Biderman's Chart of Coercion

[Phoenix Stone]

Re: Good Lord, shy ...

If the opposing force decides to break you, you will break.

How you break determines your mental status and the opinions of your comrades in arms following said break. i had good teachers. One had "done time," another had gone through extensive SERE training and instructed at that training. Endurance boiled down to three simple rules:

• Give a little when you can take no more abuse, and what you give has to be true.
• Take solace that they didn't get everything they wanted.
• You mean nothing to them once you have given all and become expendable.

this is the one I keep coming back and staring at.

1. There's breaking, and then there's breaking. Yeah, I gave person who was doing this got some of what it wanted out of me. On the other hand, and this is what really pissed it off -- I never let go, never gave up my inner conviction that what was happening to me wasn't right. You have no idea how much I suffered for that. But it was worth it. (Of course I'm that idiot who would rather die than steal an apple when I starved for 11 days.)
2. You still have a value to them even once you have given all if there is some other use they can put you to. If they can get you to come over to their side, do their dirty work for them, be a mouthpiece or whatever, you have value. And you confirm that they are right.
3. That part of the rule your instructor gave about 'what you give has to be true' is so true. Even if it's not say, info, but instead something emotional. Whatever they want from you, when you give, it has to be something real. Something that hurts. One of your real honest to god fingers, if not your whole hand.
4. The skills you learn from this have no place in regular life. I know how to walk down a street or be in a room so I'm practically invisible. Can play a mean game of hide-and-seek or deadman's float because I can hold my breath and not move for so long. There are tricks you learn, how not to attract predators on the street, awareness without seeming to look, looking like you are going one place when you are really going another, covering a lot of territory with a stride that looks casual and slow, where you put your attention, how to talk a crazy person out of killing you -- part of it: you have to genuinely empathize, take the person seriously yet lightly, direct their attention by keeping your eyes and attention in one place while with your peripheral vision you look for outs.

How you break. In some deeper sense, I didn't. I don't know if it's genetic or environment but -- I'm a big believer that despite science not being able to prove it, that we Do have some small measure of free will. Not, dear hisownprecious and others, enough to be unmoved by what happens to us, just that there is some sort of sliding scale, that no matter how bad the circumstance, or how far we go, we make little choices, take little stands, that may mean everything.

It's funny -- we don't talk about honor or integrity much these days. Especially those of us who aren't martially inclined, are even on the left-wing end of things. And I believe many on the right, use the words with no understanding. You only Really know what you will or will not do for a buck, when you have nothing and no one. It's only when the whole world you live in is evil and unjust (and you think it may be the only world there is because you are too young to know better) it's only then that you find out what you stand for.

(edited to take out some personal stuff.)

 

[s'lara]

Just a few thoughts as i went through the posts.

While Biderman's method does employ some physical manipulation (exhaustion), it seems primarily mental (headgames). Well, not really a game as that would imply a temporary state. The remolding of the psyche seems to lend towards mf's, but on a more permanent basis. i think that is why i saw the steps as being analogous to sub/slave training.

i do wonder how long it takes for this mindset, the resulting mental state of the subject, to take root. i believe the submissive trait makes one more receptive to manipulative behavior and as such, this kind of "training" could be implemented rather quickly. At least that's my thinking.

In any event, i appreciate the feedback all.

lara

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Re: Re: Good Lord, shy ...

this is the one I keep coming back and staring at.

Glad i provoked some thought.

2. You still have a value to them even once you have given all if there is some other use they can put you to. If they can get you to come over to their side, do their dirty work for them, be a mouthpiece or whatever, you have value. And you confirm that they are right.

Perceived versus actual.

Although based on some of the intelligence i've seen displayed lately, and not limited to here at Lit, a lot of people will buy any bullshit line fed to them.

4. The skills you learn from this have no place in regular life ... to be unmoved by what happens to us, just that there is some sort of sliding scale, that no matter how bad the circumstance, or how far we go, we make little choices, take little stands, that may mean everything.

i'll offer a quote from an unlikely source.

it is not our abilities that show what we truly are. It is our choices.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Just a few thoughts as i went through the posts.

While Biderman's method does employ some physical manipulation (exhaustion), it seems primarily mental (headgames). Well, not really a game as that would imply a temporary state. The remolding of the psyche seems to lend towards mf's, but on a more permanent basis. i think that is why i saw the steps as being analogous to sub/slave training.

i do wonder how long it takes for this mindset, the resulting mental state of the subject, to take root. i believe the submissive trait makes one more receptive to manipulative behavior and as such, this kind of "training" could be implemented rather quickly. At least that's my thinking.

In any event, i appreciate the feedback all.

lara

Firstly, yes, it's about mental control. Control the mind and the body will follow. And the physical means are in service to the physical. For instance, sleep deprivation doesn't have to involve any violence, yet is quite effective for breaking down resistance (ask any new parent.)
Sometimes just a touch works well precisely because it allows your imagination to do the trick.
It reminds of what Could be done, that you can be touched against your will, signals a possible intention, yet gives your mind to anticipate and do its own work. One of the creepiest experiences was a simple fingertip tracing up and down the length of my arm and having to control myself to keep from moving or even letting disgust register on my face. Other times, a quick explosion of completely unexpected violence is just the thing. Switching from one to the other keeps the mark, er sub, offguard.
I have to admire the technique of the person I 'learned' from. (Only wish the methods weren't so permanently etched in my psyche -- they're where my mind goes when lizard brain gets triggered. I've spent oh so many years learned to ignore, channel and control those 'abilities.' Woulda made a great Domme if the idea didn't both bore me and make me feel guilty. And Please don't get me wrong, that's just how it would be for Me -- I respect and admire the Dommes on this board.)

I don't believe the psyche gets remolded so much as reduced to its lowest common denominator. In other words, this may sound like semantics, but bear with me, I think there's sort of a sliding scale of what we are capable, and extreme stuff like this will likely push you to one end of yours but not turn you into someone else. Not sure there's anything that can do that. Have you met someone with brain injury before? The person I knew best who had this happen didn't turn into a different person, just a limited version of herself. Same personality, likes and dislikes, just childlike. (She got much better, btw.)

Could be wrong, very likely am, but I don't believe we become different people from this, though it can be awful to discover what we are capable of, things that under normal circumstances we would Never do, as they are at the far end of our capabilities. I struggle with this because while I've had the strength to resist, I do so empathize with those who didn't or don't. (For instance, just because I didn't steal after 10 days of not eating (and 11 another time), I still have complete sympathy for someone who only made it through a day and a half. I suppose this is because I know we all have very different circumstances, metabolisms, fears, etc. And yet... I believe in some degree of free will, no matter what. Apparently, even hypnotized, we don't do anything we wouldn't do otherwise.

This argument, which may be a bit of a hijack (I'll try to pull it back in a minute) reminds me of the people who always say when they hear about the deeds of some abuser, something like, 'just imagine what His/Her upbringing/life must have been like!' The assumption being this his/hers must have been so much worse, or at least as bad, for him/her to do such things. Well following that one all the out, Adam and Eve must have been real SOBs, mustn't they?

While I certainly believe that both environment and heredity play the major part in what we do, my environment and heredity lead me to believe that free will plays a role, too.

Anyway, to bring it away from the hijack, based on said heredity, we bring our own pre-existing condition to Biderman's Coercion, and as you said, S'Lara, presumably those with submissive personalities might be thought to be quicker to subvert. This one, too, though, may not be the case. There seem to be either at least two levels or two kinds of submission or submissive. (Still working on this, so sorry for lack of clarity.)

Consider someone who is easily 'turned.' Wouldn't they be just as easily 'unturned' by a therapist (or one of those guys who unbrainwashes cultists)? Couldn't it even be that a Biderman's coercer would have an easier time with a dom/me, who isn't used to such treatment, and thus, unlike the sapling, break rather than bend? And if someone really likes being in control of themselves, following directions and being a good sergeant, for example, who does as the lieutenant says, but takes charge of the undersubs, might allow said dom/me to regain his/her preferred footing.

There is a curious psychological phenomenon, the name of which escapes me, that says that rather than our feelings preceding our behavior, our feelings generally follow. In other words, if you are forced to be a guard, once you act like one, you begin to feel like one. And vice versa. There are various reasons for this, but the main one seems to be our desire to, for want of better words, excuse ourselves to ourselves. We commit acts, and then we find justification that says 'I Wanted to do that.' This appears to be human nature.

In the situation I was in, we all dealt with it very differently. One behaved quite passively. (Her triumph is that she was being set up to be victimized by men, sexually, and she avoided this.) Another hid as much as possible and abdicated all involvement, also managed to cut off her physical feelings so she could put her own fist through wall and not feel it. (Her triumph is that the coercer wanted to pass it on to her and have her become sergeant, and she didn't.) The third became out of control violent for a lot of years. He also had parts of himself that remained intact and triumphed. Ya know, it didn't occur to me until just now that one reason I didn't 'submit' in some sense, when the others did, is that they had that choice. The coercer in question only wanted their submission, but wanted my death. If I'd submitted, that would have been the last trial required of me.

In any case, I have sense that there is some difference between inner and outer submissiveness. Maybe some people have both and others have just one?

s'lara, please tell me if I'm way off topic with all this and I'll sit back and shut up (for a while ).

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Re: Re: Re: Good Lord, shy ...

Glad i provoked some thought.

Oh, I'm always thinkin,' and generally provoked. (And you can be particularily provoking. )

Perceived versus actual.

Yeah, not everyone differentiates, do they? Nor do they/we always get that what one perceives may not be an accurate reflection of reality.

Although based on some of the intelligence i've seen displayed lately, and not limited to here at Lit, a lot of people will buy any bullshit line fed to them.

Sometimes I think people want to believe bullshit, grasp it eagerly, to give them an excuse. Heard about an interesting experiment recently, done with split brain patients, if I recall correctly. The one group could only perceive emotional nuance, the other could only understand logic. Both groups turned out to be much better than 'normals' at perceiving lies. The part I enjoyed was that they both found a particular politician whom I used to find quite heinous, but was known for his appeal and 'trustworthy demeanor' to be laughably absurd and unbelieveable.

i'll offer a quote from an unlikely source.

Who's the unlikely source? Someone who made some poor choices, I gather?

 

[s'lara]

Firstly, yes, it's about mental control. Control the mind and the body will follow. And the physical means are in service to the physical. For instance, sleep deprivation doesn't have to involve any violence, yet is quite effective for breaking down resistance (ask any new parent.)
Sometimes just a touch works well precisely because it allows your imagination to do the trick.

This is pretty much what Biderman's methods state. The physicalities are a means to gain a better grasp of the mind. Your examples kind of repeat that idea and illustrate how the researcher came to the conclusion that breaking someone down on the physical side lessens the need to struggle against the assumption of mental control.

It reminds of what Could be done, that you can be touched against your will, signals a possible intention, yet gives your mind to anticipate and do its own work. One of the creepiest experiences was a simple fingertip tracing up and down the length of my arm and having to control myself to keep from moving or even letting disgust register on my face. Other times, a quick explosion of completely unexpected violence is just the thing. Switching from one to the other keeps the mark, er sub, offguard.
I have to admire the technique of the person I 'learned' from. (Only wish the methods weren't so permanently etched in my psyche -- they're where my mind goes when lizard brain gets triggered. I've spent oh so many years learned to ignore, channel and control those 'abilities.' Woulda made a great Domme if the idea didn't both bore me and make me feel guilty. And Please don't get me wrong, that's just how it would be for Me -- I respect and admire the Dommes on this board.)

i think with some ingenuity, knowledge of various psychological techniques (Biderman's, cognitive psychology, etc.), and some skill, someone could successfully manipulate/control another on a mental and emotional level provided the other is receptive to the connivance. i agree it's necessary to keep an element of the unknown involved. Helps to create a sense of paranoia and dependency.

I don't believe the psyche gets remolded so much as reduced to its lowest common denominator. In other words, this may sound like semantics, but bear with me, I think there's sort of a sliding scale of what we are capable, and extreme stuff like this will likely push you to one end of yours but not turn you into someone else. Not sure there's anything that can do that. Have you met someone with brain injury before? The person I knew best who had this happen didn't turn into a different person, just a limited version of herself. Same personality, likes and dislikes, just childlike. (She got much better, btw.)

Could be wrong, very likely am, but I don't believe we become different people from this, though it can be awful to discover what we are capable of, things that under normal circumstances we would Never do, as they are at the far end of our capabilities. I struggle with this because while I've had the strength to resist, I do so empathize with those who didn't or don't. (For instance, just because I didn't steal after 10 days of not eating (and 11 another time), I still have complete sympathy for someone who only made it through a day and a half. I suppose this is because I know we all have very different circumstances, metabolisms, fears, etc. And yet... I believe in some degree of free will, no matter what. Apparently, even hypnotized, we don't do anything we wouldn't do otherwise.

Not sure if i agree with the idea that someone's psyche cannot be manipulated to the point of permanent change, although i do agree that some of us have degrees of what we're capable of in certain situations. What i believe is that it would take manipulating attributes already present in someone and using those attributes to achieve the desired outcome. That resulting persona is different/changed from the previous persona; either magnified or minimized, the change is present. While i agree that we all are capable of much more than we think, i believe with the right set of circumstances and intensive psychological ... not sure how else to put it ... conditioning, it is possible to create a persona which may not have been present before. However, that is sort of off topic and i prefer to stick to whether mental domination is achieveable using a modified version of Biderman's Chart.

This argument, which may be a bit of a hijack (I'll try to pull it back in a minute) reminds me of the people who always say when they hear about the deeds of some abuser, something like, 'just imagine what His/Her upbringing/life must have been like!' The assumption being this his/hers must have been so much worse, or at least as bad, for him/her to do such things. Well following that one all the out, Adam and Eve must have been real SOBs, mustn't they?

While I certainly believe that both environment and heredity play the major part in what we do, my environment and heredity lead me to believe that free will plays a role, too.

Well, Biderman's chart lends toward the idea that environment plays a huge role in coercion. Hence, the reference to the removal of outside influences from the subjects immediate environment which act as distractions. i also see your point regarding assumptions made based on a particular mode of behavior, however, as you said, that's an aside from the topic and not quite what i was getting at in posting the chart. Thanks for the thought though.

Anyway, to bring it away from the hijack, based on said heredity, we bring our own pre-existing condition to Biderman's Coercion, and as you said, S'Lara, presumably those with submissive personalities might be thought to be quicker to subvert. This one, too, though, may not be the case. There seem to be either at least two levels or two kinds of submission or submissive. (Still working on this, so sorry for lack of clarity.)

Consider someone who is easily 'turned.' Wouldn't they be just as easily 'unturned' by a therapist (or one of those guys who unbrainwashes cultists)? Couldn't it even be that a Biderman's coercer would have an easier time with a dom/me, who isn't used to such treatment, and thus, unlike the sapling, break rather than bend? And if someone really likes being in control of themselves, following directions and being a good sergeant, for example, who does as the lieutenant says, but takes charge of the undersubs, might allow said dom/me to regain his/her preferred footing.

There is a curious psychological phenomenon, the name of which escapes me, that says that rather than our feelings preceding our behavior, our feelings generally follow. In other words, if you are forced to be a guard, once you act like one, you begin to feel like one. And vice versa. There are various reasons for this, but the main one seems to be our desire to, for want of better words, excuse ourselves to ourselves. We commit acts, and then we find justification that says 'I Wanted to do that.' This appears to be human nature.

In the situation I was in, we all dealt with it very differently. One behaved quite passively. (Her triumph is that she was being set up to be victimized by men, sexually, and she avoided this.) Another hid as much as possible and abdicated all involvement, also managed to cut off her physical feelings so she could put her own fist through wall and not feel it. (Her triumph is that the coercer wanted to pass it on to her and have her become sergeant, and she didn't.) The third became out of control violent for a lot of years. He also had parts of himself that remained intact and triumphed. Ya know, it didn't occur to me until just now that one reason I didn't 'submit' in some sense, when the others did, is that they had that choice. The coercer in question only wanted their submission, but wanted my death. If I'd submitted, that would have been the last trial required of me.

In any case, I have sense that there is some difference between inner and outer submissiveness. Maybe some people have both and others have just one?

s'lara, please tell me if I'm way off topic with all this and I'll sit back and shut up (for a while ).

Lots of topics evolve into other subjects and that makes for good discussion. Let me see if i can respond to what you said above and see if i can bring it back to the thread topic:

1. Does having a submissive trait make one an easier subject for Biderman's chart and, if so, could such conditioning just as easily be undone?

That depends on whether the subject is ever allowed to have such conditioning reversed. Even then, i don't know that such deprogramming would be completely effective as Biderman's chart is in regard to long term conditioning and meant to take root on a level that isn't easily reachable. However, to think this through logically, if one is susceptible to all influences, it would reason that the subject could likely be "fixed" with enough therapy.

2. Wouldn't a Dom/me type make for a better subject as such a person would just break as opposed to bending to the will of another?

i don't believe it necessary for someone to be dominant or submissive in order to be broken. AA put it correctly with the sentence, "If the opposing force decides to break you, you will break." Submissives can certainly be broken and i don't believe that having the submissive trait makes us unbreakable. i don't agree that Dominants make better subjects . If the captor is intent on breaking someone's will, they will find a way to use either trait (dominant or submissive) against the subject.

In regard to your theory on inner submission and outer submission, maybe you could start a thread on the subject as i don't want to detract from the current discussion. i don't ask that you shut up, i just ask that we all try to post thoughts relative to the subject when possible. Thanks for the comments.

lara

 

[AngelicAssassin]

A tangential tidbit

From the following article, (glean what you will from the remainder.)

More recent events in the psychiatric community have shown a change in opinion about SM. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Conditions is a document produced by the American Psychiatric Association. The DSM-III, published in the late '80s, classified "sexual sadism" and "sexual masochism" as disorders for which treatment was recommended. The APA, in the DSM-IV, reclassified SM as _not_ necessarily a disorder, unless the practice of the SM produces clinically significant ongoing emotional trauma, or leads to death, serious injury, or disability. The DSM-IV is recognition by the theraputic community that SM can be practiced in a psychologically healthy way. Specifically, _DSM IV_, © *1994*, page 529, §302.83, "sexual masochism": Classed as a paraphilia, not a disorder, lacking negative implications unless "the fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." Sexual sadism is discussed 2 pages later, §302.84, with similar qualifications.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Just a few thoughts as i went through the posts.

While Biderman's method does employ some physical manipulation (exhaustion), it seems primarily mental (headgames). Well, not really a game as that would imply a temporary state. The remolding of the psyche seems to lend towards mf's, but on a more permanent basis. i think that is why i saw the steps as being analogous to sub/slave training.

i do wonder how long it takes for this mindset, the resulting mental state of the subject, to take root. i believe the submissive trait makes one more receptive to manipulative behavior and as such, this kind of "training" could be implemented rather quickly. At least that's my thinking.

In any event, i appreciate the feedback all.

lara

Not sure I agree with the submissive trait theory. IMO that is basically similar to saying all subs are the same, or weak, or easily lead, which I don't believe to be the case. I know personally, and for other subs I know as well, there is strength which exists, an intelligence that can define the difference between manipulative behaviour (= abuse in some circumstances) and genuine training, and resist the former, even walking away if necessary. It does not mean they are not submissive, just that they may not be willing to leave themselves open to an abusive situation in the interests of proving they are submissive, or may not buy into the idea it is necessary to brainwash or manipulate to control and/or train a sub/slave. Certainly if they wish to have this take place, an exercise where their psyche is manipulated to change, they may comply, but I still don't see it as being easier simply because they have submissive traits in the D/s context. Perhaps I am not getting the exact meaning due to the lateness of the hour, but I do tend to steer away from blanket assumptions subs may be easier to control, manipulate, use etc., in any sense based solely on their lifestyle choice and inclinations. LOL, I know one man who does not find it to be accurate.

Catalina

 

[s'lara]

Not sure I agree with the submissive trait theory. IMO that is basically similar to saying all subs are the same, or weak, or easily lead, which I don't believe to be the case. I know personally, and for other subs I know as well, there is strength which exists, an intelligence that can define the difference between manipulative behaviour (= abuse in some circumstances) and genuine training, and resist the former, even walking away if necessary. It does not mean they are not submissive, just that they may not be willing to leave themselves open to an abusive situation in the interests of proving they are submissive, or may not buy into the idea it is necessary to brainwash or manipulate to control and/or train a sub/slave. Certainly if they wish to have this take place, an exercise where their psyche is manipulated to change, they may comply, but I still don't see it as being easier simply because they have submissive traits in the D/s context. Perhaps I am not getting the exact meaning due to the lateness of the hour, but I do tend to steer away from blanket assumptions subs may be easier to control, manipulate, use etc., in any sense based solely on their lifestyle choice and inclinations. LOL, I know one man who does not find it to be accurate.
Catalina

i agree, but we're not talking about a normal cirmcumstances are we? We're talking about a method which removes an intelligent, strong submissive from their normal "space." Given the fact that such training would certainly be outside of what a submissive normally encounters, i don't necessarily believe that one would be impervious to this kind of treatment.

The fact is, some people are easily manipulated. Some of these people happen to be submissive. Not all are strong, intelligent and aware that they are being taken advantage of in the wrongful sense. i don't mean to broadbrush submissives by stating they are more susceptible to this kind of treatment, but it does stand to reason that the submissive nature could make for a fertile ground in which to cultivate a piece of property. If given enough time, i believe someone could exploit the submissive nature to their benefit. i don't have the belief that submissives are above being manipulated. i believe that some can be twisted into knots utilizing Biderman's chart. That's just an acknowledgement of what could happen and does not mean submissive's are all the same, just that they share the same trait.

You seem to take the statement out of context of Biderman's chart which is what i referred to in my post. However, i think you might have missed the part where i said that having the submissive nature or Dominant nature meant nothing if the captor sought to break you under Biderman's circumstances. In my opinion, neither subject would be immune to eventual manipulation. It would take the rare individual to resist such conditioning. i do believe having the submissive trait presents an even greater challenge to resist such mental manipulations. But then again, that is my opinion based on a) having the submissive trait and b) applying my own thoughts to a situation that clearly calls for powerful psychological/physical conditioning. Doesn't make it right, just an opinion and that's cool. Such an opinion could be a blanket assumption, but then again, i don't believe that all submissive's hold your opinion of self nor that of the submissive's you know. i do, however, concede that they might exist and may be above the methods described in Biderman's chart, although i don't how likely that would be.

lara

 

[Phoenix Stone]

questions (and a little hijack?)

i agree, but we're not talking about a normal cirmcumstances are we? We're talking about a method which removes an intelligent, strong submissive from their normal "space." Given the fact that such training would certainly be outside of what a submissive normally encounters, i don't necessarily believe that one would be impervious to this kind of treatment.

The fact is, some people are easily manipulated. Some of these people happen to be submissive. Not all are strong, intelligent and aware that they are being taken advantage of in the wrongful sense. i don't mean to broadbrush submissives by stating they are more susceptible to this kind of treatment, but it does stand to reason that the submissive nature could make for a fertile ground in which to cultivate a piece of property. If given enough time, i believe someone could exploit the submissive nature to their benefit. i don't have the belief that submissives are above being manipulated. i believe that some can be twisted into knots utilizing Biderman's chart. That's just an acknowledgement of what could happen and does not mean submissive's are all the same, just that they share the same trait.

You seem to take the statement out of context of Biderman's chart which is what i referred to in my post. However, i think you might have missed the part where i said that having the submissive nature or Dominant nature meant nothing if the captor sought to break you under Biderman's circumstances. In my opinion, neither subject would be immune to eventual manipulation. It would take the rare individual to resist such conditioning. i do believe having the submissive trait presents an even greater challenge to resist such mental manipulations. But then again, that is my opinion based on a) having the submissive trait and b) applying my own thoughts to a situation that clearly calls for powerful psychological/physical conditioning. Doesn't make it right, just an opinion and that's cool. Such an opinion could be a blanket assumption, but then again, i don't believe that all submissive's hold your opinion of self nor that of the submissive's you know. i do, however, concede that they might exist and may be above the methods described in Biderman's chart, although i don't how likely that would be.

lara

I may come back to try to pick through this quote for the parts I'm addressing but for now... the question of what makes one more manipulatible is very interesting to me. And is a 'submissive' (whatever we mean by that) more suseptible (sp?)? What makes a person easier or harder to manipulate? Is it submission, a submissive nature, or something else?

I was IN a situation like that that I couldn't get out of, partly because I wasn't willing, at first, to leave the others, and partly because the times were different and outsiders didn't intervene as much in those days. Or believe the abused. Doctors even looked the other way.

Anyway, to get back on post, I was the Only one who kept resisting. Who didn't accept it in some way. I always knew it was wrong, and found ways to prove it (a book, for instance.) The others accepted so much of it, felt that it was deserved, that the abuser's view of the world was right, etc.

One other also resisted psychologically. Not actively for the most part, but I think she had some sense of it not being right, too. And interestingly, she's the only other one of us whom I know has some interest in bdsm. The other interesting thing about her is that she once took some sort of test for a psychology class of how machiavellian and control-prone you are. She came out as totally unmaachiavellian and off the chart Low in controlling nature. A natural sub? So how did she and I manage to keep from being brainwashed like the other two? I've always wondered.

And why was I the only one who kept saying outloud that it was wrong, and kept physically resisting even when the abuser twice tried to kill me? (I'll admit to feeling suicidal off and on for years afterwards, the last vestige, until figuring out in therapy that that was what the abuser wanted and deciding I wouldn't give the abuser the satisfaction of a post-freedom win.)

So what was different? Why was I the only one who kept trying to get out -- and actually did eventually?

So are there different types of subs or submission? I'm such a wimpy person in a lot of ways, people are surprised (amazed really) when they meet me and know some of the things I've done. (Rescued women from domestic violence twice for instance.) Do I have an Inner sub and an Inner Warrior? Am I only a Sexual Sub? But that's not it, because the abuser used sexual intimidation, too.

It sort of reminds me of the 'submission as Gift' talk. (I know some people don't like that word, gift.) There is something about choosing. Some of us are just as subby but have more ability to choose? I don't know. I feel no contempt for the little one whose mind gave over to brainwashing in many ways. Only a sense of wanting to protect her. (And admittedly, a little anger at her believing that the abuse that was done to me was my fault Because I resisted. She Still believes some of the abusers lies.)

Yes, I did submit. I did give what I have when I had to. fully. So fully that it makes me want to vomit if I let myself think of it and at the same time I feel/remember my submission feeling which is precious to me, even when stolen, even when wrenched from my innards with bare dirty hands. I told the abuser that I loved. While I was being abused. As I was commanded to do. And I meant it. I Had to mean it. I said I love you. I said a lot of things. All of them true. All of them sickening. It was what I had to give up to make the punishment stop. And it never stopped right away even then. Only when the abuser got tired or was satisfied in some way. Anyway, I never gave up my knowledge that it was wrong, that I hadn't offered, given my gift freely. And that if you Take it from me, you don't get to keep it. It's not yours.

And one day, many, many years later, I got my own back. Scared the shit out of the abuser -- interestingly, in defense of that very younger one who'd been more turned than I. She was so ashamed to tell me. But Now I know how to kick ass. And the abuser knows it. Among other things, I said 'If you ever touch X again, I will rip your face off with my bare hands.' I said it convincingly. The abuser laughed. We did a toe to toe. When I screamed 'I'll kill you...,' among other things, the abuser back off a step. Grumbled, turned.

Later x said the scream ripped out of me like it was breaking my heart. It felt great. I did, I ripped that piece right out of my heart and threw it in the abuser's face.

 

[Kajira Callista]

you took back the power, but you were still broken.

 

[s'lara]

i've been going over the same question in my mind regarding "choice submission" vs. "inherent submission." i am still turning it over in my head, but i guess that could be fodder for another thread.

Whatever the case PS, it seems like your situation sort of shows how one can give eventually ... even if the "give" is to make the hurt stop and that is precisely what Biderman's Chart is about. Physical, emotional and mental abuse until the captive person ceases resisting.

lara

 

[Phoenix Stone]

i've been going over the same question in my mind regarding "choice submission" vs. "inherent submission." i am still turning it over in my head, but i guess that could be fodder for another thread.

Whatever the case PS, it seems like your situation sort of shows how one can give eventually ... even if the "give" is to make the hurt stop and that is precisely what Biderman's Chart is about. Physical, emotional and mental abuse until the captive person ceases resisting.

lara

I guess what struck me about it is that I never stopped resisting, except for a few very brief and memorable points. The abuser would have had to keep me in physical pain 24/7 to stop me. (The mental and emotional already was.) Maybe it's the cup half full mindset, but I always pop back. Steve McQueen in the Great Escape, or the character I really identified with -- that knight in Monty Python's Life of Brian who gets his arms and legs chopped off, until he's holding his sword between his teeth, and still keeps trying to fight. The little bit of 'give' I gave was just admitting an unpleasant truth out loud. Not the same as being brainwashed, into believing the insanity this person was trying to get us to believe, or into hurting others, or any of the rest. Despite all those years. Not sure if I'm explaining this right, and part of it is that any story you can tell from slightly different angles or perceptions which can change a lot.

The difference between giving, bending, and breaking. I think a twig that can spring back may have been bent but hasn't been broken. If it was it would just lie there. There is also something about manipulation or brainwashing meaning being in some sense the acceptance of someone else's reality as your own. My telling this person that I love them was my reality. An unfortunate one, but the truth. The abuser didn't get me to lie (ok, I'll admit, just once to bending the truth to stop a beating, something harmless and half-true, but I didn't like the way it felt so didn't do it again), let's start again -- the abuser didn't get me to alter my reality in favor of theirs. Even the suicidal thinking from time to time was only until I knew where it came from. Broke would be to then think, oh, in that case, I Should kill myself because that is what the abuser would ahve wanted, or whether one is consciously aware that one is thinking that way or not, to continue being suicidal after awareness.

I just don't see how I was broken. Hurt yes, broken no. Even what x said -- there was a part of me that was very sad about this person requiring that to stop, at being pushed to take it that far -- while exulting in meaning it, and in being, finally convincing.

I do feel that at least 2 and possibly 3 of the others were 'broken' by it. But they didn't stay broken, I don't think. Between having me there stirring insurrection in the back room, or trying to, and therapy, they, like me, went on to build fairly good lives. I wonder how Manson's followers are now. They broke. Did they stay broken?

 

[Phoenix Stone]

you took back the power, but you were still broken.

And I believe I was badly sprained but never broken. Unless you mean within the 'scene.' By the end of any given beating, yes. And then I'd crawl to my room and either scream and beat on things until I got Another beating, or I'd very quietly do some other revenge. Write an angry letter, find an old photo and color someone's face in blue. Lie on my bed gritting my teeth and clenching my fists and muttering silently, 'it's not fair, it's not fair, it's not fair....' I missed a lot of dinners. We were kept hungry a lot. Ate bread sandwiches surreptitiously. There was a food cupboard we weren't allowed to get into.

I've actually kinda wondered if I really sounded heartbroken, or if that was just something x wrote into it. Which is one reason I tried writing it more from her perspective, to try it out. It was cool to be able to protect x like that because she'd saved my life years earlier when the abuser came after me with a meat cleaver.

And this was just one small part of the cheery life and times of Phoenix Stone, what made me all I am today! 'Nite all.

 

[Gallant Man]

After doing some reading today, i happened on an article discussing a study done in the 1950's concerning U.S. military survivors of the Korean War. From that study, a researcher (Biderman) created a chart which outlined the steps taken to break a person or more to the point, mentally strip them down with the intent to manipulate.

The Biderman Chart of Coercion was published by Amnesty International (1970's) in its report on torture; specifically, torture of pow's and the methods used to brainwash said prisoners. From that report arose the comparison by experts in the DV field that the techniques used on pow's was very similar to the cycle victims of domestic violence go through. The chart is considered to be one of the definitive tools in helping others to identify DV victims as well as helping DV victims identify their relationships as DV situations.

As i read through Biderman's breakdown, i realized that the process is somewhat similar to training a submissive/slave. While some aspects of the process are truly unhealthy, there are ideal methods that could be applicable to preparing a sub/slave for ownership. When i speak in terms of similarity, i am talking about the mental conditioning necessary to remove complete autonomy from the submissive. The chart reminded me of the internal enslavement article we all recently discussed and i found this chart fascinating

What say you? Are the steps towards mental domination that simple?

The cult examples are more applicable since these situations are more or less voluntary. It's interesting that some view culture as a form of cult with the primary difference being that "culture" is the commonly held view. It is said that the human animal has a need to feel a connection to a group and this is probably why most can be conditioned, especially during early life, to accept just about anything as can be seen in the many different cultures around the world. This fits in with survival since the need to belong is useful to keep the human animal in groups, it is probably in our nature or instinct. Those in a culture accept it as the norm however they usually view significantly different cultures as strange or unusual. It's also interesting how quickly even adults can be trapped in a cult and the extreme measures they'll take including going against the survival instinct to commit mass suicide.

 

[shy slave]

One of my favourite threads is back

Gallant man I am not sure i completely agree with you on this statement
The cult examples are more applicable since these situations are more or less voluntary.

The coercion into a cult is like 'grooming' undertaken by any preditor who has a hidden agenda which includes plans to have power over another person. If done well, and most cults are very experienced at this, it is so very subtle that the person does not realise what is happening even if those around them see it clearly.

Its hard to believe the voluntary element remains as untainted on the last day as it did on the first. The difference being they think it is voluntary due to the conditioning process they have been through.

 

[Gallant Man]

One of my favourite threads is back

Gallant man I am not sure i completely agree with you on this statement
The cult examples are more applicable since these situations are more or less voluntary.

The coercion into a cult is like 'grooming' undertaken by any preditor who has a hidden agenda which includes plans to have power over another person. If done well, and most cults are very experienced at this, it is so very subtle that the person does not realise what is happening even if those around them see it clearly.

Its hard to believe the voluntary element remains as untainted on the last day as it did on the first. The difference being they think it is voluntary due to the conditioning process they have been through.

I used the wording "more or less" for the exact point you're making, and I believe that we're in agreement. Biderman's theory, when combined with the situation of a prisoner where such basic needs as food/water, sleep, bodily harm and much more are under control of the authorities, are extreme and I doubt that there is anyone who could hold up under such treatment. In fact the research has been done and it's said that everyone has a breaking point. However, it's also true that one can be prepaired for the treatment and fake compliance so that they retain the ability to hold back secret information.

It's difficult to generalize, but my point was that it is more voluntary when a person naturally prefers and seeks to be controlled. I do believe that a Dom has to demonstrate his strength early on as she surrenders to him, and periodically as a reminder and to mold her. However, I take a more positive perspective where she is molded to nurture her strengths and beauty both mind and body and of course to please her man in every way he wishes. Here training is based mostly on positive/negative reinforcement.

The mind is a fascinating subject and this discussion could go in many directions.

There seems to be a lot of interest here in brainwashing and I wonder if the subs here fantasize about more intense conditioning/training where this is necessary because they've been taken (in their fantasy) by one who is not the Dom they've chosen. Roll playing obviously makes sense here. s'lara you seem interested in forced brainwashing is this a fantasy of yours? Or do you see it as being necessary as part of your r/l surrender/growth?

shy_slave, I expect to be addressed as Sir.

 

[Netzach]

shy_slave, I expect to be addressed as Sir.

I expect to be addressed as the Goddess of the Great Flat Fertile Plain, but as the Stones sang, you can't always get what you want.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

shy_slave, I expect to be addressed as Sir.

You might direct your attention to the sticky at the top of this forum. Most of us have read Welcome To The BDSM Talk Forum. You would be well advised to so as well. The next poster won't respond politely.

 

[graceanne]

I expect to be addressed as the Goddess of the Great Flat Fertile Plain, but as the Stones sang, you can't always get what you want.

*giggles* Oh, Netzach, will you marry me?

I know, I know we're both married. Details, details.

 

[Netzach]

*giggles* Oh, Netzach, will you marry me?

I know, I know we're both married. Details, details.

If you fall prostrate on your slave mat and beg properly I'll consider it.



I so would. But we would kill each other fighting for the bathroom.

 

[shy slave]

shy_slave, I expect to be addressed as Sir.

Oh Bless

*pats the nice Dom on the head*

Didn't Mummy ever tell you 'I want, doesnt get'

Go and play nice and be careful who you say that to in future, not all the lil' subbies here are as shy, sweet and polite as me.


edit to add: there isn't a _ in shy slave.

 

[shy slave]

*giggles* Oh, Netzach, will you marry me?

I know, I know we're both married. Details, details.

Can I be bridesmaid.

I will be good, really good, honest.

I promise i will behave just please, please, please let me.

Oh I can be quiet too, I can, I know I can

 

[shy slave]

You might direct your attention to the sticky at the top of this forum. Most of us have read Welcome To The BDSM Talk Forum. You would be well advised to so as well. The next poster won't respond politely.

*heads off to read sticky, wondering if it says 'Do not make stupid demands on small, quiet, innocent shy slaves'*





Thanks AA x

 

[Kajira Callista]

shy_slave, I expect to be addressed as Sir.

*sigh* I'm gonna try to behave and retract my claws.