RE: safe, SANE & Consensual

RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Celeste43 -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/3/2007 2:29:32 PM)
It doesn't sound like she's in therapy to deal with her issues but because he's trying to coerce her into doing things she doesn't want to and is using the medium of therapy to accomplish this. What I don't get is why the therapist would go along with it. Most good ones would see this as an unhealthily codependent relationship and try to encourage independence in the patient. I just hope he's paying for the sessions and not wasting her extremely limited mental health hours.

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/3/2007 2:33:38 PM)
so what your saying is it is like a form of external manipulation ? using forces out side the relationship to get someone to do something you may or may not want them to do

domiguy -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/3/2007 3:26:44 PM)
Exactly...I really enjoy manipulating people to do exactly what I don't want them to do. It's fun...Oh...Wow!!! It's my kink...I once manipulated this demented sub into "keying" my car...It was soo fucking HOT!!!!

Petronius -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/3/2007 4:16:56 PM)
There's a different interpretation of the data available once we move beyond a knee-jerk judgement to blame the male or blame the dominant: that's that the submissive is using a passive-aggressive personality traits in an abusive fashion. Some time ago I ran into a situation that sounds a bit familiar with a drama queen who had a different problem every week until she carried herself out of the relationship (thank god!) Some people go into therapy because they want to; so are effectively forced into it. Some people go into therapy because they're being abused; others are forced into therapy because they're the abuser. We can't draw any conclusions about good and bad, abuser and abused, simply because one person is in therapy and the other is not.

Bobkgin -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/3/2007 4:29:17 PM)
Too many variables, Winsome, to construct a general statement that would be useful. Despite the disclaimer, the OP does seem to imply that if one needs therapy, one is not competent enough to detect abuse. I think, on the other hand, were abuse occurring, the abuser would not want to see the abused attending therapy for six hours a week. Almost a sure ticket the abuser would be caught, don't you think? At least I'm sure an abuser would think so. There is simply not enough information to draw firm conclusions.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/3/2007 4:45:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin Too many variables, Winsome, to construct a general statement that would be useful. Despite the disclaimer, the OP does seem to imply that if one needs therapy, one is not competent enough to detect abuse. I think, on the other hand, were abuse occurring, the abuser would not want to see the abused attending therapy for six hours a week. Almost a sure ticket the abuser would be caught, don't you think? At least I'm sure an abuser would think so. There is simply not enough information to draw firm conclusions. Thank you for your input bob, and for your insight into the mind of an abuser. Point well taken.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/3/2007 5:13:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Petronius There's a different interpretation of the data available once we move beyond a knee-jerk judgement to blame the male or blame the dominant: that's that the submissive is using a passive-aggressive personality traits in an abusive fashion. Some time ago I ran into a situation that sounds a bit familiar with a drama queen who had a different problem every week until she carried herself out of the relationship (thank god!) Some people go into therapy because they want to; so are effectively forced into it. Some people go into therapy because they're being abused; others are forced into therapy because they're the abuser. We can't draw any conclusions about good and bad, abuser and abused, simply because one person is in therapy and the other is not. You bring up some good points. It certainly isn't a bad option, to step back from ones knee jerk response and review the facts in a more informative manner. Drama queens tend to, at first, rally a large contingency of support. Until people start taking note of the trend. They sure can do a lot of damage in the meantime. I'd rather buck up to an abuser, than go head to head with a drama queen. Situations like that can get messy quick. I agee completely that conclusions cannot be drawn good or bad simply because one is in therapy or not. The first person to respond to this post summed it up best, I think. It depends on the timing and the persons involved. Thank you all, for your thoughts on this topic.

catize -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/3/2007 5:18:28 PM)
quote: girlfriend is currently in therapy 6 hours a WEEK. Anyone who attends therapy 6 hours a week either has the best insurance policy in the world and/or the worst counselor.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/3/2007 5:22:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize quote: girlfriend is currently in therapy 6 hours a WEEK. Anyone who attends therapy 6 hours a week either has the best insurance policy in the world and/or the worst counselor. Too funny. I have to admit my jaw kinda dropped at the mention of 6 hours a week. Monk doesn't even see his therapist that often!

dragonslave77 -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/3/2007 6:13:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressSassy66 I think I would be worried if the D in question was using humiliation techniques in training. A spanking could damage a person,but I think verbal put downs would cause more harm to a person who may be struggling with self-esteem. Respectfully, I have to disagree, albeit a qualified disagreement. A lot would depend upon the “tone” of the spanking. While certainly verbal put downs can and do cause damage to fragile self-esteem, a spanking can do the same. Just as an example off the top of my head, but suppose a spanking was given a punishment for somehow displeasing the Master/Mistress. In this case, the thought of having displeased Master/Mistress may be a blow to the self-esteem of a sub, and the spanking would only serve to further that feeling, and this could potentially be the same or worse than a verbal put down. Clearly a spanking done as pleasure or such wouldn't fit this, and probably wouldn't effect self-esteem. I know personally, the tone of a beating/flogging/whipping/spanking has a tremendous impact on me in an emotional sense (in a physical sense sometimes as well, but that's another topic). Just because an activity is more physical, doesn't lessen its potential emotional impact.

iammachine -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/3/2007 8:54:10 PM)
I don't like the use of "sane" in SSC, because what is "sane" is so terribly subjective. RACK is my buzzword of choice. Acronyms, aside, I know the situation that you are speaking of. It worries me, a lot. I can't judge anyone else's capabilities, therapy or no. Do I think that this person in particular really should be in the situation they are, given a rather uneasy sense that it's unhealthy for them? Well, there's an obvious answer to that question, but that is their choice to make. Were this any generic, hypothetical situation, I couldn't say one way or another whether I felt it was abusive on the part of the Dom or no. Certainly there are Doms out there that have taken on rather troubled subs, and have the best intentions for them, just as there are those that would exploit said subs insecurities. In this specific situation, I'm uneasy. But, again, not my call to make.

celticlord2112 -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/3/2007 9:02:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dragonslave77 Respectfully, I have to disagree, albeit a qualified disagreement. A lot would depend upon the “tone” of the spanking. While certainly verbal put downs can and do cause damage to fragile self-esteem, a spanking can do the same. From what I have seen, verbal abuse is much more harmful to the psyche than any level of physical abuse, primarily because words can be remembered long after the sting of a spanking has faded. Insults, put downs, and other forms of verbal punishment can and do reverberate sometimes for years.

celticlord2112 -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/3/2007 9:07:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: iammachine I don't like the use of "sane" in SSC, because what is "sane" is so terribly subjective. RACK is my buzzword of choice. Both acronyms do a disservice, to my way of thinking. They are egregious and somewhat deceptive oversimplifications, that do little to illuminate the nuances of the lifestyle. Vanilla types don't need acronyms to explain how they live and play. Why do we?

iammachine -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/3/2007 9:59:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: iammachine I don't like the use of "sane" in SSC, because what is "sane" is so terribly subjective. RACK is my buzzword of choice. Both acronyms do a disservice, to my way of thinking. They are egregious and somewhat deceptive oversimplifications, that do little to illuminate the nuances of the lifestyle. Vanilla types don't need acronyms to explain how they live and play. Why do we? I agree that they are overly simplified, but at least for my purposes, RACK is quick, somewhat convenient way of conveying a [basic] concept. And for another acronym: YMMV. [:)]

sublizzie -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/3/2007 11:14:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin I think, on the other hand, were abuse occurring, the abuser would not want to see the abused attending therapy for six hours a week. Almost a sure ticket the abuser would be caught, don't you think? At least I'm sure an abuser would think so. While my abuser was a highly intelligent man, he had no clue that my being in therapy would cause me to leave his abuse. I'm sure he thought I'd simply learn to roll over and let him emotionally beat up on me even more. I was mightily pissed when I told him it was a question his therapist asked me that got the wheels turning to the point where I decided I had to leave. Some abusers are so deluded about their own god-likeness that they have no problem with their victim being in counselling. Just my thoughts.........

dragonslave77 -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/3/2007 11:49:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: dragonslave77 Respectfully, I have to disagree, albeit a qualified disagreement. A lot would depend upon the “tone” of the spanking. While certainly verbal put downs can and do cause damage to fragile self-esteem, a spanking can do the same. From what I have seen, verbal abuse is much more harmful to the psyche than any level of physical abuse, primarily because words can be remembered long after the sting of a spanking has faded. Insults, put downs, and other forms of verbal punishment can and do reverberate sometimes for years. Having been on the end of a bad "tone" beating, I can say that it easily has outlasted any words or insults, and left far more damage to my self esteem than those words. Perhaps I haven't truly been verbally insulted by a Dom/me, but I've had some nasty things said to me. And yes, I'd say I can fit into "having self esteem issues", so I can speak to what does damage and what does not. It is however, just my opinion, and my personal psyche.

chellekitty -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 12:47:14 AM)
as someone who has had lots of experience in the mental health field...you guess from what angle...[in texas] there are two instances where you can be committed (most people's standard for being "insane"...you are a mortal danger to yourself or you are a mortal danger to others (ie, you have expressed a desire to commit suicide or murder)...but according to the doctors i have talked to the times they use the word insane is when you can not determine reality from fantasy...ie. hallucinations or psychotic episodes or a number of other false thinking that you think is implicitly real...hallucinations don't make you insane unless you can't tell they aren't really there after a moment... that being said...everyone's definition of day to day sane varries and varries from person to person and situation to situation...its ok to spank your wife...its insane to spank your boss's wife...or its insane to spank your wife in church durring service...or whatever (insert inappropriate person or situation)...RACK here too...well throw an an I for informed and i will be happy... crap..school in the morning... toodles chelle

e01n -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 1:56:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance: Do you think someone who requires such extensive counseling, as to attend therapy 6 hours a week, is emotionally and/or mentally capable of actually consenting to submit as a slave? No. I don't anything else needs to be said by me on that. The answer for me is "no."

Bobkgin -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 3:13:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sublizzie quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin I think, on the other hand, were abuse occurring, the abuser would not want to see the abused attending therapy for six hours a week. Almost a sure ticket the abuser would be caught, don't you think? At least I'm sure an abuser would think so. While my abuser was a highly intelligent man, he had no clue that my being in therapy would cause me to leave his abuse. I'm sure he thought I'd simply learn to roll over and let him emotionally beat up on me even more. I was mightily pissed when I told him it was a question his therapist asked me that got the wheels turning to the point where I decided I had to leave. Some abusers are so deluded about their own god-likeness that they have no problem with their victim being in counselling. Just my thoughts......... One should never underestimate the power of human stupidity, I suppose. You make a good point which, unfortunately, only muddies the waters in this case. It is difficult, trying to be fair to all parties involved, to determine what is happening with so few facts.

Bobkgin -> RE: safe, SANE & Consensual (9/4/2007 3:21:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chellekitty ...but according to the doctors i have talked to the times they use the word insane is when you can not determine reality from fantasy...ie. hallucinations or psychotic episodes or a number of other false thinking that you think is implicitly real... Does this include a belief in God and angels and Satan and demons and the saving grace of Jesus Christ ... none of which can be scientifically demonstrated to be real? Wikipedia has an interesting definition for "delusion", which essentially breaks down to believing in things the majority of others do not (ie a subjective definition based on the popularity of a belief). The Mental Health sciences are still in their infancy and have yet to really tackle their built-in biases: faith in religion is "sane" but faith in 6-foot tall pink rabbits is a "hallucination". Faith is involved in both cases and neither can be proven scientifically, but one is exceptionally popular while the other is not.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125