Corruption and dominance

[Primalex]

Taking someone who says "I’d never do that." and turning it into "I want this!" Pushing, reshaping, testing, breaking resistance. That is part of the appeal for many dominants who are not just service tops.

People talk about consent, but if your goal is to change someone's limits over time, are you still respecting consent if you are actively trying to rewrite it? At what point does that stop being ethical and start being manipulation with better branding?

And then there is the long term problem. Say you succeed. Your partner becomes deeply submissive, says yes to almost anything, trusts you completely, maybe even depends on you. If there is no resistance left, are you still dominating, or just maintaining control over someone who has been shaped to fit you? If your kink relies on pushing someone past their previous limits, what happens when there are no limits left to push? Do you escalate into the absurd that is bound to fail? Do you get bored? Do you realize that what you enjoyed was not the dynamic itself, but the act of changing someone and look for someone else to change?

 

[Ad_hominem]

I think people talk about consent because sex without consent is rape. So if 'pushing, reshaping, testing, breaking resistance' involve manipulating, pressuring, or intimidating someone who had previous said no into eventually saying yes, that's just coercion.

Maybe in your mind it's more fantastical, like you're so charming and charismatic that after you abuse a woman, she becomes convinced that she actually wanted or needed it... or maybe she never likes it and wants it, but she deals with you because she's afraid of the consequences of not tolerating the abuse... idk.

I can't fathom a way to spin what you're saying into anything other than abuse and rape.

It just sounds like you want to abuse someone until they no longer resist your abuse.

 

[SomaSlave]

If your kink relies on pushing someone past their previous limits, what happens when there are no limits left to push? Do you escalate into the absurd that is bound to fail? Do you get bored? Do you realize that what you enjoyed was not the dynamic itself, but the act of changing someone and look for someone else to change?

This sounds close to borderline sociopathy: essentially, the objectification of a person without regard to their own personhood and dignity, which, IMHO, is the complete opposite of a healthy D/s relationship. In my own experiences with submission, my limits have been pushed, but only because I wanted my Domme to push them. That's why we had long discussions about hard and soft limits. The greatest moment we shared was the culmination of months of increasing intense sessions where trust was being established on both sides and I reached the moment where we knew each other well enough that I could say, "No limits, Mistress." It was an amazing moment that I still cherish, decades later.

If your primary goal is changing someone for your own amusement, then discarding them when they're no longer entertaining, I would respectfully suggest you consider buying a can of Play-Doh instead.

 

[Primalex]

So if 'pushing, reshaping, testing, breaking resistance' involve manipulating, pressuring, or intimidating someone who had previous said no into eventually saying yes, that's just coercion.

Coercion requires a (implicit) threat. Praising someone is already manipulating. The looming threat of a spanking might be intimidating. You really have to step up your arguments a notch.

Maybe in your mind it's more fantastical, like you're so charming and charismatic that after you abuse a woman, she becomes convinced that she actually wanted or needed it... or maybe she never likes it and wants it, but she deals with you because she's afraid of the consequences of not tolerating the abuse... idk.

Nobody knows, because nobody can read the other person's mind. You might be the loveliest service top to ever exist and the other part might bottom just to not lose the loveliest service top ever.

I can't fathom a way to spin what you're saying into anything other than abuse and rape.

That's fine. Not every discussion is for everyone.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Ughhh. Corruption is the hottest. It’s perfectly neat and clean as a fantasy or lit story, and then there’s the real world of other humans. So, yeah:

• It’s smoking hot.
• It’s an ethical minefield and has the potential to do great damage. And to be illegal.

Is there an existing D/s relationship? Does that relationship have defined agreements? Are these defined hard limits or are they areas where the sub has expressed some reluctance? Most importantly: since communication is the foundation of a strong, ethical power exchange relationship, I think there has to be an explicit agreement that, beyond hard limits, boundaries will be pushed — with regular check-ins about the status of boundaries and limits.

That makes it less hot but also less rapey.

 

[SmilingLez]

Taking someone who says "I’d never do that." and turning it into "I want this!" Pushing, reshaping, testing, breaking resistance. That is part of the appeal for many dominants who are not just service tops.

People talk about consent, but if your goal is to change someone's limits over time, are you still respecting consent if you are actively trying to rewrite it? At what point does that stop being ethical and start being manipulation with better branding?

And then there is the long term problem. Say you succeed. Your partner becomes deeply submissive, says yes to almost anything, trusts you completely, maybe even depends on you. If there is no resistance left, are you still dominating, or just maintaining control over someone who has been shaped to fit you? If your kink relies on pushing someone past their previous limits, what happens when there are no limits left to push? Do you escalate into the absurd that is bound to fail? Do you get bored? Do you realize that what you enjoyed was not the dynamic itself, but the act of changing someone and look for someone else to change?

Depending on the mental status of the dominant, the end result could be serious injury or the submissive's death. I think it's important to stay within the SSC/RACK/PRICK/CCCC framework. YMMV

 

[Ad_hominem]

Coercion requires a (implicit) threat. Praising someone is already manipulating. The looming threat of a spanking might be intimidating. You really have to step up your arguments a notch.

Coerce - to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition.

So your 'corruption' fantasy is only a kink if the other person is 'playing along' as in Role Playing.

Because this...

Taking someone who says "I’d never do that." and turning it into "I want this!" Pushing, reshaping, testing, breaking resistance. That is part of the appeal for many dominants who are not just service tops.

Comes off as creepy/rapey,

Because this...

People talk about consent, but if your goal is to change someone's limits over time, are you still respecting consent if you are actively trying to rewrite it? At what point does that stop being ethical and start being manipulation with better branding?

Which is a slanted question that suggests it's own answer of "If she consents, then I'm not really pushing her as far as I want to."

And when you go on to say...

And then there is the long term problem. Say you succeed. Your partner becomes deeply submissive, says yes to almost anything, trusts you completely, maybe even depends on you.

You're describing codependency.

Psychology Today -

"Codependency is a dysfunctional relationship dynamic where one person (the "giver") excessively enables and sacrifices their own needs, mental health, and autonomy to care for another person (the "taker") who may be struggling with addiction, illness, or irresponsibility. It is often described as "relationship addiction," characterized by poor boundaries, low self-esteem, and a compulsive need to control or fix others to gain validation."

And this...

If there is no resistance left, are you still dominating, or just maintaining control over someone who has been shaped to fit you?

Is abuse.

Because "If there is no resistance left" means there was resistance, meaning, they weren't truly consenting, at the most, they were just going along because they were afraid or insecure to say 'no' when they wanted/needed to.

Meaning, you weren't engaging in Kink. Because Real Abuse is not Kink.

If your kink relies on pushing someone past their previous limits, what happens when there are no limits left to push? Do you escalate into the absurd that is bound to fail? Do you get bored? Do you realize that what you enjoyed was not the dynamic itself, but the act of changing someone and look for someone else to change?

In that situation, I would hope you go prison so you can't abuse any more women. And hopefully if your victim isn't too traumatized to ever enjoy BDSM again, they can find a real man who respects women, and is mature, respectful, competent, and confident enough to prioritize their partners needs as much as their own.

And...

You can easily refute everything I said at any time if you don't agree. Simply explain what you 'truly' mean, and clarify that you unconditionally respect consent and you're actually just speaking from the perspective of someone who's only pretending to abuse a women who's actually only pretending to not want it while she plays the role of a women who comes to enjoy that one thing she was pretending not to enjoy... AKA Role Playing.

That's fine. Not every discussion is for everyone.

Actually, this conversation is exactly for me. Because too many predators/abusers try to wear a mask and hide in the Kink community with that "Don't Kink Shame Me Bro" nonsense. Women abusers, child abusers, animal abusers, etc. And as someone who's actually involved in the kink community, I and every other Kink enjoyer knows that the very most important element of Kink is Consent. Anyone who doesn't think so doesn't belong.

 

[Primalex]

Coerce - to compel by force, intimidation, or authority

Nice dictionary quote. Using force to have sex is called "rape" and authority is just a proxy for intimidation which is a proxy for a threat.

Comes off as creepy/rapey,

So does tying up, blindfolding and gagging people.

Which is a slanted question that suggests it's own answer of "If she consents, then I'm not really pushing her as far as I want to."

No, it's not a slanted question. You are dismissing the question as "slanted" and fail to engage with the actual issue. And the issue is legitimate.

People's boundaries do change and people are looking for other people to "push their boundaries", whether you like it or not.

• The person can independently arrive at new comfort levels, even without the presence of a dominant person.
• Someone is strategically steering the person past their former limits.

The question is asking where the ethical and unethical line is.

If you are (vanilla) dating someone, you are planning progressively more intimate or vulnerable dates (casual coffee, dining out, cooking yourself, ...). Neither the fact that you are trying to influence the person to see you in a positive way nor the intention of wanting to have sex with the person make this process unethical on its own.

And this is where your "there was a resistance you have overcome, therefore whatever you did was unethical" falls flat.

You are redefining "consent" as a "total lack of internal conflict". People feel hesitation or resistance all the time, even when they ultimately do want something. If we followed your logic, any initial hesitation would invalidate later consent. That's not how consent works in real life. You are collapsing persuasion, comfort-building and coercion etc. into the same category, even though the ethical line runs right in between and is the point of the thread.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

“Watch” button selected with zeal.

 

[Ad_hominem]

Nice dictionary quote. Using force to have sex is called "rape" and authority is just a proxy for intimidation which is a proxy for a threat.

So does tying up, blindfolding and gagging people.

No, it's not a slanted question. You are dismissing the question as "slanted" and fail to engage with the actual issue. And the issue is legitimate.

People's boundaries do change and people are looking for other people to "push their boundaries", whether you like it or not.

• The person can independently arrive at new comfort levels, even without the presence of a dominant person.
• Someone is strategically steering the person past their former limits.

The question is asking where the ethical and unethical line is.

If you are (vanilla) dating someone, you are planning progressively more intimate or vulnerable dates (casual coffee, dining out, cooking yourself, ...). Neither the fact that you are trying to influence the person to see you in a positive way nor the intention of wanting to have sex with the person make this process unethical on its own.

And this is where your "there was a resistance you have overcome, therefore whatever you did was unethical" falls flat.

You are redefining "consent" as a "total lack of internal conflict". People feel hesitation or resistance all the time, even when they ultimately do want something. If we followed your logic, any initial hesitation would invalidate later consent. That's not how consent works in real life. You are collapsing persuasion, comfort-building and coercion etc. into the same category, even though the ethical line runs right in between and is the point of the thread.

All that rambling and you still couldn't clarify and say something like "I meant all this in the context of consensual fantasy/role-play."

But you're two replies in and you haven't bothered to clear that up despite me and three other people reading what you said and then immediately bringing the conversation to things like consent, respect, limits, etc.

 

[Primalex]

All that rambling and you still couldn't clarify and say something like "I meant all this in the context of consensual fantasy/role-play."

But you're two replies in and you haven't bothered to clear that up despite me and three other people reading what you said and then immediately bringing the conversation to things like consent, respect, limits, etc.

I have fulfilled your request to clarify what I'm talking about. I don't have to entertain your bad faith arguments. I rather wait for other people to contribute something meaningful.

 

[SomaSlave]

I have fulfilled your request to clarify what I'm talking about. I don't have to entertain your bad faith arguments. I rather wait for other people to contribute something meaningful.

I believe the key question that needs to be answered/clarified is whether you're describing a real life approach to D/s or philosophical/fantasy speculation. If you're considering practicing it in real life, be aware that your basic argument is the basis for most of the Marquis de Sade's philosophical ramblings in writings like "Juliette" and "Philosophy in the Bedroom." It's predicated on the fundamental belief that the poor and powerless exist to serve the whims of the rich and powerful. In his fictional world, the ideal person lives only for their own pleasures. Everyone else serves to help them enjoy those pleasures. It's notable that, in his writings, that path inevitably leads to the conclusion (and practice) that, if the ruin and death of another gives me a thrill, I have an obligation to do it. It is the antithesis of SSC. For that matter, it is the antithesis of a humane society.

Your posts have drifted perilously close to Sadean philosophy. I would welcome being corrected if I've misread them, and would appreciate any clarification you may wish to provide.

 

[Ad_hominem]

I believe the key question that needs to be answered/clarified is whether you're describing a real life approach to D/s or philosophical/fantasy speculation. If you're considering practicing it in real life, be aware that your basic argument is the basis for most of the Marquis de Sade's philosophical ramblings in writings like "Juliette" and "Philosophy in the Bedroom." It's predicated on the fundamental belief that the poor and powerless exist to serve the whims of the rich and powerful. In his fictional world, the ideal person lives only for their own pleasures. Everyone else serves to help them enjoy those pleasures. It's notable that, in his writings, that path inevitably leads to the conclusion (and practice) that, if the ruin and death of another gives me a thrill, I have an obligation to do it. It is the antithesis of SSC. For that matter, it is the antithesis of a humane society.

Your posts have drifted perilously close to Sadean philosophy. I would welcome being corrected if I've misread them, and would appreciate any clarification you may wish to provide.

Well damn. You got to the core of the massive red flag I was attempting to address, and you did it with way less words. I highly respect your communication skills lol