When is it BSDM, and when is it abuse?

[lancemanyon]

I am still reeling from the visual of your swelling body parts.....

How about you quit hijacking my thread and start your own, ok? IMO you are a prime example of the dark side of bdsm.

I don't buy the "as long as it's consensual it's ok" idea. To my way of thinking, that removes the responsiblity from you to the receptor. And we all know (or should know) that not all people are in total control of their environment.

Come on, people. I go back and read the objections to my stand and the main theme is "we don't want to hurt each other". So how the hell can you say, "as long as they consent it's ok"????

I still stand strong on the idea that many victims are unable to speak for themselves........and if you take advantage of that you are no better than the asshole who abused them in the first place.

 

[bunny bondage]

ah, but you see, we are NOT victems, and we are clearly speaking out for ourselves. and yes, it is completly my responsibility to ensure my safety. my daddy isn't going to come save me from all the evil men in the world (though god knows he tries) and so i must be an intelligent woman (well, i'm only 20, but still) and judge people for myself, refusing relationships with people who i feel will genuinely hurt me. now, please allow me to edify. "hurt me" does not mean "spank me". there is a big difference between being actually "hurt" and recieving the sharp end of the crop. (or the comb, i'd go into detail, but i wouldn't want to be accused of hijacking) being "hurt" means someone taking advantage of me, manipulating me, attempting to change me. none of these things take place in my very loving relationship with Him. He respects me, loves me, cares for me, and yes, bites me till i scream. there is such a big difference between what we do and what (for example) an abusive husband and timid wife go through, or an abusive parent and a child. i only wish you could see things outside of your little box. i really do feel bad that i can't articulate my pleasure in a more tangible way, or thoroughly explain why our kind of pain is different from the kind that a victem recieves, or at the very least, let you see that your universe is different from mine. perception creates reality, lance, and we simply feel things differently. nor do i believe that you are kinkless, without "impurity", happy only in missionary position with the lights out. if that were so, you would never have come to this site in the first place. we each have our secret pleasures, lance, and judging those of another against the rules of our own simply doesn't hold any water. your special delights are no better, worse, more or less "sinful" than ours.

 

[lektra]

I can only agree.

I think the original argument was equating abuse with BDSM, so you have digressed from that argument somewhat

I do digress, and I apologise, part of that damn soapbox I'm forever carting around and standing on . Sorry bout that

 

[lektra]

I still stand strong on the idea that many victims are unable to speak for themselves........

It sounds like you want us to be victims (or maybe need us to be), if we are not then you have no one to save.

So all doms are ruthless abusers and all subs are helpless, fucked up victims (read weak). Have you not been LISTENING?

 

[psiberzerker]

I don't think that's it at all, noone is this damned stubborn. He's probably got freinds on the other end he enjoys showing the "Freaks" too. He's a troll, while we have fun with each other, he get's off on invading our space, and poking us with sticks to stir us up. All of this, including this very post is validation for his narrow little world view.
Ignore hi, and he'll get bored. If he was going to get it, he would have by now. Peace.

 

[MissTaken]

Come on, people. I go back and read the objections to my stand and the main theme is "we don't want to hurt each other". So how the hell can you say, "as long as they consent it's ok"????

I still stand strong on the idea that many victims are unable to speak for themselves........and if you take advantage of that you are no better than the asshole who abused them in the first place.

I like being spanked.
When I am spanked, the first strike startles me and then each subsequent strike makes my butt cheeks warm and tingly.
Then, if fingernails are scraped along the redness, I squirm.
Throughout this, I get very wet and hungry for a good hard screwing.
It doesn't HURT!

So, if I am with someone who likes to spank.
He spanks me and achieves an erection doing so.
He then fucks me silly.

This is a rather simple scenario, but the same holds true for many other BDSM activities. This is safe, sane and consensual. That spanking is something we both enjoy, something we both want and we both have discussed the love of spanking prior to ever seeing one another nekkid. How does this rise to the level of abuse?

Now, as for those submissives who are dealing issues of having been abused in the past, they are not ready to consent to anything involving being controlled or vulnerable to another. A good Dom/me will recognize this and direct, advise or otherwise assist him/her to obtain the treatment he/she needs.

 

[MissTaken]

I don't think that's it at all, noone is this damned stubborn. He's probably got freinds on the other end he enjoys showing the "Freaks" too. He's a troll, while we have fun with each other, he get's off on invading our space, and poking us with sticks to stir us up. All of this, including this very post is validation for his narrow little world view.
Ignore hi, and he'll get bored. If he was going to get it, he would have by now. Peace.

And no one seems to be terribly stirred up!

I think we all have faced tougher questions and scrutiny, mayhaps in our own minds or real life.

 

[DVS]

This is lance's thread, and what he says, goes. There is nothing he will believe unless it is his creation. There is nothing he will understand unless it comes from his point of view. There is nothing OK for others, unless all of the little subs follow him like lambs away from evil, and the Dom/mes all fall through the cracks and into a burning Hell.

lance feels he is a prophet, and he is here to deliver us from our sickly existence. He is here to literally pluck the subs from their sad degrading lives, and then, hopefully the rest of us will eventually come around and see the light, or just fall through the cracks to oblivion.

If we could see him, he is wearing a super hero outfit, with a cod piece. It is red, white and blue, and sparkles brilliantly. Does it have a big "L" on front, lance, or maybe a "P"?

You see, I know other lances. He comes from a line of people who care. We all have seen one of his relatives. You surely have seen the guy who always seems to be in the camera at the sporting events with the sign "JOHN 3:16". Sometimes he has been creative. I have seen him at football games with it painted on his chest. I have seen him with the rainbow wig, too, to get attention.

There is another in my neck of the woods. His name is Fred Phelps (or is that Phred Felps?). He is very much against gays. He attends all of the national events for such occasions. I'm sure you have seen Fred. He brings all of his family, too. Yes, he gets them all involved.

There is nothing wrong with Fred, or lance, or the "JOHN 3:16" guy. They all have good intentions. They all feel they have found "the" way in life, and want us all to enjoy it along with them.

There's nothing wrong with that. I have been the same way. I have been known to nearly drag some people to things I thought they just HAD to see or hear. Trouble is, they didn't always want to see it or hear it, and I didn't find this out until it was rather late. You do learn from your mistakes. You can lead that horse to water, but if the damn animal doesn't want to drink, he ain't gonna drink. Ya' know?

We like to bitch and moan, and even politely threaten lance, because of his views. We may not feel the same as he, but he has his right to feel as he wants. We all know this. He is not alone in his views, but he's the fish out of water in this forum. We all may not feel he has a right to try and change us, or to tell us our way is wrong. After all, we all believe in OUR way.

lance, go ahead and get it out of your system. Surely, you know you won't change anyone here. On that, you can trust me. We are here for a reason. We like to be here. Some of us learn here, and some exchange ideas. But, if we wanted to leave, we are all adults, and know where the door is. I have been this way for 39 years. And, although many tried, nobody has chanced my mind. That is a long time for a horse to not drink, lance. And, I'm just one of the herd.

 

[FungiUg]

... And, although many tried, nobody has chanced my mind.

Nothing that a quick brain transplant couldn't cure!

Thanks DVS, your post made me wonder...

When someone stands up on their "soapbox", what is it they are trying to achieve? I mean, really? In this case, Lance is preaching to a bunch of people who enjoy, nay love BDSM. And he is telling us that we are either abusers, victims, or both.

Of course, we feel otherwise, and most of us have dealt with issues of abuse in our lives, so his arguments are nothing we haven't already thought about.

So what is his objective? What is it he wishes to acheive? If he truly wished to "save us" (or at least, save the "poor victims", whoever they might be) then why has he gone about it in such a way as to put everyone's backs up and actually turn people away from his argument? In fact, are his goals the complete reverse of what he states, and instead he is wishing to be converted to BDSM?

If his goal is truly what he states it is... then his methods stink. But his methods make me wonder about how real his goal is.

The proof is in the pudding.

(Pause to think over)

 

[DVS]

[No message]

 

[WynEternal]

I don't think lance will accept any response unless it's one he wants to hear, namely, that all submissives are victims of abuse and Dom/mes are propogating that cycle of abuse. Somehow, I see that as equating all housewives as repressed women who are forced to stay at home and take care of hordes of children.

Never give it a moments of thought that submissives feel more fulfilled in their chosen lifestyle or that their sense of self worth is greater than what others may have seen them as. If they came from previous abuse, the lifestyle gives them opportunities to take back the pride in themselves that was stripped away. Do submissives slouch around, beaten and broken? Many submissives carry themselves with humble pride even when they are being led around by a collar and leash.

Unlike an abusive relationship where the abused sees no escape from the abuser, a true, non-abusive BDSM relationship carries the option of being dissolved by either party.

I'm not saying no abuse goes on under the pretext of BDSM. Many abusers will use the lifestyle as a cover to find more victims.

As a "victim" of mental neglect in my former life, I'll say that it took a strong Mistress to help me see there was more to me than being a doormat.

 

[lancemanyon]

lance, go ahead and get it out of your system. Surely, you know you won't change anyone here. On that, you can trust me.

I'm not trying to change anyone. Talk about stubborn! I'm merely offering an alternative voice.

All this talk and some of you still use the defense "it's not about pain". Not for you, maybe. (Although long ago I learned not to believe everything I read) Many of you say it's just role playing, no one gets hurt or humiliated, etc etc. Fine! But read through the threads on this forum and you will find not everyone feels that way. You know this, and yet you continue to ignore it. Either because you wish to hide it, or you are so narrow minded you think it can't be reality.

Don't think I'll be dissuaded by "polite threats" or anything else. For every person who posts to this thread, another hundred read it. So while you may think the majority here dismiss what I say, there are silent countless more who know what I say has truth to it. Trust me on that one.

While some may be having fun with harmless role-playing, I still say it is playing with fire. Some things have a way of escalating. And it cannot be denied that the lifestyle (or whatever you want to call it) attracts predators.

 

[lancemanyon]

Here is some interesting reading:
http://www.sternangel.com/whatis.html

WHAT IS SADO-MASOCHISM?

by Terence Sellers
Author of The Correct Sadist
and Dungeon Evidence






"The most frequent and most significant of all perversions", 1 Sado-Masochism is our deviation of interest. Deviant, that is, from the normal sexual impulse - as per 'normal' being "the union of the genitals in the characteristic act of copulation".1 (We like to put this in, as it is so taxing for us to try to define that 'normal'.) But even the normal impulse "is always bound with a more or less prominent brutal element".2 In our modern age where relative morals seem to count for so much - even we of vaunted pervert strain must still remind ourselves that Sado-Masochism is a definite abnormality.

The ritualized behaviors; the strange and blatant acts, some which seem to be cut from horror-fiction; the rigid symbolism in dress, and manner - none of these behaviors should be lightly viewed, or ever treated as a mere 'game'. For those who do possess, in the depths of their being, the predominantly Sado-Masochistic bent cannot do without the flavour of it. And it will color every relationship - it is very often not a choice - and often it destroys love; and thus, to its possessor, it is rarely a possession of joy.

"The most striking peculiarity of sadomasochism is in the fact that its active and passive forms are regularly encountered together in the same person. He who experiences pleasure by causing pain to others in sexual relations is also able to experience pain as pleasure. A sadist is simultaneously a masochist, though either the active or the passive side of the perversion may be more strongly developed and thus represent his preponderate sexual activity." 1 The tendency to cause pain to the sexual object - and its opposite, the tendency to seek out and suffer pain from the sexual object, is designated sadism in its active form, and masochism in its passive.

In terms more au courant to the year 2000, the sadist might now be termed the Dominant: the Master, Dominatrix, or Mistress - or simply 'The Top'. The masochist is called a Submissive, a Slave, or 'The Bottom'. 'Top' and 'Bottom' are also used as verbs, as in "I bottomed to her", or "I want him to top me!". Another aspect of modern Sado-Masochism is the psychodramatic development of 'The Switchable'. That would be a person who consciously, in the sadomasochistic acting-out session, takes one side of the dynamic, then at some point 'switches' over into its psychologically 'equal and opposite'. So that a man might begin to act aggressively and then, either of his own will, or because compelled by his partner, 'switches' to enact the submissive side of his sexuality. (We assume the more favored, 'preponderate' role, is the one that ends the session - otherwise we cannot imagine what cathartic purpose the switching might have.) As well, we have to understand that whomever the 'Switchable' is with, will also oscillate between their own complementary sadomasochist roles. Or not ...

"Clinical observation led us ... to the view that masochism, the component instinct which is complimentary to sadism, must be regarded as a sadism that has been turned round upon the subject's own ego."3

Certainly there seems to be no harm in 'dressing up' one's ordinary sex-life with 'love-toys', role-play fantasy, or a little kinky costuming. But the 'charge' you are receiving within this 'play' is the bell-note of the Imperial Power you have tapped into. A Power still Libido, but with the Heart in abeyance; a sexuality shaped not by that kindly organ, but by the Mind, and the Will-to-Power. Such Power does excite; but is violent, excoriating; of a volatile, often uncontrollable Force, it can and will subvert the love that two people share. For this is a Power of Death, very strictly conjoined to Sex.

"From the very first we recognized the presence of the sadistic component in the sexual instinct. As we know, it can make itself independent [author's emphasis] and can ... dominate an individual's entire sexual activity." 3 The danger of an emotional 'bleed' into one's Love - a Love perhaps not yet entirely debased by a Lover calling itself Master - a Love that is most decidedly, at some point, wounded by the no-longer-merely 'symbolic' actions involving dominance and control.

And in time, Love may not even seem very important - at least to one of the Lovers - except as a precondition to submitting. Lord Byron once wearily remarked he cared very little any more for Love; though he would never tire of Obedience.

Both Freud and Stekel believe there is an instinct for, or towards Death; and that it is the first, most primordial of the instincts. That is to say, there is in all existant matter, from the stone to the human, a tendency to return to an original state of being - or Non-being, as it may be. The will to preserve oneself they view as a further development, even an acculturated trait.

This instinct to Death, this entropy, this seductive falling-back towards an earlier, assuredly more pleasurable time, we notice easily in the masochist. They would strive no longer to be anything, but to regress, become infantile, more helpless in the Greater's arms (though it might be a Greater Nothing). Though this inertia exists also in the Sadist, who might always be seen to be quite pleased with themselves - content to remain 'perfect', and thus, 'entropic'.

But - "the backward path that leads to complete satisfaction is as a rule obstructed by the resistances that maintain the repressions."3 As active Sado-Masochists, our resistance is down - the repressions are refashioned into 'psychodrama' - and so do we attempt to stand firmly on that 'backward path', to a complete satisfaction.

But Stekel goes yet deeper in his descriptions of the sadistic wielding of the Death-instinct, within sexuality. He comprehends there is, as well as inertia, an active Will-to Destroy - to overpower, crush, and kill the object of love. "Hate is the will to power, and love the will to submission. [But] there is no love without hate! This principle is still easier to comprehend than its converse: there is no hatred without love ... and while the will to power is inborn, the will to subjection seems to us a product of culture." 2

So the imperious Will-to-Power is a natural trait, inborn? And kept quieted, under control only by the later development - the perhaps more weakly will-to-subjection - the culturally-developed submission of the citizen, to the Greater Good - the social Order? "The sadist strives originally for the total annihilation of its subject. Every sadist is really a murderer." 4

Where a measured use of violence infuses the body with an erotic charge; where the lover's kiss is not enough, but needs the teeth to bite; where a slap in the face, by itself, has the same love-inspiring affect as a night's caressing: there is demonstrated Sado-Masochism - and, by implication, its usurptive power.

"But how can the sadistic instinct, whose aim it is to injure the object, be derived from Eros, the preserver of life?" 3 Freud himself does not answer his own eloquent question, except to concur Sadism must itself be the force of Death... dominating Love, and its handmaiden, Sex... resolving nothing, presenting yet again to our tired gaze the menage a trois ad infinitum of the Sado-Masochistic convolute.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
1 - Sigmund Freud, Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex.
"The Sexual Aberrations" E.P. Dutton & Co.,
New York, 1962
2 - Wilhelm Stekel, Sadism and Masochism.
"The Psychology of Hatred and Cruelty" Ch. II of Vol. I,
Horace Liveright, New York, 1929

3 - Sigmund Freud, Beyond the Pleasure Principle.
W.W.Norton & Co., New York, 1961

4 - Wilhelm Stekel, Sadism-and Masochism, "Retrospect and Prospect"
Ch. XX of Vol. II, Horace Liveright,
New York, 1929

 

[Quint]

<snip>Abuse is not sane, nor is it consensual. As such... it doesn't fit into what we like to call BDSM.</snip>

Sorry, FungiUg, but I had to grab onto this statement. Call it the "Intro to Logic" obsession in me. This could be interpreted as saying "BDSM is defined as obeying the standards of SSC. Abuse is defined as not obeying the standards of SSC. Therefore, BDSM is defined as not-abuse." It's true by definition, and that doesn't prove anything.

However, you and many other people have put up enough good arguments that this was really just me being anal. Thanks for putting up with me.

 

[Quint]

I'm a submissive. I'm also mildly a masochist. Both of these factors are largely dependent upon my partner; i.e. if he does not in any way enjoy inflicting pain upon me, I will not derive any pleasure from it. It's got to be a circle, or I lose interest. But my ideal relationship is with a Dominant quasi-sadist. In my most recent and current relationship, we have both done extensive questioning of the "why"s of sadomasochism. He has always had the ingrained view that "Pain is bad. The desire to inflict pain is bad," while still desiring to inflict it. You can understand how that was quite a conflict for him, and so we discussed it, played with it, and searched for the reasons beneath both his desire and his unwillingness to accept it.

What we have decided, and please feel free to disagree, is that pain is simply another sensation on the spectrum. So is fear. So is humiliation. So is pleasure. So is happiness. They're all there. When a man gives a girl oral sex, he is usually doing it because she enjoys the sensation and he takes pleasure from her enjoyment. When my lover spanks me, he does it because I enjoy the sensation and he takes pleasure from that. See the parallel? You could even take it to the mid-way: massage. Done correctly, there is that edge of pain that melts into pleasure, yet no one would accuse a masseuse of being a sick bastard.

Pain makes me wet. So does fear. Fear arouses me more than pleasure. I've realized that this is because I get pleasure all the time; it's expected, even ordinary. But I only allow myself to be afraid with him. It's a safe environment; it's like being on a rollercoaster. You know you aren't really in danger but there is still that thrill of "what if?" That's what I get off on. People who go to amusement parks aren't sick bastards either.

Red flags go up for me when someone says something is "wrong." "Wrong" is a subjective, normative term; it says how things "ought" to be. My question is, according to who? According to what facts? Why is it wrong, and why is the alternative "right?" Bring it down to those descriptive terms and I'll go with you. For us, we have found that when people say BDSM is wrong or bad, they are saying society thinks BDSM is wrong or bad. Who is society? Why is their opinion better than mine? What information do they have that I don't?

That's all I have to say on the subject. I don't feel the need to prove myself and the desire to be understood is diminishing rapidly. I have been a victim in other relationships; this is not one of them. Peace out, indeed.

 

[DVS]

...while some may be having fun with harmless role-playing, I still say it is playing with fire. Some things have a way of escalating. And it cannot be denied that the lifestyle (or whatever you want to call it) attracts predators.

Is this the gist of what you are trying to get across to people...that because of the D/s mentality of the lifestyle, there will be mistakes in role play and there will be predators who take advantage of the unsuspecting submissives? If that is what you are trying to say, I agree with you, 100%.

Mistakes happen. You can only guard against them. Training, education, and common sense are a few of the ways mistakes can be minimized. But, mistakes will always continue to happen. When humans are involved, mistakes will always be possible.

Mistakes can happen and people can get hurt, because proper precautions aren't taken in the beginning. This happens in every day life, not just BDSM. But, if instructions are followed, and the SSC guidelines are followed, mistakes don't have to happen.

What is your background to carry on this type of conversation, lance? There seems to have been some sort of incident happen that drives you. Have you been, or do you know of someone who was hurt because of play escalation? Open up a little to me, here. You're among friends.

And, for the predatory aspect of your question, I don't think anyone can say this doesn't happen. And, it is very sad when a submissive is taken advantage of by such a predator when all they are wanting is a loving sexual relationship.

But, there are predators everywhere, in every aspect of our lives. Predators by their very nature prey on our unsuspecting personalities. They look for the gullible newbie who hasn't learned they exist and put on a believable pretext. They then suck from them what they want.

That is a fact of life, and not only in the BDSM lifestyle. True, it is unfortunate that a submissive personality is prime meat for the predatory personality, but there are ways to keep from being used in this way.

This is somewhat related to the escalation aspect of play, lance. Is there a relationship to it in your life, somewhere? Have you been the victim of a predator, or maybe someone you know? You know, it is much easier to debate an actual event or situation than to continue as we have. Again, there must have been something happen in your past to make you so concerned about the rest of us.

As I asked before, open up a little. Become a person to me, instead of just a name. Your point of view can be greatly enhanced with an actual event or situation to substantiate your claims.

 

[cremebrulee]

Why Why Why

It does not seem to me as though LANCE is trying to make a point and listen with an open mind, sorry Lance. It seems as though he thinks he is trying to open our eyes to what could be a potentially dangerous sexual practice but not hearing what we're saying in return .
Now, I am sure to have plenty of feedback on this, but hell yes it is POSSIBLE to abuse someone in this type of relationship/lifestyle. Hand someone a gun to protect their house. Someone who doesn't know what they're doing with it can do damage beyond repair, but someone who has the knowledge and such can use it for good.
Same goes with (pardon the lame analogy) BDSM IMO. Some of us are blessed with information, trust, safe words, etc. COOL! Some never get to the danger zone, but the possibility is there. Always.
Vanilla sex won't bruise a rump unless you fall trying to have intercourse standing up with one foot on the dining room table...oh that's not too vanilla. Bad analogy again.
I guess bottom line of what I am trying to say is that BDSM has the probability of turning to abuse due to the nature of the "practice" but I still can't see why we're supposed to say to lance " Oh, goodness yes! That never occured to me. Should I cease this lifestyle? I am so wrong!"


OH HELL!
Lance, please respond about consentual hitting in the face whilst boxing? Is that ok jut because they're not having sex? Sure gives me a thrill to see that boy fall in the ring (yummy), but I wouldn't want him pissed at me! LOL

I need to stop the coffee.
~Creme

 

[WynEternal]

I'm not trying to change anyone. Talk about stubborn! I'm merely offering an alternative voice.

But making accusations based on non personal knowledge is an alternate voice? For what? That's like a virgin saying not to have sex because the first time involves blood. Each experience is different.


All this talk and some of you still use the defense "it's not about pain". Not for you, maybe. (Although long ago I learned not to believe everything I read) Many of you say it's just role playing, no one gets hurt or humiliated, etc etc. Fine! But read through the threads on this forum and you will find not everyone feels that way. You know this, and yet you continue to ignore it. Either because you wish to hide it, or you are so narrow minded you think it can't be reality.

If you're in the habit of not believing everything you read, or dismissing the firsthand knowledge of others, then you should be ready for your opinions to be dismissed yourself. All the participants on this forum know how diverse BDSM is. If you can't accept that, then don't call others narrow minded.


Don't think I'll be dissuaded by "polite threats" or anything else. For every person who posts to this thread, another hundred read it. So while you may think the majority here dismiss what I say, there are silent countless more who know what I say has truth to it. Trust me on that one.

No one's been making threats to you, but you've been rather impolite to some. Granted, you are entitled to your views, but don't think that your's are the only right ones.

While some may be having fun with harmless role-playing, I still say it is playing with fire. Some things have a way of escalating. And it cannot be denied that the lifestyle (or whatever you want to call it) attracts predators.

There are predators everywhere. Even in the Boy Scouts. Should the whole organization be condemned because of a few?

 

[Ebonyfire]

This happens in every day life, not just BDSM.

Exactly.

If you look at reality, most men and women are harmed by, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, husbands, and wives. Good upstanding church going folks one and all.

To single out BDSM as the poster child for substantial abuse is just ridiculous. The mainstream of society can an doften is much be more abusive.

More abuse has been perpetrated in the name of love and religion that any consentual D/s relationship.

A predator uses the tools at hand.

 

[lancemanyon]

Is there a relationship to it in your life, somewhere? Have you been the victim of a predator, or maybe someone you know? You know, it is much easier to debate an actual event or situation than to continue as we have. Again, there must have been something happen in your past to make you so concerned about the rest of us.

As I asked before, open up a little. Become a person to me, instead of just a name. Your point of view can be greatly enhanced with an actual event or situation to substantiate your claims.

If you go back a page or two, you will find that I did open up about my past, my education, my experiences. Apparently you weren't "listening".

But thanks for making my main point for me, again. It is that "cause and effect" line of thinking that is behind my position. As you assume, because I am trying to "protect" people from predators, I must have been prey once myself. In this case that happens to be true. I stated before I was abused as a child. So does that predispose me to being wary of predation now for others? Yes, and I would be ashamed if that weren't the case. By the way, you will find that with most psychologists....that they have a connection to abuse, etc in their past one way or another.

And so, my question to you is along similar lines. What experience in your past has brought you to this "lifestyle"? And what steps have you taken to try to heal from it?

 

[lancemanyon]

Exactly.

If you look at reality, most men and women are harmed by, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, husbands, and wives. Good upstanding church going folks one and all.....


....More abuse has been perpetrated in the name of love and religion that any consentual D/s relationship....

There is no denying that the above is true. And a predator picks up where others left off.

 

[DVS]

If you go back a page or two, you will find that I did open up about my past, my education, my experiences. Apparently you weren't "listening".

No, lance, I wasn't "listening". I don't follow every thread on this forum. Unless someone mentions it, I don't always venture into threads.

And, when I looked back a couple pages, I didn't see where you mentioned it. But, you could be nice and quote it for me.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I am a 'natural Dom'...I have never been abused or an abuser. I enjoy the feelings of power in bed as an extension of my personality, not as an opposite to who I am in the rest of my life. I know from experience that something that is 'painful' can feel good too, like when someone massages you. To make the assumption that I am some sort of predator is silly and insulting. The pre-planning, the aftercare, and the incredible sense of awareness of the sub during a scene make teh idea of predation moot, at least for me.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

There is no denying that the above is true. And a predator picks up where others left off.

But what does that have to do with BDSM?

 

[lark sparrow]

SM: A View On SadoMasochism by Don Miesen

http://www.soj.org/miesen1.html

Some teasers:

SM is not trifling nor aberrant. Fantasy and play are universal, and SM is everywhere, in all cultures, all societies, all historical periods. I think SM must spring up spontaneously whenever people learn deliberate fantasy and play. Surveys show as high as 50% of Americans have SM fantasies or experiences. Probably most SM occurs in the setting of conventional marriages--right at home.

SM is not sexist. Sexism tries to impose dominant-submissive roles according to our physical sex organs. SM lets us choose our roles according to our fantasies. Thus SM includes dominant women and submissive men. Many feminists misunderstand and disapprove of SM. Yet nearly all sadomasochists support feminism as a movement towards honesty in relationships.

Some people think SM is wrong because they think people should be as equals in sex. But that's simplistic politics and simplistic sex, too. We human beings are equal only in law; otherwise we're all different, individual and unique. SM, like other good relationships, honors individuality by using the talents of each for the good of both.

SM is not mental illness. SM is deliberately chosen, controlled, shared, integrating, and healthy. Specifically, SM is integrating and healthy because it reconnects our fantasies to real relationships with real people.

Don't be afraid of words like "sadism" and "masochism." Sadism comes from the name of the Marquis de Sade (1740-1814). Masochism comes from the name of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch (1836-1895). Both men were positive, moral, and creative--and were highly recognized for it. DeSade was a first cousin to the King and went to school with him; yet he supported the Revolution and was so respected that his commune elected him a judge. A later France elected von Sacher-Masoch to be a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor.

About 1886 - a century ago - Krafft-Ebing invented the words sadism and masochism. At that time, Western psychology was still embedded with Victorian prudery, and had some time more to wait for the mature works of Freud. DeSade was a bitter and scandalous social critic; he can easily be misread. But both he and von Sacher-Masoch were fearless in their erotic fantasies, and they can show us how our fiercest fantasies come from the same place as our most tender loves. They deserve honor, not blame, for opening this truth to us.

Psychology has reaped an undeserved credit for discovering a perfect word, sadomasochism; but the reality has always belonged to us. Krafft-Ebing was wrong to take these names for sickness; moralists and too-ardent feminists are wrong to take these names for evil; and we sadomasochists are right to reclaim these names, and take them back again for something good.

SM is a loosely-defined subculture. Much SM is gentle, and many of the gentler practitioners prefer to call it "D&S" for "Dominance and Submission," or "B&D" for "Bondage and Discipline." They reserve S&M for the pain and rough stuff. Another comment is "Shared and Mutual"; a gay sarcasm is "Standing and Modeling," and you will find other call letters. Check if you're not sure. But rough or gentle and whatever you want to call it, it's all based on deliberate roles of domination and submission.

Outsiders often see SM as bizarre and destructive. Some think sadists do whatever they want to masochists; and that masochists somehow enjoy suffering for its own sake. Beginners fear the SM can get out of hand and lead to mayhem. The media often like to sensationalize SM as immoral, drug-oriented and dangerous. The public loves all this. It sells papers. But it's not true.

The truth is that SM is highly communicating, supportive and safe. SM is fantasy-sharing, which can only be consensual. You can't share and develop fantasies even with someone you feel merely neutral about, because you won't be able to get the heightened energy and feedback and affirmation you need. The Society of Janus, for example, insists that "all SM can and should be consensual," meaning that no matter what you do in SM, both partners should be of one sensuality with one another.

Real-life sadists and masochists are choosy about their ordeals and choosy about their partners. The kind of suffering a sadist wants to inflict says nothing about the masochist, but much about the sadist, who must accept that truth about self. The amount of suffering is limited by how much the sadist can take responsibility for - including the masochist's post-party affections, when the handcuffs come off. So, behind our appearances, our fantasies, and the games we may play, SM is something that spouses, lovers and friends learn to do together.

SM can be gentle as a feather or rough as a crucifixion. But what games you play, how long, how hard and how real - all that is up to you and your partner.Some sadomasochists look dangerous. They're giving signals for rough games - which they know how to play and are ready for. If you're not ready, keep away. They take themselves seriously, and so should you.

Much of SM is easy fun and no more dangerous than driving a car. But, like driving, you must do it right. We always have a few who do SM drunk, stoned or without knowing what they're doing. This is as serious as driving drunk, or without knowing how to drive. Most of us are careful and safety-minded. Outside the drug and heavy-drinking set, serious accidents in SM are rare.

Isn't it Degrading to be Submissive?
Yes and no. Humiliation is to the spirit as pain is to the body. Humiliation can affirm a healthy ego, just as pain or stress can affirm a healthy body. Religions use humility for spiritual development, just as sports use physical stress for bodily development. So likewise, SM uses humiliation to eroticize the ego, pain to eroticize the body.

Many masochists who eroticize pain reject and are offended by humiliation. Many masochists who eroticize humiliation cannot handle pain. Likewise, sadists seem to be chiefly into pain or humiliation. Sadists think masochists are the most erotic people alive. So now it's your choice: dominate or submit. Would you rather have power over a highly erotic person (and what would you do with them?) Or would you rather be a highly erotic person for someone with power over you? (and what would you want them to do with you?)

Three thousand years ago, wise Homer sang, "Great joy it is to friends and grief to foes, when with one accord man and wife together make a home ... But they themselves best know its meaning." SM is like that. We create our own shared reality. The opinions of other people are not important there.

SM As Individualism Against Authority
SM opens weird, scary and fantastic places in us, and makes them into erotic fountainheads for us and for the people we love. Many people want those places kept shut. They suspect human nature, that people tend toward corruption, and to get out of touch with reality. These are also the basic ideas of authoritarianism. All authoritarian religions and political systems see tendencies toward corruption and disconnection from reality - often a "higher" reality, defined by themselves, and so abstract as to defy testing.

By contrast, SM offers fantasy and play, which are universal and natural. Also universal and natural is the ability to distinguish fantasy and reality, which all play presumes. Even kittens know how to play at fighting, and naturally trust others to know how to play, too.

The stereotype enemy of SM is an authoritarian, mistrustful of human nature (which tends to corruption and needs guidance), and putting their trust in an authoritarian church, politics or "science" (which is somehow not corruptible and will do the guiding.)In SM, we can celebrate and use our diversity; they want to impose uniform values. In SM, we can play and fulfill our own fantasies; they want us to work and fulfill theirs. In SM we can learn to trust; they need to control.

But pure authoritarians are rare. Ordinary people I find not all that hostile to SM. The reason is everyone has two separate value systems: personal and impersonal. Our personal values come from and are applied to our family and friends, whom we love and who love us. Our impersonal values, presumed uniform-for-everyone, come from our religion, culture and politics, and are applied to "other people," not so close to us. Our family and friends are good, despite their faults. Other people are suspect, despite their virtues.

All history shows that universal value systems, political or religious, have never brought peace and trust, only wars, inquisitions and purges. Even on the most personal level, I resent religious or political evangelists pushing their universal value systems on me. But I can't help liking and trusting someone who enjoys my individuality - even if they don't agree with me.

So, to get along with people, become friends. It's simple. Never go at their impersonal value system; but do take the time to appreciate and enjoy their uniqueness. You don't have to agree with it! Soon enough, they'll do the same and count you among their friends - despite your faults.

And if you're caught in public debate against an authoritarian, never put your own impersonal value system - however liberal - against theirs. They've had centuries of law and theology, millions of lawyers and theologians; their logic will be stronger than yours and you will lose. To win, you must remember your self, your personal experiences, your own need for love, your own ways of loving and hating, your own spunk and humor. Everyone feels pressed down by institutions, even their own; play your David against their Goliath; the crowd will love it. One live person is more real than any system, which is only an abstraction, after all. It may not seem logical that one person can have more power than a church or government; but that reality is not logical. Be logical, you'll lose. Be yourself and real, you'll win.

About Trust
Kissinger once said power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. A masochist responded, "So is trust!" As the masochist must give power to the sadist, the sadist must provide trust for the masochist. How sadists do this is worth another essay; what follows is for beginning masochists.Before you let someone tie you up, how do you know if you can trust them? Sadomasochists always talk about trust, gut feeling, intuitions and the vibrations we may pick up. But such feelings are tricky. They require calm in the middle of excitement, and they may come from subliminal observations. Always pay attention to your intuitions, become conscious of them and look for tangible signs to support or deny them. Here is a list of tangible signs of trust.

References: If friends tell you someone has tortured and raped 50 people with uniformly good results, then you can expect good results for yourself as the 51st. People who are well known but hard to get to know may have long waiting lines. People who are unknown are suspect.

Alcohol, pot and other drugs seem to heighten awareness for some, disconnect others. Some sadomasochists have been successful users for years; others claim that even one beer is too desensitizing. At least be clear about your own uses and those of your partner. Do new SM experimenting when both of you are "straight." And never do SM with anyone whose uses are different or greater than your own; that way at least you won't sink on someone else's ship.

Self humor: SM, the subculture that pursues fantasy, is rich in humor, which must arise when fantasy confronts reality. People who like to tell or take a joke on themselves know and enjoy the difference between reality and their own fantasy. Those you can trust. People lacking self-humor are suspect.

Afford their habits: A successful narcotics dealer once told me his secret of success: the good guys were those who could afford their habits. Other clients he gently referred on to other dealers. Everyone, each of us, has habits: economic, social, emotional, intellectual, political, esthetic, hobbies, whatever, which, if we are off-balance, can become as demanding as any drugs. People who can afford their habits are likely to be Ok in SM, others not.

Personal Affirmation: People with family and friends who they love and who love them are likely to be trustworthy. People whose affirmation comes from impersonal sources, church, state, politics, "science," are suspect.

Some Advertisers: People who place sex ads have done something remarkable: they have defined themselves erotically for other people. Score one point. Those who describe themselves objectively, score two points. Objectively with humor, three points and bullseye. If they focus entirely on the fantasy that they think they want, score zero.

Appreciate Uniqueness: In some gay leatherbars, after mutual attraction has been established, SM partners may spend an hour getting to know one another, before beginning even verbal SM play; even who will be dominant, who submissive, may be delayed. What they are doing is discovering one another's uniqueness, to use it as the basis for their SM play. People who take the time to discover and appreciate your uniqueness can probably be trusted; offers of instant play are only fetishism and suspect.

All these signs are tests of whether a person is reality-oriented. Unreal people of course are not bad people; but they are not trustworthy for SM, where you share and develop your fantasies.

Postscript
This essay attempts an introduction to SM. However, there is a problem in "teaching" SM. SM is an experiential discipline, like music, which you cannot understand without experiencing it yourself; and SM has the extra twist that what you experience is your own erotic self. However, everyone is different and SM, the discipline which takes us into ourselves, is seen differently by different people. Thus, someone else doing an introductory essay about SM might do it all different - everything - and be perfectly right, too. So when you encounter quite different ideas of what SM is, not to worry, it is still all the same.

Also, then, be clear that this essay, like any other writing about SM, offers only words and abstractions about something which can be real only as personal experience, inside you. It may comfort some, or interest others, to read a verbal theory about SM; but a whole library of books and films on SM will not teach you as much as the first time that you yourself put handcuffs onto someone you desire, or that someone who desires you puts them onto you. At that moment you will begin to experience your erotic self, not indirectly, in words and concepts, nor as a fixed given, but directly, and as a willed variable (your will or someone else's). And that is why SM is at once so important, so terrifying and so joyous.

SM leads us on important journeys back into ourselves. They are important because the self we return to has changed and grown. SM is a development of our uniqueness, our reality, our limits, our fantasies. We become different in how we can love and be loved. We sadomasochists learn to do SM without knowing in advance just how it will turn out - no limits! - because we have learned how to trust ourselves and one another.

More here: http://www.soj.org/miesen1.html