The appeal of punishment?

[Stella_Omega]

Apologies

Catalina

fixed it for you.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Not one person here has ever even implied that they would. Sure people question you, because they care. But once you've answered they never question your choices again.

And considering some of the things you've said you believe, I have to thank goodness that you have no power to choose for the vast majority of people. What you think is right-- not just for yourself, but for all women? I would kill someone, or myself. Yes indeed.

well you see that's the thing, Stella, contrary to what you seem to believe, i have no interest in choosing the way anyone else lives. a wistful, fantastical desire to live in a world which does not and never will exist is quite a different thing.

and sorry, but comments like, "no one can consent to that," "no woman can choose that," more than imply the idea that outsiders feel they can choose for me or anyone else who lives a way of life to which they're morally or ethically opposed.

 

[catalina_francisco]

well you see that's the thing, Stella, contrary to what you seem to believe, i have no interest in choosing the way anyone else lives. a wistful, fantastical desire to live in a world which does not and never will exist is quite a different thing.

and sorry, but comments like, "no one can consent to that," "no woman can choose that," more than imply the idea that outsiders feel they can choose for me or anyone else who lives a way of life to which they're morally or ethically opposed.

I think many find it difficult to imagine because it would not be their choice, but like you, the comments you mention, for me are similar to saying anyone who says they have made a choice to consent to these things (or anything the poster does not believe is ok) is similar to saying it is untrue, and for some, feeling they have a right to judge such choices. As we have seen in the past in this forum, discussions of TPE and slavery often raise such sentiments of disbelief in those who do not wish to live by it themselves. One day perhaps it will change, but as I am not overly concerned with approval apart from F's, I don't lose sleep over it anymore.

Catalina

 

[Stella_Omega]

well you see that's the thing, Stella, contrary to what you seem to believe, i have no interest in choosing the way anyone else lives. a wistful, fantastical desire to live in a world which does not and never will exist is quite a different thing.

and it's a world that would murder me. I'm just saying. Anyway, you've got a life that makes you happy, so in your little corner, you do live in that world. I am so glad for you, honestly.

and sorry, but comments like, "no one can consent to that," "no woman can choose that," more than imply the idea that outsiders feel they can choose for me or anyone else who lives a way of life to which they're morally or ethically opposed.

So, you told njlauren different. You could have died, numerous times. People like you don't survive under normative conditions. You're the famous exception that proves the rule.

But on re-reading, you say something about; "many women ... abuse 20 years... get killed as soon as they leave..."

What's that about?

 

[kimuk]

Are you talking play puishments? or real punishments for real "offences"

I have consented to real punishments because I needed to make amends for things which I did which were hurtful to my Dom. Things which could have destroyed our relationship.

For me it was about addressing the balance. It was about proving how comitted I was to rectify our problem.

I can't say if he "enjoyed" administering them. I think not. I have only recieved them when we have been at crisis point. None were "fun" , will ever be forgotton , or were things I would ever want to repeat again.

But they were necessary. For us.

 

[catalina_francisco]

But on re-reading, you say something about; "many women ... abuse 20 years... get killed as soon as they leave..."

What's that about?

Simply it is about people suggesting they would intervene in a situation where they felt someone was being abused (non-BDSM relationship), and the proven fact that many women/and or children are killed when they try to leave or after leaving as a direct result of making that move, not from staying in the relationship. That is why it is not wise for anyone outside that relationship to take on the responsibility of making the decision it is in her best interests to leave as apart from not knowing the risks in a particular relationship, it is not their decision to play with someone elses life because it makes them feel good. Once someone is dead, no amount of saying 'I didn't realise' or "I really didn't think he would kill her/them if they left" will bring them back. Most times the women involved are well aware of the risk and have the right to remain until they feel it is safe for them to leave. Unfortunately, the law may want to protect them, but to date have a poor record of really doing so despite the best intentions.

Catalina

 

[ownedsubgal]

But on re-reading, you say something about; "many women ... abuse 20 years... get killed as soon as they leave..."

What's that about?

that was in direct response to post #40 where njlauren talks about consent (and how in her belief certain things cannot be consented to ever, period), and self-preservation. the implication being, no one could possibly consent to things which would truly harm them, due to this self-preservation instinct. i thought i would point out that submission is in fact how some people display that instinct, and it can be a very effective one. also her statement that she would take it upon herself to intervene in such a situation, consenting or not, i thought needed a statistical wake-up call.

that is all, Stella, i know where your brain was going...

 

[Stella_Omega]

that was in direct response to post #40 where njlauren talks about consent (and how in her belief certain things cannot be consented to ever, period), and self-preservation. the implication being, no one could possibly consent to things which would truly harm them, due to this self-preservation instinct. i thought i would point out that submission is in fact how some people display that instinct, and it can be a very effective one. also her statement that she would take it upon herself to intervene in such a situation, consenting or not, i thought needed a statistical wake-up call.

that is all, Stella, i know where your brain was going...

It's going... many women? I wonder how many?

eta: Catalina is talking about domestic abuse, and the threat to a woman if she leaves. A woman choosing to risk "limb" as a better alternative than risking "life"-- that's not, exactly, consent. Many black slaves chose to stay on the plantation rather than be hunted down and hung. But you can't really claim that they "consented" to be enslaved.

And also, you don't want to think of me as supportive, do you. Noticing what you ignored and what you responded to.

 

[njlauren]

I don't define abuse by the absence of consent. Nor do I define it by the behavior itself, and certainly not by whatever labels a person affixes to their relationship.

I define abuse by the effect on the victim. Anyone who causes material and sustained physical or emotional harm to another human being is engaging in abusive, and therefore fundamentally unethical, behavior - even if the abused person consents to it.

Standing by and letting the abuse happen isn't as despicable as engaging in abuse directly. However, I agree with you that failure to intervene when one could help the victim is unethical too.

But that italicized phrase is a tough one.

Thank you, you put it well and I totally agree. Catalina seems to assume that I mean someone should run in like the horse marines to save the day, obviously it is nuanced as I know only too well. I have worked with groups that help abuse spouses/partners, both straight and gay, and in one case I with another person had to literally restrain an irate spouse who was trying to drag their wife out of a car that was talking her to a safe place (I am only sorry the cops showed up, the person I was with is an ex special forces veteran and the spouse was a drunken moron to boot, I think if the cops hadn't of shown up the guy would have ended up beaten to a pulp). The sad part is that spousal abuse is still treated like a joke in this country, federal laws that would have tightened penalties have been rejected by conservatives, claiming it is a law designed 'to break up marriages' and so forth, restraining orders have the teeth of a 25 year old cat (the penalties for violating them are a joke, and they are often laughed at by cops IME), and so forth.

It all has to be weighed out and when I say get involved, it doesn't mean necessarily the person doing it. It means if you see something suspicious, you talk to people who can help, a battered spouse group, social services, whoever, who are least are trained in this. On the other hand, if I saw a husband beating up his wife and kids, I would call the cops but I also would get some help and try and protect them if I felt they were in grave danger. If I hear screaming at the house next door and stuff breaking, I am not going to turn up my iPod, I am going to do what I can.

And I have good reason to question the wisdom of leaving someone in an abusive household, the person closest to me grew up in an abusive household, where the father was a total piece of shit, the therapist who treated her said it was one of the blackest backgrounds she had ever dealt with, and no one helped them, and people were told and noticed and let me tell you, that damage is often irreversible. It is great to make statements like "a lot of the people killed in abusive households are killed as they are getting ready to leave" (which is true, I don't deny that) but arguing that the risk of that happening means it is better to leave someone in an abusive situation because the odds of them staying alive is higher has serious issues, among which is statistics also say that the longer someone stays in an abusive relationship the level of abuse increases and the odds of being killed keep climbing, not to mention the physical and emotional damage that accumulates. Yes, it often boils down to the lesser of two evils, but as the poster I am responding to said, if there is a way to help people should do so in whatever way they can while being realistic about the danger and also about what you can do (if 5 guys kidnapped someone holding assault rifles, my self defense skills would get me and prob the victim killed).

As far as me judging others relationships that is Cataline and OSG projecting, I never set myself up as the arbiter of their relationships nor did I judge them. I don't know them, I didn't witness what happened to them so I can't tell if I would consider it abuse or not. Ironically, Stella kind of alluded to something in her post, both Catalina and OSG are doing something I saw a lot in my early years in the scene, where (generally a small group) of people, when talking about D/s relationships, specifically TPE, went off on these great sojourns of words, about how a 'real' TPE only involves consent, that if there is any out for the sub/slave it therefore isn't 'really' a 24/7, that they are just 'playing', and it caused a shitstorm, and rightfully so. That is a classic case of people defining what something is. A TPE is what the people say it is, and if people practice it where the sub/slave has the right to walk away if they feel they are being abused, but otherwise live in a way where they are totally controlled/owned, who is to say otherwise?

It is why I won't judge people who take this to that extreme, if they believe to be in a TPE, to fulfill their need to be owned/totally serve, whatever you call it, that is their right to do so. The only person I have the right to define a relationship for is myself, and when I say I disagree that someone in a TPE gives up the right to be pulled back from something that is abusive, as well defined by the poster I am responding to, it is simply my view on it, nowhere did I give myself the authority to judge their relationship and I was careful not to, since I don't know them. I did say if I had a friend in a D/s and it was TPE and I saw the being hurt in a way as described, serious emotional or physical abuse, I would try and help get them out of it any way I could but that would be true if it was a vanilla marriage gone to hell, the biggest influence I probably would have is to have them make that decision (and if the insisted on staying, wouldn't be much I could or would do).

 

[njlauren]

Submission can be a form of self preservation if that is the only alternative. As Stella pointed out, slaves in non consensual "real" slavery will stay with that rather then escape because they know the consequences of escaping and had little choice. Someone weak who is partnered with an abusive spouse who has left them totally dependent can be in that position, and there can be a case made that staying would be safer then leaving, but these are cases where there is no alternative. On the other hand, in a TPE if the dominant becomes abusive there is an alternative since the dominant does not have the force of law allow them to kill their slave or otherwise harm them. I realize that someone who is that deeply in has a lot tied up in obeying/being the property of the dominant, but it isn't the same thing as when submission means preserving life or fear of legal repercussions (like being caught and hung, or otherwise killed). Arguing that submission is a form of self preservation only holds when it literally is a matter of life and death (or maybe, just maybe, that someone is so tied into their image as property/owned/a slave that to be broken from that would cause them major emotional/psychological harm it would be unwise, in which case it would take serious intervention to get them away from an abusive situation and help them recover).

 

[Netzach]

And how would you feel, or explain/rationalise your decision to intervene to the grieving family of an abuse victim 'you decided' needed your intervention and ended up dead because of it? Do you think sleeping at night would be easy for you after that?

Catalina

Really I think that's letting the killer a little bit off the damn hook, isn't it?

I called the cops on a guy pounding the shit out of his wispy little boyfriend in the street. Maybe that would set him off again, maybe it would do nothing, maybe seeing three Geico commercials on Netflix in a row would send him over the edge. Or is that different, because they're boys or they took it outside or something?

So perhaps I should have respected the long shot that these gentlemen were involved in TPE discipline, but I'm not gonna lose sleep on this one. When someone kills someone THEY are the person who made that decision. THEY are the accountable party.

Do this kind of extreme at your own risk of other people seeing it and misconstruing, because I don't think that society should get even WORSE for people like 98 pound dude just for YOU. (ie. US, as people doing edge behavior) And I think "everyone say nothing and look away" is worse. Admittedly this is colored by remembering the feeling of being physically disciplined in public as a child in fucked up ways and no one saying ANYTHING EVER to my mother. Seeing and feeling like the whole world is fine with what is happening to you is more demoralizing than some violence.

In the lack of blanket understanding, discretion leaves us all to another day.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Submission can be a form of self preservation if that is the only alternative.

this is just flat out not true. i have learned that when it comes to self-preservation, people have one of 3 instincts: fight, flee, or submit. and this is not limited to life or death dire circumstances. my own instinct in any situation (not simply those where i am at any risk) involving an influential outside force is to submit. this applies to everything from someone bumping ahead of me in line at the grocery store and not saying a word, to not shouting, fighting back or even raising a whimper when a man took me out in the woods and anally raped me in the back of his truck. it is just my nature to give in, and i am far from the only person on this planet wired in such a way.

and i am by no means saying that my submission stems from a self-preservation and nothing more, just that as a submissive person it is only natural that any sense of protecting self will be expressed accordingly.

and njlauren, despite your claims to be non-judgmental and belief that Catalina and i are "projecting," when you describe specific actions as wrong/abusive/incapable of being consented to, then you are in fact judging those who freely engage in those activities or hold those beliefs. i spent a year in isolation from family, friends and any person i had known before i was a slave, my very first year of being property. it was a critical part of my training and conditioning. it was not easy and when my Master finally lifted the restriction to allow select individuals back into my life, the relationships were never the same (some just washed their hands of me altogether). but that is part of the sacrifice of being a slave, specifically HIS slave.

to you that is wrong. to you that is not consensual, and not a part of the lifestyle. and that is where the judgment comes in. it may look harsh and ugly from the outside, but you always have to remember that some choose this road.

 

[njlauren]

Really I think that's letting the killer a little bit off the damn hook, isn't it?

I called the cops on a guy pounding the shit out of his wispy little boyfriend in the street. Maybe that would set him off again, maybe it would do nothing, maybe seeing three Geico commercials on Netflix in a row would send him over the edge. Or is that different, because they're boys or they took it outside or something?

So perhaps I should have respected the long shot that these gentlemen were involved in TPE discipline, but I'm not gonna lose sleep on this one. When someone kills someone THEY are the person who made that decision. THEY are the accountable party.

Do this kind of extreme at your own risk of other people seeing it and misconstruing, because I don't think that society should get even WORSE for people like 98 pound dude just for YOU. (ie. US as people doing SM) In the lack of blanket understanding, discretion leaves us all to another day.

Netzach, thanks, I was thinking the same thing, that it is blaming someone who tried to help rather then the true degenerate,the one doing it. I would feel badly if I tried to help someone and it went wrong, but if I tried to help them it meant that I thought they were in trouble, maybe even life or death. There is an analogous situation to this, almost every state has good samaritan laws that cover those who stop to help someone else, it means that for example if I stop at an accident scene where a person has gone into cardiac arrest and do CPR, I cannot be held legally responsible , specifically civil action, if I tried to help and someone tried to blame me for what happened. I would be sad if I was unable to save the person or if in doing cpr I broke ribs (not unknown), but if I did it because I thought I could save their life, then I would know I did the right thing. I would feel a lot worse if I knew of someone being abused, didn't try to get them help, and I found out something horrible happened to them or worse, the kids. There is risk pulling people out of abusive situations and people need to use their heads and take appropriate action (much the same as unless it was dire, I wouldn't try to give someone a tracheotomy whose windpipe was crushed unless I knew no help was coming, even though I know how to to on, or I wouldn't move an accident victim unless the car was going to go up), but there is also the very real hurt of the abuse and not doing anything about it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

(some just washed their hands of me altogether)...
to you that is wrong. to you that is not consensual, and not a part of the lifestyle. and that is where the judgment comes in. it may look harsh and ugly from the outside, but you always have to remember that some choose this road.

It is harsh and ugly from the outside. It's harsh and ugly for the people who cared about you, and it is most certainly non consensual for them. They didn't choose to have you removed from their ken.

It's very true, that if I got dragged into the woods and raped, I would probably submit-- but that would not make it right. And it would not mean I had consented. And it would not mean that I was destined to be submissive.

It would mean that I had to, to save my life in that situation.

It would not mean that I needed to become someone's slave and endure vicious treatment in order to learn to be a slave. What the fuck, I'd already endured vicious treatment, via a criminal act.

So yeah, I would wash my hands of someone who made your choices, all things considered. While I support your right to make those choices, once you have made them, you've removed yourself from the world I live in.

 

[njlauren]

this is just flat out not true. i have learned that when it comes to self-preservation, people have one of 3 instincts: fight, flee, or submit. and this is not limited to life or death dire circumstances. my own instinct in any situation (not simply those where i am at any risk) involving an influential outside force is to submit. this applies to everything from someone bumping ahead of me in line at the grocery store and not saying a word, to not shouting, fighting back or even raising a whimper when a man took me out in the woods and anally raped me in the back of his truck. it is just my nature to give in, and i am far from the only person on this planet wired in such a way.

and i am by no means saying that my submission stems from a self-preservation and nothing more, just that as a submissive person it is only natural that any sense of protecting self will be expressed accordingly.

and njlauren, despite your claims to be non-judgmental and belief that Catalina and i are "projecting," when you describe specific actions as wrong/abusive/incapable of being consented to, then you are in fact judging those who freely engage in those activities or hold those beliefs. i spent a year in isolation from family, friends and any person i had known before i was a slave, my very first year of being property. it was a critical part of my training and conditioning. it was not easy and when my Master finally lifted the restriction to allow select individuals back into my life, the relationships were never the same (some just washed their hands of me altogether). but that is part of the sacrifice of being a slave, specifically HIS slave.

to you that is wrong. to you that is not consensual, and not a part of the lifestyle. and that is where the judgment comes in. it may look harsh and ugly from the outside, but you always have to remember that some choose this road.

I never argued that some people are more submissive or whatever, I am submissive about a lot of things, I tend to let things go others would jump on. One of your examples, of getting raped, is a case of submission as self preservation, fighting back when you are being raped is for the most part a stupid thing to do, it is better to submit because chances are if you fight the rapist will hurt you more....

Your lifestyles is your own, you chose to be a slave and I can respect that, but that doesn't mean I have to sit back and say everything is hunky dory about what happens there either, when it may not be. Isolating people from family and friends, for example, is one of the things that defines a cult, it is part of the legal definition, and one of the characteristics of abusers in vanilla relationships is that isolation, it is because in isolation it is a to easier to control someone, to get them to do what you wish and also to prevent outsiders from influencing them. There are time and places where this is used legitimately, it has been used in spy organizations and other specialized groups, for example,because it is effective.

BTW my judgement is really aimed at those who perpetuate abuse or use their power to do it. Every cult group will tell you that isolation is to free their members from evil outside influences, the abusive spouse will say it is to block out people who don't 'understand them', your line about how this was necessary to allow proper training I am sorry to say smells of that to me as an outsider, it is the same kind of justification.

Note something I said several times, I cannot judge your relationship because I don't know you,I haven't observed it to know the dynamics and as such I cannot judge it. The point is that assuming your relationship is non abusive (or you feel it is), then my original comments don't hold, but the reality is that what I wrote could be considered and I believe it is abuse in other relationships. A master could firmly believe that training his slave requires isolation and use it and not be abusive, but it could also be a technique to isolate someone so that no one knows he/she is abusing the sub and stop others from helping. I don't know you, so I cannot say yours is an abusive relationship, but I guarantee you like with vanilla couples, there are dominants who are abusive in fact who isolate their slaves, not to train them, but to abuse them out of the watch light. You obviously don't believe what happened to you was abuse, and I have to accept that since I don't know you or your situation. That said, what I originally said has truth to it as well, that if a dominant truly harms their sub ,deliberately, it is beyond the pale IMO and cannot be consented to....In your case, I have to take your word that what happened to you wasn't abuse, so therefore I am not judging that.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Note something I said several times, I cannot judge your relationship because I don't know you,I haven't observed it to know the dynamics and as such I cannot judge it. The point is that assuming your relationship is non abusive (or you feel it is), then my original comments don't hold, but the reality is that what I wrote could be considered and I believe it is abuse in other relationships. A master could firmly believe that training his slave requires isolation and use it and not be abusive, but it could also be a technique to isolate someone so that no one knows he/she is abusing the sub and stop others from helping. I don't know you, so I cannot say yours is an abusive relationship, but I guarantee you like with vanilla couples, there are dominants who are abusive in fact who isolate their slaves, not to train them, but to abuse them out of the watch light. You obviously don't believe what happened to you was abuse, and I have to accept that since I don't know you or your situation. That said, what I originally said has truth to it as well, that if a dominant truly harms their sub ,deliberately, it is beyond the pale IMO and cannot be consented to....In your case, I have to take your word that what happened to you wasn't abuse, so therefore I am not judging that.

njlauren, i never once stated that there has not been abuse in my relationship. quite the contrary. what i stated is that it is consensual. people can actually, willingly submit to a circumstance or way of life that is, according to the dictionary anyway, abusive. the important thing is that at some point in time, they did actually consent. beyond that i think, is between the individuals in the relationship and should not be of concern to you or me.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Isolating people from family and friends, for example, is one of the things that defines a cult, it is part of the legal definition, and one of the characteristics of abusers in vanilla relationships is that isolation, it is because in isolation it is a to easier to control someone, to get them to do what you wish and also to prevent outsiders from influencing them. There are time and places where this is used legitimately, it has been used in spy organizations and other specialized groups, for example,because it is effective.

BTW my judgement is really aimed at those who perpetuate abuse or use their power to do it. Every cult group will tell you that isolation is to free their members from evil outside influences, the abusive spouse will say it is to block out people who don't 'understand them', your line about how this was necessary to allow proper training I am sorry to say smells of that to me as an outsider, it is the same kind of justification.

obviously a key purpose in isolating another human being is to restrict or eliminate external influences. it is also a comparatively speedy and thorough method of conditioning a person...their behavior, way of thinking, emotional state of mind, etc. and yes that is very cult-like. but there is one significant difference between those who are indoctrinated by a cult and those who chose a slavery like myself...my eyes were wide open. i understood i was giving up life as i had known it and giving myself over completely to someone else. i didn't know all it would entail (not by a long shot), but i understood that there were no limits beyond those he placed on himself. see, there's that consent thing again.

 

[Stella_Omega]

njlauren, i never once stated that there has not been abuse in my relationship. quite the contrary. what i stated is that it is consensual. people can actually, willingly submit to a circumstance or way of life that is, according to the dictionary anyway, abusive. the important thing is that at some point in time, they did actually consent. beyond that i think, is between the individuals in the relationship and should not be of concern to you or me.

The only reason anyone gets concerned about your relationship is because you make sure to tell people all about how extreme and abusive it is. Yes, I understand that you have a point to make, but anyone can predict that broken bones and anal rape will arouse people's desire to protect the victim.

This desire is a good thing. It's the milk of human kindness.

 

[ownedsubgal]

It's very true, that if I got dragged into the woods and raped, I would probably submit-- but that would not make it right. And it would not mean I had consented. And it would not mean that I was destined to be submissive.

no, it would not mean any of those things. who implied that it would?

It would mean that I had to, to save my life in that situation.

that is what it would mean for most people. in my case it was just another day.

It would not mean that I needed to become someone's slave and endure vicious treatment in order to learn to be a slave. What the fuck, I'd already endured vicious treatment, via a criminal act.

you lost me a bit here because i don't understand the connection between the first statement and the last? no, submitting to rape would not indicate someone should be a slave.

(and not that it's relevant, but i had been a slave for years when that incident happened to me, and in fact the reason why i did not so much as make a sound the whole time had much to do with not wanting to disappoint my Master. even with the knowledge that he would not approve of what was happening, still.)

So yeah, I would wash my hands of someone who made your choices, all things considered. While I support your right to make those choices, once you have made them, you've removed yourself from the world I live in.

that would be your right and totally understandable. what wasn't so understandable to me at the time was the fact that the people who had been in my life had no knowledge of the details of my relationship. they didn't know how i was treated, they didn't know my status had changed from free person to slave. they saw that i was with a controlling man, and that i liked it that way. and that was unacceptable. it's cool tho, i ceased to miss those connections years ago.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Just another day, huh...

Well, that's a bit nauseating to think about. Nausea is not my favorite sensation, so-- god bless, or whatever.

 

[incubus'_sub]

you've all been very pc. i'm not.

osg has presented herself as the slave poster child for years. horror stories over and over but with HER CONSENT!! as if it makes any difference.

if the stories are true, and given the indifference shown by her master/dom/owner to her health or whatever happens to her, i doubt very much if he'd care if she was "rescued" by the authorities, let alone try to kill her for leaving. he's got others to play with apparently. sounds like a real charmer.

consent has to be given with a sound mind. broken bones??? sheesh, no sound mind there folks.

 

[Cattypuss]

Something's starting to bother me here. What is it?

Oh yeah...

Hearing OSG banging on and on about how consensual her relationship is and always has been - when I vividly recall around 2-3 years ago being contacted by her via PM, and her playing the misunderstood martyr at me, very vociferously, just because I dared to suggest in a public thread that everything that happens to her in her relationship is consensual because she gave blanket consent when she became a slave.

She banged on about it so much that I ended up having to to end the PM conversation by asking her, really, why she was so exercised about MY opinions of her choices. If she wanted to see what happened in her daily life as non-consensual then she could go right ahead - but I also had a right to my own opinion.

Seems she's changed her tune. Yeah... um.... that's not scary, given the extreme nature of the situation she's in.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Really I think that's letting the killer a little bit off the damn hook, isn't it?

I called the cops on a guy pounding the shit out of his wispy little boyfriend in the street. Maybe that would set him off again, maybe it would do nothing, maybe seeing three Geico commercials on Netflix in a row would send him over the edge. Or is that different, because they're boys or they took it outside or something?

So perhaps I should have respected the long shot that these gentlemen were involved in TPE discipline, but I'm not gonna lose sleep on this one. When someone kills someone THEY are the person who made that decision. THEY are the accountable party.

Do this kind of extreme at your own risk of other people seeing it and misconstruing, because I don't think that society should get even WORSE for people like 98 pound dude just for YOU. (ie. US, as people doing edge behavior) And I think "everyone say nothing and look away" is worse. Admittedly this is colored by remembering the feeling of being physically disciplined in public as a child in fucked up ways and no one saying ANYTHING EVER to my mother. Seeing and feeling like the whole world is fine with what is happening to you is more demoralizing than some violence.

In the lack of blanket understanding, discretion leaves us all to another day.

No, it is not giving the killers a free off the hook...and I am talking about the situations referred to by others here which are not BDSM and seen as abusive, and free for them to intervene because they feel it is the right thing to do, and their right. Based on my professional knowledge of working in the field (as advocate, counsellor and court worker to liaison with police, victims, shelters and court systems), and the well researched and police backed knowledge that most women and children in or from abusive relationships are killed while or after escaping, not while in the relationship. I have worked with women who have had their faces rebuilt with titanium plates, lost their sight or hearing due to the abuse, and some who went to prison for striking back and killing the abuser...all still said they did what they had to do in staying until they felt (if at all) it was possible for them to survive leaving...it takes planning and a lot of luck.

What untrained but concerned citizens do not often realise is that while they may be concerned and want to help by trying to persuade or get the victim/s out, the women involved usually are in the best position (knowing the abuser, knowing the patterns, knowing the posibilities, knowing the likely outcome) to make this decision. Someone outside taking that responsibility on themselves without this knowledge, to step in, can result in death....that is sort of final and sad if a result of someone blindly doing what they feel is right, not actually what is. It is about what is in the best interests of the victim, not about what makes the would be rescuer feel good about themselves and their actions.

Yes, of course if you hear sounds which indicate someone is in danger by all means call the police...you should, but don't just decide your neighbour is obviously abused and so it is up to you to get her out or persuade her to get out. I don't know of any counselling or support service which actively makes that decision for an abused woman simply because they know the real risks involved and work within that framework to a safe outcome. Sadly for some women, staying is the safest thing they can do. The news reports back it up as well. Most deaths reported in such situations mention the victim was leaving, or the more usual, had left. Sometimes it can be months later, often the women have a restraining order...people feel that protects, but reality is it doesn't.

Sorry, rant over, but I feel strongly about this as I have been in the position to see the deadly outcomes and listen to those who thought they were doing the right thing try and make sense of why their act of 'kindness' ultimately killed the person they were 'helping'.

Catalina

 

[desertslave]

i spent a year in isolation from family, friends and any person i had known before i was a slave, my very first year of being property. it was a critical part of my training and conditioning. it was not easy and when my Master finally lifted the restriction to allow select individuals back into my life, the relationships were never the same (some just washed their hands of me altogether). but that is part of the sacrifice of being a slave, specifically HIS slave.

to you that is wrong. to you that is not consensual, and not a part of the lifestyle. and that is where the judgment comes in. it may look harsh and ugly from the outside, but you always have to remember that some choose this road.

I've been reading this part of the thread but staying out of it because I honestly think that semantics are becoming a tangle.

I do have a question for OSG, though, strictly for curiosity's sake and to make a clearer picture in my head. Answering is optional, of course.

In regards to your being sequestered, were you aware that this was going to be part of the process of your training before you entered into your relationship?

That's all.

 

[Netzach]

No, it is not giving the killers a free off the hook...and I am talking about the situations referred to by others here which are not BDSM and seen as abusive, and free for them to intervene because they feel it is the right thing to do, and their right. Based on my professional knowledge of working in the field (as advocate, counsellor and court worker to liaison with police, victims, shelters and court systems), and the well researched and police backed knowledge that most women and children in or from abusive relationships are killed while or after escaping, not while in the relationship. I have worked with women who have had their faces rebuilt with titanium plates, lost their sight or hearing due to the abuse, and some who went to prison for striking back and killing the abuser...all still said they did what they had to do in staying until they felt (if at all) it was possible for them to survive leaving...it takes planning and a lot of luck.

What untrained but concerned citizens do not often realise is that while they may be concerned and want to help by trying to persuade or get the victim/s out, the women involved usually are in the best position (knowing the abuser, knowing the patterns, knowing the posibilities, knowing the likely outcome) to make this decision. Someone outside taking that responsibility on themselves without this knowledge, to step in, can result in death....that is sort of final and sad if a result of someone blindly doing what they feel is right, not actually what is. It is about what is in the best interests of the victim, not about what makes the would be rescuer feel good about themselves and their actions.

Yes, of course if you hear sounds which indicate someone is in danger by all means call the police...you should, but don't just decide your neighbour is obviously abused and so it is up to you to get her out or persuade her to get out. I don't know of any counselling or support service which actively makes that decision for an abused woman simply because they know the real risks involved and work within that framework to a safe outcome. Sadly for some women, staying is the safest thing they can do. The news reports back it up as well. Most deaths reported in such situations mention the victim was leaving, or the more usual, had left. Sometimes it can be months later, often the women have a restraining order...people feel that protects, but reality is it doesn't.

Sorry, rant over, but I feel strongly about this as I have been in the position to see the deadly outcomes and listen to those who thought they were doing the right thing try and make sense of why their act of 'kindness' ultimately killed the person they were 'helping'.

Catalina

I offer a flawed analogy. There is no real analogy for this, but it's an analogy about risk in decision.

I'm on a medicine that has a much more highly elevated chance of offing me versus not being on it, currently, through side effects or the fact that it basically gives me the immune system of an 85 year old. There are real and immediate risks. There's also the likelihood that it will simply wind down and stop working anyway.

I could also not be on it, spend every day in pain and wait for my insides to do the job eventually and with eventual surgeries and daily excruciating pain, or enough steroids to crack my every bone.

Because it's what I know how to suffer through. It might take 60 years to finally off me, putting me at 100 ish, it might do its magic in a week - but in a lot of ways you could argue for "safer." It's also no way to fucking live.

If most people have to live in misery forever, or spin a roulette wheel with half the spaces marked "better life" and four marked "dead" - what do you think most people will want? Should nobody offer it up as an idea?

I definitely agree that no one should make this decision FOR me, but I've made peace with the fact that the MD mentioned the existence of the med. I'm kind of glad that the MD pushed it more than I would have liked for a long while. I'm kind of glad that when my insurance rolled over and ran out the MD was concerned about hooking me up with some way of not having to pull the treatment. I'm kind of glad that after a point my loved ones would have asked me "are you fucking crazy?"if I thought all natural self-endangerment was superior.

I totally accept that JW's and Christian Scientists and other people have the RIGHT to decide totally opposite of me, but I don't think I have to ever think "wow that's a GREAT decision" even knowing the track record of FDA "safety" and having tried everything I could to not have to go on this crap.

Bottom line, I'm not going to just go "well do what's in your heart (shrug)" and not discuss the VALUE of going on the med (the value of gettingthefuckout) or the possibility of treatment improving things, or talk about the advantages that it can confer - while I'm also not in favor of strapping them to a gurney and forcing. Make sense?