's been told time and again to verbalise her needs. She wanders off, feeling hurt because I didn't comfort her. My insensitivity caused her harm, thus, in your book, I have abused her.

I cannot possibly imagine a relationship what would not be abusive with those sort of guidelines.

Context? What context?

This is not a conversation about driving cars or investing money. This is a conversation about surfing that space which lies between someone else's comfort zone and her hard limits - including hard limits she doesn't yet know she has. Now it's conceivable that there is a sub out there who has special needs around the issues of cars or money, but I have no experience of such people and can't comment. As far as I'm concerned the moral issues around driving cars and investing money are exactly the same for people in a BDSM relationship as in any other relationship, so they are by definition outwith the scope of this conversation.

When you engage in dominant sexual behaviour to someone else, you are deliberately putting her at perceived risk of something she fears. It may be pain; it may be humiliation; it may be exposure; it may be some form of penetrative intimacy. How real the risk has to be in order to have the desired effect depends on the the pyl and the nature of the relationship. But (in my opinion) the PYL is responsible for the risk to which he exposes the pyl. If she gets harmed to a degree she can't handle then he has failed. Again, in my opinion.

If through your negligence you crash a car and injure someone, the fact that you didn't intend to does not absolve you of responsibility for the consequences. If through negligence you push someone sufficiently beyond her hard limits that she suffers emotional or psychological trauma, or if you break some of her bones or rupture some of her organs, then again the fact that you didn't intend to does not absolve you of responsibility.

So where's the difference between 'abuse' and just 'irresponsibility'?

The pyl places herself into your hands implicitly (or, often, explicitly) trusting that you will be there with the safety net - that you will push her out on the tightrope but you will not let her fall. Failing in that trust is abuse - in my opinion.

And we push our pyls out of their comfort zones as much for us to get our rocks off as for them to get their's. Yes, ideally the benefit is mutual. But it's not you or me who is bound and naked and helpless. It's not you or me who is vulnerable in that sense (although as you and Netzach have acknowledged we may be vulnerable in other ways). We're in control, and with that control comes responsibility. And failing to properly exercise that responsibility is abuse - again, in my opinion.

Oh, and the television example? Well, if half an hour later you get up off the couch and find she's cut herself or drunk the toilet bleach or hung herself, then yes, it was abuse - you should not have been playing with her at all if you didn't know she was that vulnerable, and if you did know she was that vulnerable then you should have been alert to the danger signs. But if she's just sulking in the bedroom, I imagine you have strategies to deal with that - I certainly have.

 

[ownedsubgal]

But even in relationships in which abuse is ok, their is also abuse that is not ok. How do you see the difference, that's what I want to find out.



Hmm... see this is exactly what I'm talking about.

For you it seems that this situation is abusive, no way around that.

For another it is positive abuse.

What makes the difference.

At the moment it seem that it is the pyls impression that is the variable, which I wish it wasn't cause then I could get it in my hands.

as for there being abuse that's okay and abuse that's not okay...i'm not sure i make that distinction in my head. the way i view it, my Master has the right to abuse me. that doesn't come with any buts or exceptions, he just has that right and i accept it.

but what i'm getting from you YC is that basically you don't want a broken and emotionally/mentally downtrodden submissive on your hands, you want to avoid causing that state in someone. like eastern sun, i think that just the very fact that you care or think about this at all signals to me that you are not highly likely to be crossing those lines in the first place.

Daddy does not want a completely broken slave on his hands either...he loves me and wants me to always be able to eventually bounce back from whatever he subjects me to. and i think that would probably be his guideline...if he does X, forces me to endure Y, will i be able to smile and laugh as he holds me in his arms two days later ? a day of suffering and despair he finds acceptable...but by the end of day two...love and fuzzy feelings should have crept back in to build me back up.

and you're right, it is the "pyls" (gosh i hate that one!) impression that is the defining distinction there.