More than a 4-letter word

[SensualMaitre]

What is in our minds?

Some mind meanderings :
I think we all live on a spectrum, in our sexuality, between extreme dominanace and (extreme) submissiveness at the "ends" of a spectrum. That situates our "persona" along this spectrum.
When we meet AN Other they also situate themselves somewhere along this spectrum (and their persona, thus, has its sexual and erotic wants and desires commensurate with that "position" on the spectrum). But, when we (I) start to relate with AN Other then we are in a "relative" play between where "we" are situated and where "they" are situated along this spectrum. For us to make a good relationship each needs to be relatively suited with the other (ie in position and "context" as mentioned by Quint and in closeness to acceptance of boundaries and limits).
So, as AngelicaAssassin poses her question, if, in each of the two parties' minds there is an element of submissiveness and dominance and, within the context of their actions they both "play out", whether actively or just in their minds, then, to me BDSM is involved.
To me it is the relationship in the mind (and imagination) for BOTH parties that has meaning; ie there must be "action" and there must be "response"; one without the other nullifies any D/s relationship (or a "negative" response too). After all, how sometimes do we discover that a partner may be sub. if not perhaps when we're fucking we "pin" her down forcefully and she responds in a heightened manner to this "attitude" or action than a non- or less- submissive partner might? If the response is there then the two parties are acting out their wants and desires in the sub/dom relationship they "see" in their imaginations.
AM I making any sense... ?

 

[alice_underneath]

I do not believe it is abuse or the fault of the Dominant if a sub finds later that what s/he consented to really was not their cup of tea, or resulted in negative outcomes for them, unless the Dominant continues the behaviour after being told it is no longer OK, or did things which were not consented to. It is unfair to use hindsight to then label a consensual act abuse, especially as that same behaviour with another might be manna in every way.

I understand and agree with your comments.

In discussing the "cumulative impact on the sub which renders the relationship abusive," I agree that the Dom himself may not necessarily be an abuser. There are many cases in which it would be grossly unfair to label him as such.

In cases in which consent has been given, perhaps one way to distinguish between a Dom who is an abuser and a Dom who is not would be to say: The former recognizes the harm he is causing and continues anyway. The latter does not realize that he is damaging the sub in a material way.

The sub has as much responsibility for their consent as the Dominant does for believing them.

I agree with you.

Many of the statements I have read from subs looking back on abusive relationships do, in fact, contain an acknowledgment of responsibility. Something like......

"I was so eager and excited to be in a BDSM relationship that I ignored the signs that this guy wasn't right for me".....or..... "I was so intoxicated with love/lust that I let him do whatever he wanted"....... or....... "I didn't do my homework or talk to other subs and I thought I was supposed to be feeling this way."

It is extremely difficult to acknowledge that you consented to being abused. My reasons for allowing myself to be verbally abused had very little to do with the explanations typically written on this Board. Nevertheless, I feel a certain affinity for those women, because I understand how it is possible to consent to abuse, and how it feels during & after the fact.

In my opinion, one of the most important things a person can do to prevent him/herself from being abused again is to accept his/her share of responsibility for what happened.

The sub has as much responsibility for their consent as the Dominant does for believing them.

Yes. Absolutely.

Alice

 

[catalina_francisco]

I understand and agree with your comments.

In discussing the "cumulative impact on the sub which renders the relationship abusive," I agree that the Dom himself may not necessarily be an abuser. There are many cases in which it would be grossly unfair to label him as such.

In cases in which consent has been given, perhaps one way to distinguish between a Dom who is an abuser and a Dom who is not would be to say: The former recognizes the harm he is causing and continues anyway. The latter does not realize that he is damaging the sub in a material way.

I agree with you.

Many of the statements I have read from subs looking back on abusive relationships do, in fact, contain an acknowledgment of responsibility. Something like......

"I was so eager and excited to be in a BDSM relationship that I ignored the signs that this guy wasn't right for me".....or..... "I was so intoxicated with love/lust that I let him do whatever he wanted"....... or....... "I didn't do my homework or talk to other subs and I thought I was supposed to be feeling this way."

It is extremely difficult to acknowledge that you consented to being abused. My reasons for allowing myself to be verbally abused had very little to do with the explanations typically written on this Board. Nevertheless, I feel a certain affinity for those women, because I understand how it is possible to consent to abuse, and how it feels during & after the fact.

In my opinion, one of the most important things a person can do to prevent him/herself from being abused again is to accept his/her share of responsibility for what happened.

Yes. Absolutely.

Alice

For me being a therapist who specialises in DV, the important fact that needs to be acknolwedged here, as in many discussions, is that there is a huge difference between experiencing and claiming abuse in a vanilla or mainstream relationship, and one which began or became a consensual D/s or BDSM relationship. An abused woman in a mainstream sense does not so much consent (in fact IMHO can never be said to consent to it) to her abuse as is brought to a place psychologically, economically, physically, and/or emotionally where she remains in a position to be abused, a far cry from consenting to it with or without information and knowledge of the position she is in. I guess after working in that field while also being someone who is into D/s, I get a little particular about these variations when they count so much toward creating safety and authenticity for both abused women and submissives alike, but from very different perspectives. Too many people do not appreciate the differences and hence feel justified in blurring the lines of what is really abuse, what is really consensual behaviour.

Catalina

 

[boz]

For me being a therapist who specialises in DV,

Sorry, I can't figure out what the DV is?

 

[FurryFury]

Domestic Violence if I'm not mistaken.

Fury

 

[Quint]

I guess my answer to this is, as difficult as it may be, given people have different perceptions of what is OK and what isn't, often depending who they are interracting with, the legal necessity for telling a person how you feel is good otherwise people could get completely blindsided, often without cause.
Catalina

cat, sorry but I could make absolutely no sense of this sentence. Please rephrase, I don't want to miss anything potentially thought-provoking.

 

[Quint]

SensualMaitre, thank you for your post.

I know a considerable number of us knew what BDSM was before we started doing it, with the prevalent information on the Internet and forums much like this. However, there are also a lot of us (Mr Rathbone comes to mind notably) who did NOT know that there was a name for this sort of lust, did NOT know that there is a "community" of like-lusted people, and who did stuff they enjoyed and their partners either enjoyed it also or didn't. The terms "dominance" and "submission" probably don't come up mentally or verbally, and "SSC" is right out because it's not really very intuitive. I think the term right now that's popular is "rough sex." In that respect, consent isn't often addressed except post-coital, e.g. "well, she didn't kick me in the nuts so I guess she liked that."

rosco, care to share a memoir or two on your Sex Without a Name?

 

[rosco rathbone]

SensualMaitre, thank you for your post.

I know a considerable number of us knew what BDSM was before we started doing it, with the prevalent information on the Internet and forums much like this. However, there are also a lot of us (Mr Rathbone comes to mind notably) who did NOT know that there was a name for this sort of lust, did NOT know that there is a "community" of like-lusted people, and who did stuff they enjoyed and their partners either enjoyed it also or didn't. The terms "dominance" and "submission" probably don't come up mentally or verbally, and "SSC" is right out because it's not really very intuitive. I think the term right now that's popular is "rough sex." In that respect, consent isn't often addressed except post-coital, e.g. "well, she didn't kick me in the nuts so I guess she liked that."

rosco, care to share a memoir or two on your Sex Without a Name?

I don't think I'm all that strange a case. I'm just old enough (and luddite enough) to have done much of my psychosexual development on my own, without reference to a community online or off.

 

[Pure]

comment to quint

BDSM vs. abuse, ad nauseum.

Scenario #1. A man talks to his girlfriend extensively about her desire to be forced into sex. He acts on this desire, forces her, she has an orgasm. No one here would call that abuse, I daresay.

Scenario #2. A man picks up on non-explicit signals from his girlfriend that she may be into "rough sex." He acts on his intuition, forces her, she has an orgasm. Again, pretty safe to say that nobody's calling the cops.

Scenario #3. A man, without any supposition that his girlfriend may be "into it," forces her. She has an orgasm which is physically possible even if this is not at all desired. We all cry abuse.

I say "intent" is the difference. The man's intent in the first two is the act of fulfilling a desire in his partner; in the last one, it's presumably his own desire which goes against her own desire NOT to be raped (again, presumably). The way the scene ended physically is irrelevant; most of us have consented to a scene that ended poorly, but that doesn't make it abuse any more than an action leading to an orgasm is automatically NOT abuse.

Nice ta see that little brain churning away, off the beaten track!


"Abuse" is a slippery concept, and I prefer to think in terms of criminal acts (or charges) such as assault, battery, rape, etc. All of these involve harms. Abuse, however, may consist of psychological harm, which is going to be tricky to define; for instance creating someone's dependence on you. You can't have a law about many psych harms, except the most obvious--e.g., making someone fear death (by making a death threat) .

My main exception is to your statement and principle: The man's intent in the first two is the act of fulfilling a desire in his partner; in the last one, it's presumably his own desire which goes against her own desire NOT to be raped

In the town of Topopolis, fulfilling a desire--as part of looking out for oneself as a man or woman-- is not necessarily wrong, nor is fulfilling one at the expense of another's desire. SM is not about altruism, IMO, and even the label 'consensual bdsm' should not be formulated as including an effort to satisfy someone else's desire.

So I'd maintain 3) does not give enough info to decide SM, rape, etc and that any altruism [written into or] implied in the first two is not essential.

Just my opinion, for what it's worth. (I wrote a few scenarios in another forum, perhaps I'll post them here if there's interest).

 

[alice_underneath]

"Abuse" is a slippery concept, and I prefer to think in terms of criminal acts (or charges) such as assault, battery, rape, etc. All of these involve harms. Abuse, however, may consist of psychological harm, which is going to be tricky to define; for instance creating someone's dependence on you. You can't have a law about many psych harms, except the most obvious--e.g., making someone fear death (by making a death threat)

With all due respect to your personal preferences, Pure, the terms of criminal law do not define what is, and is not, abuse.


The following excerpts were pulled from an article entitled, "Emotional Abuse: The Most Common Form of Abuse", by Kali Munro, M.Ed., Psychotherapist.


"Unlike physical or sexual abuse, where a single incident constitutes abuse, emotional abuse is made up of a series of incidents, or a pattern of behavior that occurs over time. Emotional abuse is more than just verbal insults, the most common definition of emotional abuse. Emotional abuse is a series of repeated incidents - whether intentional or not - that insults, threatens, isolates, degrades, humiliates, and/or controls another person.

It may include a pattern of one or more of the following abuses: insults, criticisms, aggressive demands or expectations, threats, rejection, neglect, blame, emotional manipulation and control, isolation, punishment, terrorizing, ignoring, or teasing.

Emotional abuse is not only under-reported, but it's effects are minimized. The famous childhood verse, 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me' is simply not true. In fact, many physical and sexual abuse survivors have said that the emotional abuse was often more devastating and had longer-term effects.

Emotional abuse cuts to the core of a person, attacking their very being. Emotional abuse, if frequent enough, is usually internalized by the victim, and leaves them feeling fearful, insignificant, unworthy, untrusting, emotionally needy, undeserving and unlovable, and as if they were bad, deserving of punishment, and to blame.

Because it is harder to name emotional abuse as abuse, it can be harder to heal from as well. The first step is to name your experience as abuse. Trust how you feel. Many people can identify the abuse once they know what to look for because they change from being outgoing, self-confident, and care-free to feeling nervous, anxious, and fearful in the company of an emotionally abusive person.

Emotional abuse sets up a dynamic where the victim comes to believe that they are to blame and that they must work harder to fix the problems (such as improving the relationship.) This never works because the problem is not the victim; the abusive behavior is the problem. Nothing you do will change that. No matter how nice and accommodating you are, nothing that you do will change an emotionally abusive person's behavior. In fact, many people get even more aggressive when you try to make it better, because they sense that you think it's your fault, and this confirms their own beliefs!

It can be very hard to not fall into the role of being 'good girl' or 'good boy' when someone is emotionally abusing you, but it's important to avoid that."

http://www.kalimunro.com/article_emotional_abuse.html

 

[catalina_francisco]

cat, sorry but I could make absolutely no sense of this sentence. Please rephrase, I don't want to miss anything potentially thought-provoking.

LOL, one of those moments when I was doing a few things at once...basically I was saying in cases of sexual harrassment especially, and even abuse (especially in the context of D/s, but not exclusively), it varies as to what is considered abuse and what is not. Those variations are based on the tastes and preferences of individuals. For example, while one person may see a compliment and wink from a co-worker as flattering, another will scream sexual harrassment at the top of their lungs. The legal necessity to tell a person how you feel, while uncomfortable for some, allows you to be proactive in stopping what you define as abuse, while also letting the other person know it is not OK for you before their arse is hauled unexpectedly into the local lock up for something they may have done innocently or out of infatuation. If they are told, and then continue or escalate the behaviour, intent becomes obvious, and they get what they deserve. Without that, we will arrive at a point where it wil be dangerous to even ask a person for a date, let alone admit you like them...seems over-reaction, but often that is how people react.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

reply to Alice

I said in part, and you replied in part:

P: //Abuse, however, may consist of psychological harm, which is going to be tricky to define; for instance creating someone's dependence on you. You can't have a law about many psych harms, except the most obvious--e.g., making someone fear death (by making a death threat) //

A: With all due respect to your personal preferences, Pure, the terms of criminal law do not define what is, and is not, abuse.

P: I now respond-:My first sentence said, besides physical harm, "abuse may consist of psychological harm". That seems to be what you and your authority are saying. So we all agree, n'est-ce pas?

My further point is that lots of this will not fall under the criminal law, and I think you agree, since--to take Ms Munro's example--a pattern of insults is not something you can go to the police about. Better a divorce lawyer.

This was not the main point of my post, however. I believe Quint was talking about the essence of BDSM (the distinction from abuse being only one related issue). She made two statements:

First Q: It takes a certain amount of self-awareness and partner-awareness to say, "I'm going to hit you. It's going to hurt you. I'm going to keep hitting you until you're red. Then I'm going to fuck you" and have it firmly planted in the BDSM category. That, I maintain (for the time being) is the intent behind it, the awareness that this is what both partners desire.

Second, along the same lines, she said,

Q: The man's intent in the first two [examples]is the act of fulfilling a desire in his partner

P: She is apparently implying that this concern to fufill the partners desire was what made these examples proper or genuine or non-abusive SM.

-----
PS. I know this concern with the law may seem narrow to you, but I believe historically it is of utmost importance: the bdsm communities and groupings have had to fight for removing their activities from the list of criminal acts; and that in turn requires changes in DSM IV, etc.
because of the interwining of psychiatry and the law.

This essence of SM, in my view, is that there is an eroticisation of control, direction, coercion, of infliction of fear, shame, humiliation or more physical pain. (And there are at least two 'sides' to each of these, and either or both 'sides' may be eroticised). Looking at the list, one sees that those concepts are involved in a number of criminal acts; so the first order of business is to establish context, intention and other factors that would make those legal. And, again taking a page from the law, one key thing that in some cases makes them legal is consent (about which there are many court cases, and hundreds of books written).

 

[histchic]

Having happened upon this thread, I'd like to add my 2 cents. My personal thought is that BDSM is still BDSM whether or not it is defined as such. For alot of people, the thought of sadomasochism, etc. is one of very scary images. Tops/Dominants/Sadists are thought to be depraved animals for deriving pleasure from someone else's pain; likewise, bottoms/submissives/masochists are thought to be demented victims for recieving pleasure from the pain.

However, the same people who get the above visuals when hearing "S/M", etc., may think it perfectly ok to have "rough sex" as long as both parties are consenting and precautions are taken. I agree with Quint, the essence of the thing is doing it for the pleasure of all involved. Because sex is such a deeply imbedded part of our psyche, when it is done/recieved for reasons other than consensual pleasure, the effects resound through us negatively.

There is the old saying, "The path to hell is paved with good intentions." I believe that while someone may have the best of intentions toward their parter while engaging in BDSM, there is also a case to be made for criminal negligence if one or more partners is unprepared(mentally, physically, emotionally) to the degree that physical abuse results.

So yeah. That's probably more like $1.45, but hope it made sense.

 

[alice_underneath]

My first sentence said, besides physical harm, "abuse may consist of psychological harm". That seems to be what you and your authority are saying. So we all agree, n'est-ce pas?

Yes, we agree.

I interpreted Quint's query in post #14 - "Is there an alternate route that you would take to try to define why it is that what we do isn't abuse?" - not as a question about legal issues or discrimination, but rather as an invitation to discuss the difference between healthy BDSM and abuse.

For this reason, I was uncomfortable with the idea of dismissing emotional abuse from the discussion.

This essence of SM, in my view, is that there is an eroticisation of control, direction, coercion, of infliction of fear, shame, humiliation or more physical pain. (And there are at least two 'sides' to each of these, and either or both 'sides' may be eroticised). Looking at the list, one sees that those concepts are involved in a number of criminal acts; so the first order of business is to establish context, intention and other factors that would make those legal. And, again taking a page from the law, one key thing that in some cases makes them legal is consent (about which there are many court cases, and hundreds of books written).

When I refer to 'consent', I am using the dictionary definition of that word:

consent

n.

1. Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence.

2. Agreement as to opinion or a course of action.

That explains my comments earlier on the thread. Unless one is chained to the floor, the fact that he/she remains in an abusive relationship implies at least a minimal level of consent - in the sense of acceptance or acquiescence to what is going on.

I have neither the education nor the experience to participate in a discussion of legal definitions or issues (though I might read such a discussion with interest.)

I am not saying that the legalities are unimportant, and I do not see your focus as unnecessarily narrow. I just think we are talking about two different things! Legal issues on the one hand, and mental health on the other.

One thing I noticed about your list of the essential elements of SM is that it contains many concepts inherent in emotional abuse. In fact, leaving out the element of physical pain, you've done a fair job summarizing the hallmarks of that type of abuse.

I understand that the SM version of humiliation/degradation/etc. can be something that both parties consent to, desire, or need. Getting back to my interpretation of Quint's query, though, the question becomes: when & how does humiliation et al move beyond consensual, mutually acceptable behavior and become damaging to the pyl?

As you noted, that's a slippery issue. You are also obviously correct that this has nothing to do with the law. I'm addressing issues of mental health, not incarceration, here.

However....... I just glanced back at Quint's first post on this thread. She mentions what will "fly in court", so perhaps I should apologize to her (and you) for digressing from the topic at hand.

Alice

 

[Pure]

Hi Alice,

Those are very provocative thoughts, and well stated.

I said in part:
P: This essence of SM, in my view, is that there is an eroticisation of control, direction, coercion, of infliction of fear, shame, humiliation or more physical pain. (And there are at least two 'sides' to each of these, and either or both 'sides' may be eroticised). Looking at the list, one sees that those concepts are involved in a number of criminal acts; so the first order of business is to establish context, intention and other factors that would make those legal. And, again taking a page from the law, one key thing that in some cases makes them legal is consent (about which there are many court cases, and hundreds of books written).


A: One thing I noticed about your list of the essential elements of SM is that it contains many concepts inherent in emotional abuse. In fact, leaving out the element of physical pain, you've done a fair job summarizing the hallmarks of that type of abuse.

I understand that the SM version of humiliation/degradation/etc. can be something that both parties consent to, desire, or need. Getting back to my interpretation of Quint's query, though, the question becomes: when & how does humiliation et al move beyond consensual, mutually acceptable behavior and become damaging to the pyl?

As you noted, that's a slippery issue. You are also obviously correct that this has nothing to do with the law. I'm addressing issues of mental health, not incarceration, here.

However....... I just glanced back at Quint's first post on this thread. She mentions what will "fly in court", so perhaps I should apologize to her (and you) for digressing from the topic at hand.
-------

As to your first point:
AOne thing I noticed about your list of the essential elements of SM is that it contains many concepts inherent in emotional abuse. In fact, leaving out the element of physical pain, you've done a fair job summarizing the hallmarks of that type of abuse.

P;These are hallmarks (possibly) of various crimes, in lots of cases; so yes they may be possible hallmarks of abuse.

As to your second point
AI understand that the SM version of humiliation/degradation/etc. can be something that both parties consent to, desire, or need. Getting back to my interpretation of Quint's query, though, the question becomes: when & how does humiliation et al move beyond consensual, mutually acceptable behavior and become damaging to the pyl?

P:I would have put it "how does usually damaging behavior, in certain circumstances become mutually acceptable behavior."

As you noted, that's a slippery issue. You are also obviously correct that this has nothing to do with the law. I'm addressing issues of mental health, not incarceration, here.

P: I think this hit the nail on the head. But I would give it a certain twist: add that definiing SM as by definition 'mentally healthy' is not necessarily a satisfactory approach, as for instance in quint's effort to include equal concern for the other's desires.

Let me give you an analogy. If we're talking about 'heterosexuality' or 'heterosexual practice', I'd suggest we proceed with the broadest characterization in terms of male/female encounters, arousal therein, intercourse, etc. This would include both legal and illegal forms, e.g. rape, 'strangers in the night,' and 'marital activities.'

So we proceed to define a basic level for legality, which involves the female's consent.

At a higher level we say say what is beyond 'stranger encounters' what is the ideal or healthy relationship, and maybe say that each attend equally to the other, is in love, etc.

---
I'd suggest following similar path for SM. First the legal floor, then talk about ideal or healthy situations.

Above the legal floor (within the confines of legality) as you and Catalina have said, there are possibly 'abusive' types of situations. A calls B a whore and it 'stings' B, affecting B's pride, perhaps inducing shame.
As I think you have said, there is a kind of consent if B sticks around (while not tied up, threatened, etc.).

This brings us to what quint was addressing. Person A1 is merely out to run B down and perhaps discard her. He does not care if B goes and jumps off a bridge. B of course senses the disrespect and, as it were, inwardly agrees to it.

NOW: what would make this an SM (bdsm) consentual type encounter.
This is very tricky, but first there is the factor of A2's arousal and likely B2's. B2 is eroticizing that 'sting', that shame; it's a turn on. But if such is the case, that is not necessarily A2's primary goal, which is his own 'turn on' and satisfaction. Indeed, it couldnt be otherwise, else how could his word degrade or demean--reduce her to a lower status, so to say.

We have to look at the process in B2, which is rather complex; but in a few words, she's somehow able to 'work with' that shame and not merely drag herself down with it.

Returning to A2, one can say he is above not caring if B destroys herself. He wants B2 to survive; indeed that's perhaps part of his sadism that the 'victim' not be destroyed! We can say, some minimum of (B2's) psychic health has to be preserved.

I think now you can see the 'bone' I'm picking with the estimable quint.
What I've said above seems far less than a 'healthy' relationship. B2's desires are NOT given equal status, nor is B2's sexuality on an equal footing with A2's

To get into that is not merely to describe SM humiliation, but SM humiliation in a healthy relationship-- healthy by mainstream standards; parties--A3 and B3 having high self esteem and self respect; offering respect to one another, and so on.

Anyway, that's enough of my thoughts. You certainly got them going, and maybe you see what my opinions are based on. In particular, note I'm in no way disparaging 'healthy SM relaltionships' just trying to look at the bigger picture. (This is done to better prepare people; think how ill prepared a young teenager is, if heterosexuality is taught and described as something occurring between husband and wife; I think you get the analogy.)

best,
pure

 

[alice_underneath]

Hi, Pure. Thanks for the response.

Getting back to my interpretation of Quint's query, though, the question becomes: when & how does humiliation et al move beyond consensual, mutually acceptable behavior and become damaging to the pyl?

I would have put it "how does usually damaging behavior, in certain circumstances become mutually acceptable behavior."

Let's put these two together and formulate a new question.

How does usually damaging behavior, in certain circumstances become mutually acceptable behavior but then go further to become behavior that significantly and/or quasi-permanently damages the sub?

It seems to me that there is a lot of room in between a relationship that is 'healthy by mainstream standards' and a situation in which B2 is driven to jump off a bridge.

Somewhere in the range of A2/B2 scenarios, there is a line between a relationship that is abusive and one that is not. In my opinion, that line is crossed long before B2 steps out on that railing.

I would define a healthy relationship (of any kind) as one that enhances, or at least does not diminish, the mental health of both parties. I would further define an abusive relationship as one that is unhealthy to the point of causing significant and/or quasi-permanent damage to the sub.

Signs that a relationship has become abusive might include: a sub who has trouble being alert and productive at work; a sub who has trouble sleeping through the night; a sub who loses interest in hobbies that used to give her joy; a sub who begins to withdraw from other friendships and family relationships; etc.

Questions surrounding mental health and long-term behavioral effects are nebulous and extremely complex. For this reason, my personal opinion is that intense and sustained humiliation/degradation of the A2/B2 type you described should be considered edge play. Whether or not A2 wants to destroy the sub, he's taking quite a risk in pushing right up to the point of "minimum psychic health".

Note that as the sub's mental health diminishes, so too does her ability to recognize that the situation has become dangerous. The relationship may still be legal and technically consensual, because she does not have the mental actuity or strength to end it.

One of the problems here is that the damage will be difficult to identify and problematic to reverse. If you screw up in knife play, you can at least rush to the hospital and hope for a doctor to stitch the sub back together.

But if the light in the sub's soul goes out, it could take a long, long time to turn it back on.

Alice

 

[Pure]

partial reply to Alice

I would define a healthy relationship (of any kind) as one that enhances, or at least does not diminish, the mental health of both parties. I would further define an abusive relationship as one that is unhealthy to the point of causing significant and/or quasi-permanent damage to the sub.

Signs that a relationship has become abusive might include: a sub who has trouble being alert and productive at work; a sub who has trouble sleeping through the night; a sub who loses interest in hobbies that used to give her joy; a sub who begins to withdraw from other friendships and family relationships; etc.

Questions surrounding mental health and long-term behavioral effects are nebulous and extremely complex. For this reason, my personal opinion is that intense and sustained humiliation/degradation of the A2/B2 type you described should be considered edge play. Whether or not A2 wants to destroy the sub, he's taking quite a risk in pushing right up to the point of "minimum psychic health".

P: I'm not sure there's a single paradigm of 'mental health,' and it's well known that present shrinks and ordinary persons often regard flagellants and martyrs (la pucelle d'orleans) as mentally not quite there.

But generally I don't have a problem liking 'health' to 'good relationship.'

But I don't see your reply to my main pont. We cant define the SM impulses in a way that predetermines the 'health' issue, just as we can't define heterosexual impulse in a way that is by definition healthy. An example bad definition would be to say the heterosexual impulse is what draws male and female in love, together on equal terms, for intercourse, usually with a view to reproducing.

Notice this is not a recommendation that all behaviors arising from the SM Impulses are just fine to carry out, just as in the heterosexual case.

I want to think further about some of your other points.

 

[alice_underneath]

But I don't see your reply to my main pont. We cant define the SM impulses in a way that predetermines the 'health' issue, just as we can't define heterosexual impulse in a way that is by definition healthy.

I agree with that statement.

I have a semantics question for you, Pure.

Referring to behavior that is legal and technically consensual (in the dictionary definition of that word), but also damaging to the sub in a very significant way..... would you refer to this as 'abusive BDSM' behavior, or behavior that has passed out of the realm of BDSM to a separate category labelled 'abuse'?

 

[Pure]

The folks that came up with 'BDSM' and 'safe sane consensual' wanted the two things linked. And there are self labeled BDSM communities.

In the psych books, and even the psychopathology books, the term is not used. We have, among other things, sadistic and macochistic impulse or desires. I use the older terms SM or S/M. As my earlier posting proposed, that makes it necessary to say "sadistic desire that is being gratified abusively" in that sense 'abusive sadism.' One might say there are criminal, abusive, or consensual behaviors emanating from this impulse, just as from the impulse to fuck.

So I don't get into saying "That's not BDSM it's abuse" something made true by definition. It's handy, perhaps. But the psychologist like to talk of drives, impulses, desires and have the option of different labels according to how people satisfy them: Hence "criminal sadist" "sadist by consent only". As opposed to "criminal" and BDSM(Sadist). Hence 'criminal display of aggression' or 'aggression displayed verbally.'

That's my thinking, fwiw.

Ultimately the labels are not the issue, and it's a rather deep question, 'what is abuse in a relationship?' esp. when we're outside the context of criminal law.

I agree with that statement.

I have a semantics question for you, Pure.

Referring to behavior that is legal and technically consensual (in the dictionary definition of that word), but also damaging to the sub in a very significant way..... would you refer to this as 'abusive BDSM' behavior, or behavior that has passed out of the realm of BDSM to a separate category labelled 'abuse'?

 

[angelsrose]

Ultimately the labels are not the issue, and it's a rather deep question, 'what is abuse in a relationship?' esp. when we're outside the context of criminal law.[/QUOTE]


This is a great thread! Thank you to everyone who is sharing there thoughts on this matter. My two cents:


I had 2 very different relationships with 2 men whom I loved very much. (at seperate periods in my life)

The First one was extremely emotionally abusive. He would degrade me, call me names, basically beat the shit out of me verbally, and it killed me. I had never been that hurt in my entire life, nor did I enjoy *any* aspect of what it was he was doing to me. It took me a few years to regain my self confidence, my self worth, my values. I left becuase I had to, or god knows how much worse it could have gotten. I would not have put it past him to hit a women if he was angry enough. (or scared enough) Now mind you through this, I loved him. He controlled me in many aspects of my life and would not "allow"me to do certain things. Completely and made excuses for what it was he did to me. I did withdraw from my friends, my work, my family, all things that had been imprtant to me up until that point. I swore I would never be in a realtionship like that again, with anyone.

The 2nd man I was with called me those same names, was also very Dominant in some of the same areas. He treated me very similar to the first one, and he loved me just like the frist one did. However he respected my ide, my boundries, and my love for him and never once used it against me. In fact it is in that relationship that I began to see the healthy sid eof what it was for me to submit, and I found I enjoyed the moments in which I was used soley for his pleasure. I enjoyed him calling my a little slut, silly whore ect. Those same names that I once found to be "abusive" were ok in ths context. Why? I think because we talked about it. I consented to this before it started and we had set boundries for which it was ok and in what context. Not once did he use any of this against me when we were fighting, nor did he call me those names in any way that could be damaging to my psyche. In fact it opened up a door for me that I now look for openly in relationships, and find that I crave. In fact only once did he use my submission in a manner that left an emotional would upon me, and that was the night we ended things between us. It was also a very fine line, nor did I hold it against him after that night, but it took me a while to understand what happened that night as well.

So for me abuse in a relationship is quite simply doing something to me that has not been discussed and agreed upon first. Using things against me in a way that could damage me in a manner that would take years of therapy to get over. Or having an expectaion of what it is I may want without truly knowing my deepest desires.

I guess conset before action is the simplest way to put it.

 

[Pure]

provocative thoughts, angelr

and I found I enjoyed the moments in which I was used soley for his pleasure. I enjoyed him calling my a little slut, silly whore ect. Those same names that I once found to be "abusive" were ok in ths context. Why? I think because we talked about it. I consented to this before it started and we had set boundries for which it was ok and in what context. Not once did he use any of this against me when we were fighting, nor did he call me those names in any way that could be damaging to my psyche. [...]

I guess conset before action is the simplest way to put it.

My impression, from this brief account, is that it's much more comlplicated than 'prior consent.' Perhaps connected to 'prior consent' is feeling more in control, or less at the arbitrary mercy of someone, esp. someone hostile.

For instance the phrase [not] 'use any of this against me' seems important.

Context, though seems to be every thing. The so called 'same words' such as 'little slut' perhaps meant something different? Is it possible the second were simply more playful, or less intended to hurt?

Also is it just possible that the change is inside you, that hearing the same words caused shame at one time, but not at another?

I have just what you've told us to go on, and you have the rich experience and better 'answers' but these are my impressions and wonderings.



J.

 

[alice_underneath]

I had 2 very different relationships with 2 men whom I loved very much. (at seperate periods in my life)

Thank you for sharing those experiences, angelsrose.

I think I understand the difference between the two relationships, but would like to paraphrase your words to make sure I am hearing what you really mean to say.

In describing the second situation, you wrote -

I consented to this before it started and we had set boundries for which it was ok and in what context. Not once did he use any of this against me when we were fighting, nor did he call me those names in any way that could be damaging to my psyche.

If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that there were clearly defined times or scenes in which humiliation, name-calling, etc. would take place.

However, there were also times when humiliation was clearly unacceptable to both of you. During these times, your partner made it clear that he respected and cherished you in a way that was not at all degrading or demeaning.

This situation was in direct contrast to the first relationship, in which the humiliation and degradation could (and did) took place 24/7, in any and all contexts, depending on the whim of your partner.

Is that right?

So for me abuse in a relationship is quite simply doing something to me that has not been discussed and agreed upon first.

Paraphrasing again, I interpret this statement as saying that you sat down with your second partner and openly discussed humiliation 'play', agreeing to the extent, context, and content involved in any name-calling, etc.

In contrast, you never had this type of conversation with the first partner. The decision regarding if, when, and how to humiliate you was entirely made by him, without any input from you or even advance warning of his intent.

Is that right, too?

The First one was extremely emotionally abusive. He would degrade me, call me names, basically beat the shit out of me verbally, and it killed me. I had never been that hurt in my entire life, nor did I enjoy *any* aspect of what it was he was doing to me.

I know how that feels, and I'm sorry that you suffered this way.

Thank you again for sharing your experiences, angelsrose.

Alice

 

[AngelicAssassin]

NICE question, AA! I know I only grazed the tip of the iceburg but it's a start and I don't wanna be the only loudmouth here.

You've ne'er been a loudmouth darlin'.

Interesting, however, that you should mention ice and tips.

 

[angelsrose]

and I found I enjoyed the moments in which I was used soley for his pleasure. I enjoyed him calling my a little slut, silly whore ect. Those same names that I once found to be "abusive" were ok in ths context. Why? I think because we talked about it. I consented to this before it started and we had set boundries for which it was ok and in what context. Not once did he use any of this against me when we were fighting, nor did he call me those names in any way that could be damaging to my psyche. [...]

I guess conset before action is the simplest way to put it.

My impression, from this brief account, is that it's much more comlplicated than 'prior consent.' Perhaps connected to 'prior consent' is feeling more in control, or less at the arbitrary mercy of someone, esp. someone hostile.

For instance the phrase [not] 'use any of this against me' seems important.

Context, though seems to be every thing. The so called 'same words' such as 'little slut' perhaps meant something different? Is it possible the second were simply more playful, or less intended to hurt?

Also is it just possible that the change is inside you, that hearing the same words caused shame at one time, but not at another?





J.

I would not say that something changed in me at all. I would say more so that is was the context used. Even though in some case the situations were similar, the emotions were different. The words, were intended to shame, degrade and humiliate me. Something that i enjoyed with him.

In a lot of regards the emotions that it brought were identical, but the situation so different that it was safe for me. Where as it would not have been before.

I hope that helps lil.

 

[angelsrose]

Thank you for sharing those experiences, angelsrose.

I think I understand the difference between the two relationships, but would like to paraphrase your words to make sure I am hearing what you really mean to say.

In describing the second situation, you wrote -

If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that there were clearly defined times or scenes in which humiliation, name-calling, etc. would take place.

However, there were also times when humiliation was clearly unacceptable to both of you. During these times, your partner made it clear that he respected and cherished you in a way that was not at all degrading or demeaning.

This situation was in direct contrast to the first relationship, in which the humiliation and degradation could (and did) took place 24/7, in any and all contexts, depending on the whim of your partner.

Is that right? Alice

Yes.

Paraphrasing again, I interpret this statement as saying that you sat down with your second partner and openly discussed humiliation 'play', agreeing to the extent, context, and content involved in any name-calling, etc.

.

Is that right, too?Alice

We more or less stumbled upon it in bed one night. We were very in sync with each other sexually, on a lot of levels. He somehow just knew. Anyhow, one night started calling me names, while he was fucking me, and it turned me on to an extreme degree,I had a fantatic orgasm, and I also started crying afterwards. (often times with him my orgasms were stong to the point of an emotional release as well.) Yes we did talk about it afterwards, which brought up a whole different discussion about things I enjoyed and in what manner, which happened to be inaccordance that night. The thing is though, we were the blind leading the blind in many areas of what we began doing. I was more sexualy expierenced then him, but had never entered into anything that remotely resembled this before. I think it a lot of it had to do with trust.

In contrast, you never had this type of conversation with the first partner. The decision regarding if, when, and how to humiliate you was entirely made by him, without any input from you or even advance warning of his intentAlice

Exactly.

I know how that feels, and I'm sorry that you suffered this way.

Thank you again for sharing your experiences, angelsrose.

Alice

Thank you Alice. It has taken a long time for me to associate my sexual being with the things I enjoy. I have often had a hard time asking for the things I like and shy away from them. This is an interesting journey that I am partaking in on many levels and I know that one day I will find someone that will successfully match the things I want in a man, sexually and otherwise.