Another Attempt at Abuse

[Homburg]

Context? What context?

The context, as I understood, was neutral to BDSM involvement. Obviously looking at it under the BDSM microscope is important, and generally contextual here, but the broadening of the definition lead to all sort and manner of non-BDSM activities being potential abuse.

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.

The read I'd gotten was that the discussion had broadened beyond the pure BDSM-only discussion into general relationship dynamics.

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.

Risk is risk. Driving a car is risk. Investing money is risk. Knifeplay is risk. Breathplay is risk. They are actually equivalent when the modifiers you are worried about are insensitivity, ignorance, and carelessness. While I agree that those three characteristics have no real place in a BDSM relationship, they are applicable in other places. Making a blanket assertion that they constitute abuse calls many other forms of risk-taking into question. This is why I made the examples I did. Reductio ad absurdum, perhaps *shrug*

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'?

Here you hit the meat of the matter. It is not abuse, it is neglect. The two are often conflated, and I believe that is what is going on here. Neglect and abuse may actually have the same sort of spirit-breaking consequences, but they get there by different paths. Neglect implies a more passive sort of harm. Neglect is allowing another to come to harm. Abuse connotes causing said harm.

Responsibility may be the same, certainly, but this is akin to confusing murder with manslaughter.

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.

Not in mine. Failing in that trust is just failing. Failing willfully may be abuse, and failing consistently very likely is.

The difference here is that I think a relationship can stand the occasional failure of competence. I don't think that *I* need to be perfect in order for what I do to not be abuse.

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.

We may not be naked and bound, but we are the ones who will be cooling our jets in a jail cell if that bottom decides to flake out and call John Law later. So don't think for a second that the top is not in a horrifically vulnerable position simply because we aren't tied down.

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.

Again, neglect, not abuse. Abuse may well be what got her to that state in the first place, as it generally takes a pattern of abuse to produce the sort of mental state that decides to drink the toilet bleach. So the neglect that pushed the final button was not the specific culprit.

 

[intothewoods]

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.

I've been thinking the same thing since reading this thread. I don't know how far I want to be pushed, but I definitely want to be outside of my comfort zone. And the lines of that zone are always changing. I agree it's tricky for the PYL.

There were times I kept saying to him recently, I'm in an abusive relationship. I'm a battered wife. I guess I was sort of joking, though I know it's not a funny topic. It just struck me that if a person were watching they would think this relationship is abusive. There's a fair share of hot sex, but there's no woo woo hit me baby sorta pain. It's pain and a healthy dose of fear. Whatever, I'm not complaining. It just struck me as interesting.

 

[Adakgirl]

I'll venture to say that when it comes out of anger and hate then it is abusive.

Crown me the Queen of oversimplification.

Excellent discussion.

 

[SimonBrooke]

OK, I'm not sure we're actually disagreeing very much.

Here you hit the meat of the matter. It is not abuse, it is neglect. The two are often conflated, and I believe that is what is going on here. Neglect and abuse may actually have the same sort of spirit-breaking consequences, but they get there by different paths. Neglect implies a more passive sort of harm. Neglect is allowing another to come to harm. Abuse connotes causing said harm.

Responsibility may be the same, certainly, but this is akin to confusing murder with manslaughter.

Ish.

When one drives a car one is not (normally) intending to injure one's passenger. When one takes a whip to a submissive, one does intend to injure her, but to a controlled degree that you believe she will (ultimately) appreciate. Negligently exceeding the extent of injury you did intend to cause is somewhat different than negligently causing an injury where you intended none.

This is recognised in law, too. If someone is killed in an attack in the course of a crime (for example robbery), that's murder (at least in the UK), regardless of whether killing was intended.

Not in mine. Failing in that trust is just failing. Failing willfully may be abuse, and failing consistently very likely is.

We all fail, from time to time. There probably needs to be some concept of 'best efforts' in here. It isn't necessarily negligent to fail. It's a matter of how much care was taken.

The difference here is that I think a relationship can stand the occasional failure of competence. I don't think that I need to be perfect in order for what I do to not be abuse.

That's actually a new and comforting thought to me. Obviously you're right, but I'm afraid I've always assumed that I did have to be.

We may not be naked and bound, but we are the ones who will be cooling our jets in a jail cell if that bottom decides to flake out and call John Law later.

This of course is true. Indeed, where I live, the pyl doesn't even need to complain to the law; if the law becomes aware of our activities I'm just as deep in trouble, because an adult who is deemed old enough to consent to sex is never deemed old enough to consent to being hit with a belt.

 

[Homburg]

OK, I'm not sure we're actually disagreeing very much.

Probably not. I wasn't particularly disagreeing with the concept, just the language. I am a bit of an arse about that, I admit.

When one drives a car one is not (normally) intending to injure one's passenger. When one takes a whip to a submissive, one does intend to injure her, but to a controlled degree that you believe she will (ultimately) appreciate. Negligently exceeding the extent of injury you did intend to cause is somewhat different than negligently causing an injury where you intended none.

Agreed, but I was just trying to make the point that risk is risk regardless of source. This is why I extended BDSM intentional risk taking to an example off every-day passive risk-taking.

This is recognised in law, too. If someone is killed in an attack in the course of a crime (for example robbery), that's murder (at least in the UK), regardless of whether killing was intended.

This has always bothered me. There are so many variants to these laws that it is confusing as hell. I've seen the charge "intentional manslaughter" before, and this really blew my head up. It bothers me that someone's negligence during a crime could cause a fatality and it gets bumped up to murder. I don't really understand the logic. Create a different degree of manslaughter or something, don't just lump someone in with willful murderers.

Our legal system does the same sort of thing. It's wacky. Then again, penal reform and court reform are two hot-buttons of mine.

We all fail, from time to time. There probably needs to be some concept of 'best efforts' in here. It isn't necessarily negligent to fail. It's a matter of how much care was taken.

That's actually a new and comforting thought to me. Obviously you're right, but I'm afraid I've always assumed that I did have to be.

I thought that might be the case. I have failed, and failed to the point where I did emotional harm to someone I love very much. Failed more than once in fact. I've not repeated those failures though, and assiduously stayed away from them. This is why I do not consider myself abusive.

This of course is true. Indeed, where I live, the pyl doesn't even need to complain to the law; if the law becomes aware of our activities I'm just as deep in trouble, because an adult who is deemed old enough to consent to sex is never deemed old enough to consent to being hit with a belt.

Same here, really. And this is yet again a hot-button issue of mine. It's okay for two boxers to get into a ring and pound the tar out of each other for the entertainment of howling fans, but two adults cannot consent to schwack one another in private for their own enjoyment?

 

[SimonBrooke]

It's okay for two boxers to get into a ring and pound the tar out of each other for the entertainment of howling fans, but two adults cannot consent to schwack one another in private for their own enjoyment?

Amen, brother.

I really do not understand this aspect of the law. What people do consensually to one another in private - provided of course that it is consensual - really should be of no interest to the law.

Of course, here in Scotland there genuinely is a problem with domestic abuse, which is extremely common - and the powers that be may genuinely feel that the edge between what is consensual-but-violent behaviour and what is violent-but-not-consensual may blur at times. Certainly a lot of battered wives/partners subsequently both refuse to give evidence against their abusers and/or return to them.

In a sense perhaps there is no difference. In a sense perhaps BDSM is wife-beating for the chattering classes, domestic abuse for the articulate and introspective. But at least if we're up front about it right from the start our partners know exactly what we expect of them, and what we plan to do to them.

 

[YourCaptor]

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.

I hate it too. So little control, the limit is all in the pyls head, but, the pyl doesn't even know what it is, they can only recognize it in the moment. Maybe some indirect priming can narrow the gray zones. But that kind of takes from the natural flow of it all.

There has got to be some way of telling though.

Hmm, maybe I'm just thinking about this too mechanically. After all, if you are committed for a long period of time, you can always have the pyl grow into it before you try it. Since so much of this is in the pyls hands, is preparation all that the PYL can do?

Got to think on that some more.

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.

You know in such a situation I view aftercare as rather cheap.

Don't get me wrong, its good to help the pyl back down from whatever heights they where at. But to bring them back to square one, nothings changed. That's not right.

It's also certainly not enough if bad abuse has just happened. Seems like it would only throw the pyl for another twist.

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?

Dom frenzy. Um, for me probably just a frenzy. There is the rare moment when I see what I am doing but it just does not click, I just want to go harder and harder.

You know that scene in fight club when he destroys the blond kids face. It's pretty close to that. Except the "I wanted to destroy something beautiful", excuse doesn't work with me. It's more of a, "I couldn't stop."

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I don't really have anything to say at this stage, just that this debate has given me food for thought, which is always a good thing.

*curls up with popcorn*

 

[Netzach]

Same here, really. And this is yet again a hot-button issue of mine. It's okay for two boxers to get into a ring and pound the tar out of each other for the entertainment of howling fans, but two adults cannot consent to schwack one another in private for their own enjoyment?

Someone needs to be the test case. This will be the mother of all test cases.

 

[Homburg]

In a sense perhaps BDSM is wife-beating for the chattering classes, domestic abuse for the articulate and introspective.

That's a frightening idea. But, like much of this thread, makes me think.

 

[rida]

A very interesting thread that gave me a lot to think about, so thank you!

If I may just put together some of the points that I found interesting and enlightening, here they are:

Netzach concept that the abuse should gauged from the relationship and not the acts in the relationship I think is very apt. Afterall, as many other pointed out, WIITWD is often illegal and considered "abuse" by the average vanilla Joe and Jane.

If the actions are so similar to abusive act, what makes a PYL/pyl relationship not abusive? Marquis comment that it is abusive when the pyl leaves, has its merit, but does not consider the most important factor, that many times the abused cannot leave. So I would say that an important aspect is, like SimonBrooke said, that the pyl knows what she/he is getting into from the start and agrees to it.

But what if in spite of it all, the PYL does something that indeed arm physically and/or psychologically the pyl? Intentionally or not, the fact that it is not a repeated action (Homburg) or done beyond the point that the pyl cannot recover within a couple of days (ownedsubgal) are indeed good distinctions.

As for aftercare (eastern_sun, YourCaptor) I think that it is both something good to help both the PYL and the pyl transition back but also something that could be used to bond and trap the pyl in an abusive relationship and make the PYL feel better about his abusive behaviour.
Afterall, what best way to make the pyl question her own boundaries and limits and negative reaction than having the PYL being all loving and caring? Pressing the "I love you, I need you" buttons is the way many abuser bind their victims.

My own temporary conclusion is that PYL/pyl relationships walk a very fine line. Abuse is indeed more often than not defined by the pyl's reaction, but the PYL has enough power that he could modify and train the desired reaction out of the pyl.

Ultimately, there seem not to be any easy guideline of action/behaviors for the PYL. The simple one of: is the pyl still usefull to the PYL, could also be questioned by the more extreme edge-players out there.

 

[eastern sun]

You know that scene in fight club when he destroys the blond kids face. It's pretty close to that. Except the "I wanted to destroy something beautiful", excuse doesn't work with me. It's more of a, "I couldn't stop."

I'd take a good long look at this, YC.

If the PYL can't control him/herself, there may be serious repercussions.

"I couldn't stop" would frighten me as a pyl. Maybe once, maybe even twice, it could be worked through. But if it's something that happens frequently, any pyl who gets involved with you should know what she's risking before you begin.

 

[YourCaptor]

I'd take a good long look at this, YC.

If the PYL can't control him/herself, there may be serious repercussions.

"I couldn't stop" would frighten me as a pyl. Maybe once, maybe even twice, it could be worked through. But if it's something that happens frequently, any pyl who gets involved with you should know what she's risking before you begin.

Ok bad wording, not an excuse, but an explanation.

It does happen rarely though. One of those out of body, watching yourself type things.

 

[Homburg]

As for aftercare (eastern_sun, YourCaptor) I think that it is both something good to help both the PYL and the pyl transition back but also something that could be used to bond and trap the pyl in an abusive relationship and make the PYL feel better about his abusive behaviour.
Afterall, what best way to make the pyl question her own boundaries and limits and negative reaction than having the PYL being all loving and caring? Pressing the "I love you, I need you" buttons is the way many abuser bind their victims.

I think this is why I don't consider aftercare to be important in the discussion of abuse or not-abuse. An awful lot of abusers know how to manipulate their victims bloody well, and aftercare is an excellent way to do this. Some cooing and cuddling and blandishments will go well when the victim is looking desperately for comfort after being ravaged in some way.

 

[Netzach]

Ok bad wording, not an excuse, but an explanation.

It does happen rarely though. One of those out of body, watching yourself type things.

I definitely have this tendency, too. I'd wager that a scene isn't really good, isn't really REALLY good unless I've made contact with The Creature. That doesn't mean I have to run up and embrace it. In fact, the fact that I can elect NOT to, is what has put me in touch with a sense of personal power more than the numbers of people who have entrusted themselves to my Sadist.

Experience and not actually wanting to destroy people alone will go further than you think with this.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I hate it too. So little control, the limit is all in the pyls head, but, the pyl doesn't even know what it is, they can only recognize it in the moment. Maybe some indirect priming can narrow the gray zones. But that kind of takes from the natural flow of it all.

There has got to be some way of telling though.

Hmm, maybe I'm just thinking about this too mechanically. After all, if you are committed for a long period of time, you can always have the pyl grow into it before you try it. Since so much of this is in the pyls hands, is preparation all that the PYL can do?

one, yeah i think you're thinking about this far too mechanically, and also not fully taking the nature of the relationship into account. if it's just right, if it's the one true slave for YC...there is absolutely nothing you could do to her which would have her screaming abuse to any outside authorities. if your primary concern isn't that so much but her overall mental/emotional stability and welfare, again the right relationship provides that. that perfect bond, that mutual acceptance and understand of one another...that will carry her through anything, even abuse, even so-called "bad" abuse.

also i think you have to face the reality that at some point, as a Dominant you are just going to flock up. big time. that is nearly inevitable, unless you avoid relationships altogether. at some point, it is likely something you do or something you force her to endure will likely be "bad" abuse. what matters is how you react to it and how you build up both her and the relationship after that point.

 

[Homburg]

also i think you have to face the reality that at some point, as a Dominant you are just going to flock up. big time. that is nearly inevitable, unless you avoid relationships altogether. at some point, it is likely something you do or something you force her to endure will likely be "bad" abuse. what matters is how you react to it and how you build up both her and the relationship after that point.

Quoted for undeniable, if unhappy, truth.

You simply cannot take such risks time and time again without experiencing a calamity here and there.

 

[Tawny_Temptress]

So here we go again, same question. When is abuse wrong, when is it right?

Here is a bit of an epiphany I had.

If the top has no interest, compassion, empathy, etc for the bottom before the act, after the act, or at both times, then it’s plain abuse.

However if the top cares for the bottom before and after, then its all in the good name of BDSM.

What do you think?

It is hard to define something so vast but I like your assessment. I wouldnt want someone 'abusing me' that I didnt care for or who didnt care for me.

Ish.

I'd certainly agree that feeling care and empathy is a necessary ingredient of the PYL's makeup, of what makes me believe I'm somehow different from a rapist. But the rapist probably believes he feels empathy and compassion as well - according to psychologists who work with them, rapists construct narratives about their victims which makes the rape acceptable, and very often those narratives are about the victim 'wanting' it. So you can certainly feel empathy and compassion while perpetrating abuse.

I'd like to say something like 'empathy and consent', but abusers construct narratives about their victims' consent, too. It's tough. You just have to listen to your conscience, and be aware of the possibility of self delusion.

I talked my fiance into role playing rape with me. He really got into it, but after a few times of it getting rougher and rougher and he saw the bruises, he wouldnt do it any more. Even though I wanted him to. He felt he was abusing me and I didnt.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Quoted for undeniable, if unhappy, truth.

You simply cannot take such risks time and time again without experiencing a calamity here and there.

Aye.

Not comfortable at all, but, as you say, undeniable.

 

[YourCaptor]

I definitely have this tendency, too. I'd wager that a scene isn't really good, isn't really REALLY good unless I've made contact with The Creature. That doesn't mean I have to run up and embrace it. In fact, the fact that I can elect NOT to, is what has put me in touch with a sense of personal power more than the numbers of people who have entrusted themselves to my Sadist.

Experience and not actually wanting to destroy people alone will go further than you think with this.

Huh, now its my turn to relate to that. Takes me all the way back to those teenage years before I every really got involved with anyone. I knew, or felt, that their was something in me, which I thought of almost as a separate entity and even named. For me it was “the beast”, I think. Back then it seemed like anyone I perceived in the lover type category posed a risk of push their way inside me an disturbing that beast. I kept myself cold cause anytime I felt something about such a person I could feel the beast reaching out for them, which I wasn’t gonna let happen. It wasn’t till I found a situation that slowly let me allow the beast more and more free rein on my own time that I saw as a part of me.

I still haven’t let it all go in a controlled fashion, so there is still that sense of unknown, but it’s no longer a separate entity for me.

one, yeah i think you're thinking about this far too mechanically, and also not fully taking the nature of the relationship into account. if it's just right, if it's the one true slave for YC...there is absolutely nothing you could do to her which would have her screaming abuse to any outside authorities. if your primary concern isn't that so much but her overall mental/emotional stability and welfare, again the right relationship provides that. that perfect bond, that mutual acceptance and understand of one another...that will carry her through anything, even abuse, even so-called "bad" abuse.

also i think you have to face the reality that at some point, as a Dominant you are just going to flock up. big time. that is nearly inevitable, unless you avoid relationships altogether. at some point, it is likely something you do or something you force her to endure will likely be "bad" abuse. what matters is how you react to it and how you build up both her and the relationship after that point.

If only such a girl would fall into my lap and all worked out like magic.

I feel like I could search all my life and not even come close to finding such a girl.

It seems more realistic to find someone with the potential to be such a girl, which makes all much more complicated.

And I know that shit happens, but one should do what can be done to keep everything right.

 

[sadangel]

Hopefully I can say this without betraying something that I shouldn't.

My Sir spent the weekend with His folks. His mom asked him some questions about BDSM. One of the questions was about how is what we do not abusive. His answer to her was one that I agree with for us. (I have paraphrased what He said)

With the BDSM, it is both consensual and done to "hurt"--cause some temporary pain. Abuse is not consensual and is done to harm someone, sometimes permanently .

To me, there is a large difference between harm and hurt. I want my Sir to hurt me, and hurt me in the way that brings pleasure. I don't want Him to harm me. The harm would be not only physical but psychological and I don't think I could recover emotionally from intentional harm.

 

[BiBunny]

I think there's a much blurrier line between consent and non-consent than most of us want to admit. In these types of relationships, it's rarely ever cut-and-dried.

 

[sadangel]

I think there's a much blurrier line between consent and non-consent than most of us want to admit. In these types of relationships, it's rarely ever cut-and-dried.

I think you are correct. I also think you are correct that it isn't cut-and-dried. Having been in abusive relationships before, and being in a relationship now that is not abusive, I can see more clearly the difference and why I see a difference between "hurting" and harming someone. Between abusive and non-abusive. For me. My definition may not be someone else's. I understand and respect that.

 

[BiBunny]

I think you are correct. I also think you are correct that it isn't cut-and-dried. Having been in abusive relationships before, and being in a relationship now that is not abusive, I can see more clearly the difference and why I see a difference between "hurting" and harming someone. Between abusive and non-abusive. For me. My definition may not be someone else's. I understand and respect that.

Abuse: It's like obscenity. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

 

[neci]

legal definition of verbal abuse in the United States:
Verbal abuse is the use of words to cause harm to the person being spoken to. It is difficult to define and may take many forms. Similarly, the harm caused is often difficult to measure. The most commonly understood form is name-calling. Verbal abuse may consist of shouting, insulting, intimidating, threatening, shaming, demeaning, or derogatory language, among other forms of communication.

Perpetrators of verbal abuse often misuse their authority and prey on those in a subordinate position. Victims of verbal abuse are often told they are to blame for the abuser's behavior and reluctant to take action to end the abuse. Verbal abuse may lead to stress, depression, physical ailments, and other damage.


domestic violence legal definition in US:
The continuing crime and problem of the physical beating of a wife, girlfriend, husband, boyfriend, or children. Domestic violence is a reason for divorce in states which grant divorces based on fault. Domestic violence victims may seek the protection of law enforcement, the courts and community services, including shelters and protection for those in danger. One of the legal processes often used is a petition for a protective order, which requires the aggressor to keep a certain distance away from the victim and prohibits contact, such as phone calls and other means of harassment.


this topic is very thought provoking to me. i am a sub/bottom/pyl, who craves an element of pain and degradation in my sexual relationships. i ask for it, want it, need it harder. the best sex i have had has left me in a state of bruising and pain for quite some time following the act itself. it actually scared my s/o, and he will no longer go there anymore. for him, he saw the results as harming me. had i been a manipulative bitch, i could have gone to the police the next day and reported him for domestic violence and he would have been arrested due to the "physical evidence" in the eyes of the law. but i wanted it. the next day, even though i was still hurting, i was in bliss. for me it was not abuse. for him it was. the law would have sided with him.

then my mind wanders to victims of abuse. i remember a woman i met who was stripped naked and locked in her home. she was beaten so many times, her back resembled a black slave from a plantation. she was held in fear. he threatened to kill both her and her daughter if she ever left. psychologically she was emptied. she stated she deserved it, and returned to him after getting out. i never saw her again.

then there are the people who strike out in anger and use their partners as their therapeutic punching bags.

i think that abuse has an element of anger, hatred, confusion, fear and violence.
for me bdsm is about trust, exploration, pain, explosions, increased sensations, control, rawness, emotional release and beauty. i can not ever see myself in a relationship with someone who can not give back a part of them self after taking a part of me. it is a give and a take for me. is that abusive? in the eyes of the law it could be construed as abusive. in my eyes it is bliss.