violence and sex

[AngelicAssassin]

Bump

for sheer perversity.

 

[Pure]

Reviewing the thread, there is an incredible chaos of opinions, some pretty bizarre (but to which anyone is entitled).


Saint Sinner said,

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.

We here who like a little pain with our pleasure undersatnd the need and excitement. Control can be a good thing. Pain can be a good thing. Consent is the key. Anything short of that is dangerous. I am not trying to comment on what turns you on, whatever that is, is ok. I am trying to save you from a bodybag. I don't believe that true anger has a place in this lifestyle.
----

"an attack in anger is a crime." Off base, from the get go, imo. This formulation is not in any criminal code. Though it may depend on what is meant by 'attack.' If 'attack' means (criminal) assault, then it's true, *but the 'anger' is irrelevant.* An assault's an assault, whether done from anger, glee, malice, fun, or piety--or completely without feeling for $100.

"if you haven't discussed beforehand, or the idea isn't at least implied...beforehand, then it is a crime."

close, but not quite right. if two people meet, strip of their clothes and fuck, no discussion beforehand, is it a rape?

this is not to say that obtaining at least 'implied consent' is a bad idea. the point is that rushing ahead without implied consent MAY get you in hot water-- you just don't know. it's a bit like walking by someone at a party, and giving them a shove into the swimming pool. you might get thanked; or busted in the chops.

lastly, the old canard, ably answered by quint, rr, and others: "true anger has [no] place in this lifestyle." this makes bdsm acts 'cold', and the actors, zombies. or maybe every thing is just 'cash and carry.' (pro-dommes don't usually get angry; they do a job.)

again, it depends on the definition of 'true anger.' SS perhaps thinks that 'true anger' is out of control. But that's a clear deviation from standard usage.

none of this is to deny saint's basic point that kimmy may have been, or be, in danger; she is (or was) in an unknown situation with a person of unknown tendencies.

 

[exiledmaster]

<snip>

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.

J.
--
<snip>

Funny to get an email saying this thread has come back to life..

We are more in agreement than it might seem...

The utility of limits is, itself, limited, except as a diagnostic of the degree of self control of the person involved.

It's better than no diagnostic at all though, and part of the process of making a relationship is deciding whether you trust someone enough to move a limit...

 

[Pure]

sounds right, exiled. if you're dealing with Jeffrey Dahmer, agreeing on a 'safeword' and/or explicit limits is not going to be very effective.

J.