violence and sex

[Guest]

Too True. as a matter of fact the last words of the average, drunken, trailer park redneck, right before he pulls the trigger usually are "I Love You". Closely followed by a series of VERY loud noises.

No shit.

 

[angela146]

I have to agree with OSG and SSP at the same time.

Hubby and I are trying to find a way of getting to what OSG describes, not as a frequent thing but as a rare once or twice a year thing.

I would like to have the experience of him taking anger out on me.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

worded that way, i agree. so many have the very false assumption that any man who beats his mate (and i mean a real, non-kink, non-bdsm beating) could not possibly love her. being capable of that kind of violence does not make one incapable of love. for some, it is a natural response that actually grows FROM love, as it the case with my Master. if some woman he did not give a hoot about were to piss him off, do you think he would beat her? heck no, he would not want to so much as touch her. every beating from my Master is yet another reminder of how much he loves me, of how dear i am to him.

Problem is, it really depends on the person doing the beating. It doesnt necessarily mean that he DOES love her, either. Sometimes, it's just that she's the only person he CAN beat with impunity.

The feeling you're talking about with your master, I feel like I understand, the way you are talking about it. It can be that feeling of getting the other person to go out of control. Like you've had such an effect on this person, they feel so passionately, that they Lose control. That can be the high. That you've had such an affect and that they really want to get to you so bad.

Kimmygirl may have a different issue, though. I'm not sure. I got a feeling from Kimmygirl that part of it might be the non-consent issue. That, with real bdsm there is always consent, and perhaps she wants to have it be Not what she wants -- if you know what I mean.

She has to figure out exactly which high she is looking for. It doesn't sound like it's about the amount of pain, or even the intensity, but something else. The look in the guy's eye, the true fear. Maybe even that 'how far would he go' edge. Maybe she wants not to know how far.

There are other highs at that end of things. The giving in, the release of being broken, that you will do anything, say anything. Especially if it is someone you love. Even the giving in to the edge, that you might be killed. Letting it All go.

Problem is, we don't know what Kimmygirl is craving. Do YOU know, Kimmy?

Is there a way for her to get what she wants and not make it too dangerous?

Unfortunately, I know what some of that far edge is like, for all the wrong reasons.

I want to warn Kimmy that some things, some urges, shouldn't be given in to.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

edited to take out the personal stuff.

 

[shelleb4]

[AN ATTACK IN ANGER IS A CRIME. IF YOU HAVEN'T DISCUSSED BEFOREHAND, OR THE IDEA ISN'T AT LEAST IMPLIED AND UNDERSTOOD BEFOREHAND, THEN IT IS A CRIME. ABUSE IS WRONG. YOU ARE IN DANGER.

The fact that this crime happened once, and you did not leave, to me implies consent? By staying you sanction the repeat of the behaviour.
Now your motivation behind the "consent" could be your sexual arousal by the violence, or it could be a womans low self esteem issues that make her play victim to an abuser.

In short the first time is abuse, by default of no refusal and staying around for the second and third episode, implies consent.

For me, initially and still to some extent now, it is difficult and embarassing to speak frankly of our deeper desires. They seem so 'wrong'. Its easier to 'read' the body language than talk candidly on the issue of "would you mind if i slapped you around the face while i sported a aroused and arousing cock?" To which you could reply, "thought you'd never ask"

Just a thought or two really. And the scene you describe, was very arousing for me, i sicken myself a little at being aroused by that, but that who i am. Its my choice if i act on any fantasy.

You are invoking your choice with your behaviour.

 

[Texture]

I think accepting men who are violent is a load of shit, and an insult to those of us who are intelligent and self aware enough to express ourselves with consenting partners.

There's a wider responsibility than yourself, you can't just say it's alright for me so it's alright.

I am attracted to edgy things, sometimes have a perverse attraction to relationships that would be wrong for me, but I don't indulge it...because I've got some empathy for other people. I also know how good a good roleplay can be.

 

[Saint_Sinner]

I love to skydive........I don't want to die.......I want to live..

Skydiving gives me that near life experience. We, in this life have a need to go above and beyond what is considered normal by those we consider normal. I understand that there might be a day when my chute might not open.......but still I jump. I can understand the total experience in being out of control.

Before I knew what I was and that it had a name, I dated a woman that knew how to piss me off. Man, she could really piss me off. I had never put my hands on a woman before. Looking back on it now, she wanted me to get physical with her, she practically begged for it. Saying disrespectful, uncalled for things, almost drove me to the point of delivering her a beating. Would I have enjoyed it? It's a question that I hope I'll never get to answer. I have no problem inflicting pain and control, but abuse? I can't say yay or nay. I know beating the shit out of someone that pissed me off on the past has definately left me in the zone. But he was a man and was supposed to be able to defend himself. I guess the situations can have sometihing in common,.......the imposing of will onto another person, but I don't know. I jump because I want the thrill........Just remember, it's all or nothing, and one day your chute might not open.

 

[s'lara]

Sorry to everybody for bring up that personal crap that got stirred up by reading this thread. Hope no one was offended. If I'm still embarrassed tomorrow I guess there's a delete function, right? Hope so.

Just hope Kimmy seriously considers where her feelings might be coming from and what part of the experience is the turnon so she can find a way to have her passion safely.

Hugs all.

There's no need to apologize for providing personal experiences to explain a position PS. i understand what you were trying to illustrate for Kimmy and while it may not be something she completely identifies with (or may fully identify with), your post does have some bearing on the topic ... namely, violence.

Good luck in finding what you need kimmy. Good luck to you as well PS.

lara

 

[Phoenix Stone]

There's no need to apologize for providing personal experiences to explain a position PS. i understand what you were trying to illustrate for Kimmy and while it may not be something she completely identifies with (or may fully identify with), your post does have some bearing on the topic ... namely, violence.

Good luck in finding what you need kimmy. Good luck to you as well PS.

lara

Thank you S'Lara. Guess I'm still thinking about editing it off, since she must have seen it by now. Just hoping, among other things, that she might consider a deeper place wanting to take it that far can be coming from and consider. (Getting guys who don't know what they're doing to do it, who could kill her).

Just saw her on a non-consent board I used to go to. I really hope she listens to the women there, who will give her pointers for how to be careful if she takes it to realtime 'play' with those guys. I don't post on there anymore so am telling her here. Some of those guys are very likely real rapists. And on a poll that was done there, most of them want the woman to be in pain and not enjoy the act. Makes me nervous seeing someone as seemingly uncautious as her playing in that field.

 

[Limbhugger]

Non-consensual violence has no place in a relationship. Period. Now, what implies consent starts to become vague and uncertain accordin to the individuals involved. But we all have a built in right/wrong meter that tells us when things aren't right. Wether or not we choose to act on that meter is for you to decide.

Hitting in anger is wrong. Nothing good will come from it. It may provide some temporary relife for both the administrator and subsequently the receiver but it is not loving or caring or dealt out with restraint. Is a dominant allowed to act without restraint or control? That isn't a dominant, it is an abuser.

A dominant knows their submissive so well as to know when, where, how, and why it shall be played out. And the loving dominant makes sure the submissive understands.

A wiggly rope to walk but abuse is not love. No matter what OSG says. OSG believes, or at least wants us to believe, that she is super-slave and her super-master can do anything to her and it equals love. I don't buy it for a second.

As a submissive, there is nothing like a strong slap to the face to drop me into my place, but the slap never comes from true anger. She is controlled, in touch with herself. Aware.

Needing to please is a strong and powerful feeling but it should never be confused with abuse.

Just my .02.

 

[Krinaia]

Okay.... some of the stuff in this thread makes me shake my head and go, geez people and some makes me nod in agreement. I could address the things I think are bad advice to Kimmy but that would probably piss off others so instead I'm going to pass on some advice Netzach gave me.

I'm single too and searching and finding myself so you and I are not in entirely different positions Kimmy. Hell, my shoulders and neck are covered with bite marks right now

But anyhow, the advice.

Stop. Do some soul searching. Slow down. Make a list of the things you want and need in a lover/boyfriend/dominant. After you have a long list of things you want... start prioritizing the things that are important and the things you could do without. If you're going to go looking for a lifestyle partner, its best you know what you want beforehand. And it isn't easy. It's very frustrating. I've been stood up, canceled on, and generally disappointed. I've also gone to a munch, met a local dominant from whom I had an very fun scene that left me wanting more and I had a weekend with a man i admire and care for that left bruises on my neck and shoulders though he isn't a dominant, he does want to please me and that meant being a lil rough which he ws more than willing to do to watch me get off. Will that be enough for me?

Read, educate yourself... know how to spot an abuser. Find out what options a submissive has to protect herself. If you want to be abused, there is nothing anyone can do to stop you from seeking that but your neighbors might eventually call the cops and is that the sort of life you want? Your employeers may let you go because you come in with black eyes and that is not the image they want for their companies. Consider the consequences of the choices you are about to make. They could affect you for the rest of your life. Violent sex is not a game. Oh, yes, it can be. But if you aren't safe, it can be very dangerous in a not-so-good way. And too, if you ask me, a submissive who doesn't understand fully the consequences of her choice to submit, well that submission is rather cheap to come by.

The most important thing I can say to you is that while you are single, you are the only person who is going to watch out for your safety. No one is going to come rushing forward to be your savior or stop you from making a mistake or clean up the mess if you do. You cannot go on a date and assume that he is going to do so for you. If someone tells you otherwise, be wary. Learn to spot reg flags and heed them. You have to protect yourself. Your safety and health and mental well-being are worth it. You are worth it. So just be safe and have fun.

 

[big salami]

i know what you're saying osg, but there is still a difference between getting your needs met in that fashion in a bdsm relationship with a man who knows what hes doing-such as your master for example, and some drunken redneck who beats his wife becuz he is ignorant. when i said that she can get her needs met in a safe way, i meant that she can find a man who will give her the kind of beating she craves, but who is also in control of himself and has her well being in mind. which to my mind would be someone who knows something of the D/s lifestyle. i dont want her to go get with some asshole who beats women, thinking that thats the only way she will ever get her needs met, and end up getting seriously hurt by him if not worse. some guy who only ever hits out of anger..who, when he hits, gets out of control, and who is incapable of love or caring about anyone, as many real woman-beaters are. i dont want her to settle for the first guy she finds who will throw her a beating once in a while when he's pissed...because it is possible to find a man who loves you and cares about you, and who also will give you the kind of violence you crave. but i still maintain that there is a difference bwteen getting your needs met by a guy who knows what hes doing and has your well being in mind, and getting it from some woman beater who might kill you one day.

It certainly IS possible to find a man who loves you and cares about you, who knows what a gift a womans submission is, who will give you what you want, to whatever degree you want it, to cause you pain knowing that it's giving you pleasure and deriving pleasure from that knowledge himself! It is also true to say that most Doms, the ones I know anyway, MUST have control of themselves at these times, for fear of going too far, the woman who has given him the gift of her submission, who is trusting him to cause her pain, albeit for her pleasure, is precious, too precious for any sane Dom to want to really hurt her!!
I am Dom and as yet have not found a woman who will require me to beat her, to cause her pain sufficient to enhance the sexual pleasure she will derive afterwards and which will allow me to feel that pleasure too but, we all have to live in hope don't we?

 

[rosco rathbone]

some folks may not like the subject of this mail, but i feel it is something i need to talk about, so apologies in advance if i upset anyone.
some of you may remember i have posted similar on this subject. i described a rape i experience where the boys were very violent and i also asked about men inficting pain on our breasts.
i have just eneded a short relationship with a guy who could be violent. on four occasions he took it out on me. on one of the occaisiond he was naked, his penis was rock hard throughtout the beating. i must say he never causewd any real damage it was mainly slapping of my face and body. on 3 of the occasions when he'd done he stood over me while i was curled up crying and calmed down. he would apologise and began caressing me. he would then move into a postion where he could have sex with me. i didnt object, in fact i was very aroused. the orgasms i had were some of the best. on the fourth occaision i had ended up in the sat with my knees up in the corner of the room. after a couple of minute he came over and raised my head by my hair. his cock was out and it was rock hard. i instinctively lent forward and began sucking it. i sucked it like a mad woman, i just wanted to taste his stiffness and feel his cum in my mouth. after he had cum i masterbated myself while he watched, i came very quickly.
the only conclusion i can draw is violence turns me on, actually enhances my sexual pleasure.
has anyone else felt the same? or know why i feel like that?
kim

This basically sounds like a nutshell description of my sex life.

 

[Pure]

Whew, things are complicated!

Saint
AN ATTACK IN ANGER IS A CRIME. IF YOU HAVEN'T DISCUSSED BEFOREHAND, OR THE IDEA ISN'T AT LEAST IMPLIED AND UNDERSTOOD BEFOREHAND, THEN IT IS A CRIME. ABUSE IS WRONG. YOU ARE IN DANGER.

Limb
Hitting in anger is wrong. Nothing good will come from it. It may provide some temporary relife for both the administrator and subsequently the receiver but it is not loving or caring or dealt out with restraint. Is a dominant allowed to act without restraint or control? That isn't a dominant, it is an abuser.

----
My opinion differs from both those above (rendered by very articulate and intelligent fellows, of course), as far as I can interpret them: An act done in anger is not necessarily wrong or illegal.

Limb introduces the term 'without control', and like saint, seems to equate 'anger' with 'out of control'. Horse pucky.

Further these and a number of posters seem to suggest that whipping someone for pleasure is properly something *saintly* types do, out of pure love: Anger, rage, hostility are NOT supposed to be present, even in the drawing of blood. The whipper is inwardly reciting EB Browning, 'How do I love thee, let me count the strokes.' Gimme a break.

If not anger (and leaving aside the 'love issue') what is the ideal, according to Saint and Limb? A cold surgical dom without a flicker of emotion? Is that really safer? Read about the German cannibal fellow, Miewes; he didn't get angry preparing the fellow for his (consensual) meal.

Of course Ownsubg is deep into the truth of things, the combinations of violence, anger and love; the unsafe *realities* as opposed to the hallmark views of 'dominance' in a pink and golden haze.

I think also Sigsauer, below, is hitting the right topics, in that she looks at control as a separate issue. Can the angry fellow control himself?

SSP:
I WILL say, like others said, that you can get that craving fullfilled in a consensual way. you dont have to seek out men who beat you just cuz theyre mad and not in control of themselves-in fact, going out with a man who likes to beat women, who also doesnt know how to control himself and only ever does it out of anger, is a good way to die.[...]

there is still a difference between getting your needs met in that fashion in a bdsm relationship with a man who knows what hes doing-such as your master for example, and some drunken redneck who beats his wife becuz he is ignorant. when i said that she can get her needs met in a safe way, i meant that she can find a man who will give her the kind of beating she craves, but who is also in control of himself and has her well being in mind. which to my mind would be someone who knows something of the D/s lifestyle.

All of my comments above are NOT to say there aren't some characters who are extremely dangerous when angry. (Indeed there are extremely dangerous people who *don't get angry.)

Kimmy, I think the issues bear a lot of investigating, and that your leanings are not necessarily dealt with in a formulaic 'bdsm lifestyle.

{Dom who promises to hurt you with X implement, to Y degree, as pre-agreed to your 'limits', and subject to your 'bailout' with a safeword.}

Without imperiling yourself, you do well to look at violence and how it may be dealt with in yourself, in others, in yourself as undergoing it, etc.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Too True. as a matter of fact the last words of the average, drunken, trailer park redneck, right before he pulls the trigger usually are "I Love You". Closely followed by a series of VERY loud noises.

No shit.

Lame, lazy, useless, clueless stereotyping of the worst kind.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Limb
Hitting in anger is wrong.

I hit in anger all the time...controlled anger. Anger is the source of my mastery. I just recently chained my number-one concubine and beat her asscheeks with a belt out of sheer anger at her. I beat her with all the strength of my righteous arm. It was angry, and it was hot. Anger=sexuality.

 

[big salami]

I hit in anger all the time...controlled anger. Anger is the source of my mastery. I just recently chained my number-one concubine and beat her asscheeks with a belt out of sheer anger at her. I beat her with all the strength of my righteous arm. It was angry, and it was hot. Anger=sexuality.

OK so YOU feel that anger = sexuality but, that's NOT everybody's view! the words you use are the words that I have heard used by religious fanatics who breathe fire and brimstone!
When you beat your woman with "all the strength of your righteous arm" who is it that decides that your arm IS in fact righteous? and, if your woman reaches the point where she can take no more, can she stop that "righteous anger" with a safe word or, has she just got to bear it whatever she may feel?

 

[ownedsubgal]

Whew, things are complicated!

Saint
AN ATTACK IN ANGER IS A CRIME. IF YOU HAVEN'T DISCUSSED BEFOREHAND, OR THE IDEA ISN'T AT LEAST IMPLIED AND UNDERSTOOD BEFOREHAND, THEN IT IS A CRIME. ABUSE IS WRONG. YOU ARE IN DANGER.

Limb
Hitting in anger is wrong. Nothing good will come from it. It may provide some temporary relife for both the administrator and subsequently the receiver but it is not loving or caring or dealt out with restraint. Is a dominant allowed to act without restraint or control? That isn't a dominant, it is an abuser.

----
My opinion differs from both those above (rendered by very articulate and intelligent fellows, of course), as far as I can interpret them: An act done in anger is not necessarily wrong or illegal.

Limb introduces the term 'without control', and like saint, seems to equate 'anger' with 'out of control'. Horse pucky.

Further these and a number of posters seem to suggest that whipping someone for pleasure is properly something *saintly* types do, out of pure love: Anger, rage, hostility are NOT supposed to be present, even in the drawing of blood. The whipper is inwardly reciting EB Browning, 'How do I love thee, let me count the strokes.' Gimme a break.

If not anger (and leaving aside the 'love issue') what is the ideal, according to Saint and Limb? A cold surgical dom without a flicker of emotion? Is that really safer? Read about the German cannibal fellow, Miewes; he didn't get angry preparing the fellow for his (consensual) meal.

Of course Ownsubg is deep into the truth of things, the combinations of violence, anger and love; the unsafe *realities* as oppposed to the hallmark views of 'dominance' in a pink and golden haze.

I think also Sigsauer, below, is hitting the right topics, in that she looks at control as a separate issue. Can the angry fellow control himself?

SSP:
I WILL say, like others said, that you can get that craving fullfilled in a consensual way. you dont have to seek out men who beat you just cuz theyre mad and not in control of themselves-in fact, going out with a man who likes to beat women, who also doesnt know how to control himself and only ever does it out of anger, is a good way to die.[...]

there is still a difference between getting your needs met in that fashion in a bdsm relationship with a man who knows what hes doing-such as your master for example, and some drunken redneck who beats his wife becuz he is ignorant. when i said that she can get her needs met in a safe way, i meant that she can find a man who will give her the kind of beating she craves, but who is also in control of himself and has her well being in mind. which to my mind would be someone who knows something of the D/s lifestyle.

All of my comments above are NOT to say there aren't some characters who are extremely dangerous when angry. (Indeed there are extremely dangerous people who *don't get angry.)

Kimmy, I think the issues bear a lot of investigating, and that your leanings are not necessarily dealt with in a formulaic 'bdsm lifestyle.

{Dom who promises to hurt you with X implement, to Y degree, as pre-agreed to your 'limits', and subject to your 'bailout' with a safeword.}

Without imperiling yourself, you do well to look at violence and how it may be dealt with in yourself, in others, in yourself as undergoing it, etc.

Pure brings up a relevant point, one that unfortunately seems to be often overlooked in the internet message board world of D/s. we're human beings...with human emotions, living real life, in the real world. so there will be anger...there will be times of passionate violence...yes, maybe even towards the very one you love the most....that is the reality of life. if there is a Dominant...a person...on the planet who does only what is proper and "right" (whatever that is) at all times, who lives and breathes "SSC" and every other cute alterna-lifestyle mantra, who does only what the submissive or bottom wants and how they want it, who would never harm a hair on a fly's head....well, then i would not like to meet such a person. i prefer Dominants of the non-robotic variety. now this isn't to say that a Dominant should not be able to control themselves...of course they should. even while angry, upset, etc...they should remain aware enough and have enough self-control not to cause irrepairable harm. there's a fine line there, and a good, responsible Dominant imo knows how to express and relieve himself fully without crossing it.

 

[Netzach]

Like the painslut converts pain into pleasure, Roscoe, I'd argue you are channeling the mean reds into something other, when you harness that energy.

 

[exiledmaster]

yes i totally agree, it wasnt a game, it was abuse. the relationship is ended, im just left with the feelings and the wondering!
kim

One of the missing questions here is 'If you'd had a safe word, and he'd have obeyed it, would you have used it?'

 

[exiledmaster]

I've read the whole thread through, and a few observations have to be made...

There are issues of control here, Real issues of control, on the part of the man doing the beating and the woman being beaten.
My question (above) is a little glib, but so be it. There are also a few slogans masquerading as answers.

For instance 'an attack in anger is a crime'. I was stabbed in 1984, while working as a doorman. I attacked my assailant; I was angry. I needed to be angry. He'd stabbed me once, and if I didn't beat the shit out of him he was going to cut me again. We both went to hospital; him to get his jaw wired and his internal bruising checked out, me to get my wound stitched. Was that a crime? In legal theory, possibly, since there was a question of whether my violence was proportionate to the risk I faced. In practical fact, no. The police interviewed me, interviewed him, and washed their hands of the whole affair. In the kind of work I used to do anger was part of the defence mechanism against violent dangerous people.

There's been a lot of stereotyping here of violent relationship men as rednecks and trailer park trash. Twice in my life I've given shelter to beaten women who were in violent relationships; one was the wife of a university lecturer, a lecturer herself, the other the lesbian partner of a management consultant. Stereotypes don't help....

Perhaps what I'm driving at here is that part of the problem might be that Kimmy can only articulate what she wants after the event. I don't understand Kimmy's question, in a sense. She has taught this man that he'll get away with what he does; she's accepted a kind of BDSM without the structure. Any guy who puts his cock in a woman's mouth after he's beaten her has to be pretty confident he's not going to end up the oral equivalent of John Wayne Bobbit. Any man who wakes up the next morning next to a woman he's done that to without either the police or the lawyers from hell descending upon his head is being sent a pretty clear, if inarticulate message.

My message to Kimmy is pretty clear; either set a limit or get the fuck out of that kind of relationship. My lesbian friend who fled the relationship? Her limit was marks that could be seen; her lover had roughed her up a few times, and she'd warned her not to mark her. they'd even talked about it. She'd accepted her lovers excuses about where the anger came from, and all sort sof other claptrap, but when a punch left her with a cut above her eye she walked. It was the right decision. Kimmy needs to be sure she'll make the right decision before it's too late.

 

[big salami]

I've read the whole thread through, and a few observations have to be made...

There are issues of control here, Real issues of control, on the part of the man doing the beating and the woman being beaten.
My question (above) is a little glib, but so be it. There are also a few slogans masquerading as answers.

For instance 'an attack in anger is a crime'. I was stabbed in 1984, while working as a doorman. I attacked my assailant; I was angry. I needed to be angry. He'd stabbed me once, and if I didn't beat the shit out of him he was going to cut me again. We both went to hospital; him to get his jaw wired and his internal bruising checked out, me to get my wound stitched. Was that a crime? In legal theory, possibly, since there was a question of whether my violence was proportionate to the risk I faced. In practical fact, no. The police interviewed me, interviewed him, and washed their hands of the whole affair. In the kind of work I used to do anger was part of the defence mechanism against violent dangerous people.

There's been a lot of stereotyping here of violent relationship men as rednecks and trailer park trash. Twice in my life I've given shelter to beaten women who were in violent relationships; one was the wife of a university lecturer, a lecturer herself, the other the lesbian partner of a management consultant. Stereotypes don't help....

Perhaps what I'm driving at here is that part of the problem might be that Kimmy can only articulate what she wants after the event. I don't understand Kimmy's question, in a sense. She has taught this man that he'll get away with what he does; she's accepted a kind of BDSM without the structure. Any guy who puts his cock in a woman's mouth after he's beaten her has to be pretty confident he's not going to end up the oral equivalent of John Wayne Bobbit. Any man who wakes up the next morning next to a woman he's done that to without either the police or the lawyers from hell descending upon his head is being sent a pretty clear, if inarticulate message.

My message to Kimmy is pretty clear; either set a limit or get the fuck out of that kind of relationship. My lesbian friend who fled the relationship? Her limit was marks that could be seen; her lover had roughed her up a few times, and she'd warned her not to mark her. they'd even talked about it. She'd accepted her lovers excuses about where the anger came from, and all sort sof other claptrap, but when a punch left her with a cut above her eye she walked. It was the right decision. Kimmy needs to be sure she'll make the right decision before it's too late.

This makes a hell of a lot of sense! I do not know exiledmaster but, he seems to have had a lot of parrallels with me, I was once attacked by a man with a knife, he didn't get to stab me or cut me though, we both ended up in hospital, he to get his injuries seen to and me to get my broken hand fixed, he then went to jail and I went about my lawful business!
What was said to Kimmy was good advice, I wouldn't try to expand on it at all!

 

[Quint]

I consent to anger, should it emerge. Lots of people don't consent. It has a place in my relationship; it doesn't in theirs.

 

[Pure]

Anger exists in virtually every relationship of any depth, Quint.
A partner's 'consent' to it, is quite irrelevant, though understandings and expectations regarding mode of expression, are.

Those above who've implied the contrary (freedom from anger), who've mistaken hallmark visions for reality are--how to say diplomatically--not in touch with themselves, imo, the full force of sexual and aggressive drives.



---
Quint said,
I consent to anger, should it emerge. Lots of people don't consent. It has a place in my relationship; it doesn't in theirs.

 

[Pure]

Exiled Master said,

besides making several good points about anger and the law,

My message to Kimmy is pretty clear; either set a limit or get the fuck out of that kind of relationship. My lesbian friend who fled the relationship? Her limit was marks that could be seen; her lover had roughed her up a few times, and she'd warned her not to mark her. they'd even talked about it. She'd accepted her lovers excuses about where the anger came from, and all sort sof other claptrap, but when a punch left her with a cut above her eye she walked. It was the right decision. Kimmy needs to be sure she'll make the right decision before it's too late.

------

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the objective you've proposed, that Kimmy not get herself put six feet under. K has a right to avoid that, and permanent serious bodily harms.

That said, the focus on limits, is, I believe, not well thought out, as your own example indicates. IF you pick an angry, dangerously (sometimes out of control) violent person, then attempts to say, for instance, "You may hit, but not mark; slap, but not punch.' are quite futile, as your account shows.

If Kimmy has a taste for a degree of violence in sex, then she better learn how to screen out, or safeguard against, the dangerously violent persons. And some of this is common sense; look at history, esp. criminal: if someone's been in jail for assault with bodiy harm, a history of stalking, and a restraining order against them, they may by assumed to present a degree of danger.

My own humble advice is to focus on *evidence* of control, or evidence of tendency to inflict serious harm. Serious harms, as in 'spouse abuse' and 'date abuse' rarely appear 'out of the blue.' In all cases which I've seen, the violent leanings of the party were evident to the woman from early on, but she hoped they would diminish, which isn't very likely.

Keeping one's eye out for evidence, and acting accordingly [avoiding the criminally assaultive] mostly precludes the need for 'setting and agreeing upon' limits, as it's ordinarily described-- an exercise, which, with certain people is entirely futile. (This may seem like a fine, even useless distinction of approach; perhaps we're more in agreement than would appear.)

J.
--

Exiled Master
I've read the whole thread through, and a few observations have to be made...

There are issues of control here, Real issues of control, on the part of the man doing the beating and the woman being beaten.
My question (above) is a little glib, but so be it. There are also a few slogans masquerading as answers.

For instance 'an attack in anger is a crime'. I was stabbed in 1984, while working as a doorman. I attacked my assailant; I was angry. I needed to be angry. He'd stabbed me once, and if I didn't beat the shit out of him he was going to cut me again. We both went to hospital; him to get his jaw wired and his internal bruising checked out, me to get my wound stitched. Was that a crime? In legal theory, possibly, since there was a question of whether my violence was proportionate to the risk I faced. In practical fact, no. The police interviewed me, interviewed him, and washed their hands of the whole affair. In the kind of work I used to do anger was part of the defence mechanism against violent dangerous people.

There's been a lot of stereotyping here of violent relationship men as rednecks and trailer park trash. Twice in my life I've given shelter to beaten women who were in violent relationships; one was the wife of a university lecturer, a lecturer herself, the other the lesbian partner of a management consultant. Stereotypes don't help....

Perhaps what I'm driving at here is that part of the problem might be that Kimmy can only articulate what she wants after the event. I don't understand Kimmy's question, in a sense. She has taught this man that he'll get away with what he does; she's accepted a kind of BDSM without the structure. Any guy who puts his cock in a woman's mouth after he's beaten her has to be pretty confident he's not going to end up the oral equivalent of John Wayne Bobbit. Any man who wakes up the next morning next to a woman he's done that to without either the police or the lawyers from hell descending upon his head is being sent a pretty clear, if inarticulate message.

My message to Kimmy is pretty clear; either set a limit or get the fuck out of that kind of relationship. My lesbian friend who fled the relationship? Her limit was marks that could be seen; her lover had roughed her up a few times, and she'd warned her not to mark her. they'd even talked about it. She'd accepted her lovers excuses about where the anger came from, and all sort sof other claptrap, but when a punch left her with a cut above her eye she walked. It was the right decision. Kimmy needs to be sure she'll make the right decision before it's too late.