|
Aswad -> RE: Sane? (6/7/2007 2:30:12 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CitizenCane
For all you adherents of SSC out there, I'd like to know a few things:
Well, depending on what you mean by "adherents". I'll bite, though.
I've always considered that one a "rule of thumb", i.e. guideline, than an actual rule. It was probably coined as a kind of lowest-common-denominator advice to newcomers, in that you can't reasonably explain all the factors that go into it in a simple way, but by going by SSC, they usually won't be "too far" off.
quote:
1) How do you define 'sane'?
In its strictest sense, not in a psychotic state.
As a minimum, able to make rational decisions about the topic at hand in some setting or other.
quote:
2) How do you determine if your partner is sane?
Barring a professional examination, which really only makes sense for the most extreme of activities (i.e. intent or significant perceived risk of permanent injury, etc.), there are some guidelines that can be employed...
Having experienced what some call a "brief reactive psychosis" on a few occasions, and having spoken to people in psychotic states, I can relate to the temporary or less temporary, perhaps permanent, absence of sanity in a way that is hard to explain. This is called "tacit knowledge". Comparable examples include knowing when you're pushing as far as you can go (at the time) with something.
From this, further, I do not subscribe to the idea that there is a continuum between regular consciousness and psychosis in the absence of organic causes, though I'm open to being shown wrong. There is a clear dividing line, in my experience. If one wants a semi-formal way of determining which side of that line someone is on, the best tool for the job would appear to be what I call "reality testing", which is not the same as what the term is usually applied to (lucid dreaming), but similar. It involves testing whether a person's experience of the world is coherent and internally self-consistent.
In the looser sense of the term, it's more ambigous.
I have a fair bit of experience in dealing with people with various short-term, long-term and permanent mental illnesses (whether in the form of a specific diagnosis, or simply as a discernable loss of integrity and cohesion with regard to one or more aspects of the mind). To condense that experience in a post would, for me, be an exercise in futility.
Some problems, the person will usually be aware of, or show distinct signs of (whether up front, or upon encountering a trigger), such as phobias, anxiety disorders, mood disorders (e.g. major depression, dysthymia, bipolar), obsessive-compulsive disorders, developmental disorders (e.g. ADHD, Asperger's Syndrome and Autism), and various forms of schizophrenia.
Other problems are more subtle, and may be impossible to distinguish without extensive experience and in-depth examination. The average Joe or Jane cannot be reasonably expected to spot these, although there may occasionally be a feeling that something is "off". Such a clue may well point to entirely different things, however, so I'd not take it very seriously unless one feels distinctly uncomfortable or it otherwise triggers the alarms. I cannot offer any better advice than to go with your instincts on this.
To what extent, if any, these impact the ability to participate in a "sane" manner, is a judgment call.
Frank psychosis is, to my mind, incompatible with participation in BDSM under the SSC guideline.
quote:
3) Does it matter to you if they are not 'sane' by your particular standard but their insanity does not make them a danger to themselves or others?
If their "sanity" impacts their ability to consider what they are doing and make a rational decision about whether to participate in activities, I would, at the very least, be hesitant to include them in any activities. To do so would have the same issues attached as UMs due to the impact on decision-making ability.
Whether someone is a danger to themselves or others is not neccessarily a problem, to me, provided I am confident I can manage that risk. It may well pose a legal problem, however, as most jurisdictions dictate that such a person should be under involuntary health care. It's a judgement call again.
Someone with the rare condition that causes them to have no perception of fear might not be a problem, provided they can rationally analyze the risks of something, or can make a rational decision as to informed consent to voluntary slavery. Such a person poses a risk to themselves, and could very well benefit from the constraints imposed by a M/s relationship. (As an example, one woman with this could be on the 20th floor of a building, and if her purse fell out the window, she'd throw herself after it without any fear that she might fall out herself.)
Someone who is actively suicidal is very iffy; even if they had consented to a strait jacket or sedatives, which are the only two ways in which to be reasonably confident they are unable to harm themselves while unsupervised, there is still the issue that I will most likely not be able to give them proper care, and that I may not be legally allowed to act as their caregiver, even if they consented at a time when they were in a rational frame of mind.
In short, it depends on whether I can manage them, and (again) whether they can give informed consent or not.
quote:
4) Does it matter to you if they are not 'sane' by your particular standard but their insanity makes them fit their role in the relationship better? For instance, someone desiring a service sub might find one with mild OCD very attractive.
Again, if they can make the decision rationally, it's all good.
As you say, some forms of mild OCD, predominantly those centered on tidyness and so forth, could conceivably work well. OCD has this nasty habit (pun intended) of becoming more serious over time, but if the discipline involved manages this tendency, it may well be a stabilizing influence. A knowledge of cognitive behavioural therapy would be advisable.
Some people with borderline personality disorder could probably (I've never tried) benefit from an M/s relationship with strong discipline; I've seen one case where this might have prevented the disaster that unfortunately unfolded. Any relationship with a borderline person is usually tempestuous. At times, they will be as adoring and committed a person as you could ever hope to meet, while at other times, they can be outright hateful.
If one such, in a rational state, consents to the notion that one is "not being oneself" during ones bad periods, and that neccessary force may be brought to bear on those, it can work very well; such was the case I mentioned. Depending on how the parties are inclined, and the nature of the BPD, it can in some cases be useful to have an element of fear in the sense that daddysprop has mentioned in the past; this depends on whether that affords a measure of fear-compliance control, or whether it just aggravates things.
Other features of BPD which can be ameliorated through an M/s relationship, include fear of abandonment (if there is strong commitment from the M), unstable self-image (some may be able to defer the evaluation to their M), impulsivity (may be managed through discipline, rules and conditioning), self-injurious behaviour (may in some cases be channeled into S&M; may sometimes be controlled via other factors), labile mood, temper or rage (might be controlled through discipline and bondage), and problems with stress (the M can shield from known stressors).
BPD is a serious illness, and should be treated as such. But it can work. Professional guidance is advisable.
I'd also point out that many Aspies and Autists can form stronger bonds than many realize, and that they generally thrive on the structure and order that can be imposed in such a relationship. Further, many, but by no means all of them, thrive on rigid rules with no ambiguities, and can be content in roles that others could not cope with. Most that I have encountered are also very honest and forthright.
There may admittedly be some issues with communication, but I have never found that to be a problem with those that are highly "functioning" enough to be of interest to me. Many are, however, not very comfortable with being touched, and there are various other issues that may become a problem, including a high incidence of comorbid disorders. Finding the right one is as elusive as for "regular" partners.
Most Aspies and Autists that I have met also have an incredible tolerance to pain, which can be nice for the sadists, although there will generally be less feedback as to the level of pain inflicted. I am by no means confident that I can inflict upon nephandi enough pain to make her cry without injuring her, if she puts her mind to not doing so. I've seen her remain entirely impassive throughout things that would reduce most "regular" people to sobbing and gasping.
One potential problem, if one does not have a good grasp of what the body can handle, is that a some of them have a lower perception of pain, occasionally to the point where they can lean on a hot stove without realizing that it is on. This means that, in those cases, the Dom/me must be able to accurately judge when they are approaching the point where actual injury may occur, without the benefit of feedback from the slave/sub/bottom.
Some are able to "shut off" the sensation of pain entirely, which may be undesireable if it is beyond their conscious control. I was related a story of one such who was attacked with a heavy chain, parried (breaking their arm) and dislocated the attacker's shoulder with it.
I'm confident in handling some people that I would not generally advise that people engage in a BDSM relationship (or sometimes even play) with. Not because I have top-notch skills as a Dom, which I just don't; I lack the experience for that. But because I am extensively familiar with some forms of what we call mental illness, and have acquired the skills required to, at the very least, not aggravate or trigger the problems. In some cases, I have the skills to treat the problems with psychotherapy and/or by advising their GP in medical treatment.
More importantly, I know my limits in that regard, and will not engage in play (or a relationship) with someone that it is beyond my skill to handle responsibly. This is the most important qualification, and I've seen things go horribly wrong when it is lacking.
Dom/mes are not infallible. Do not bite off more than you can chew, but don't exclude someone without taking the time to get to know any issues they have and judging whether that will be a problem or not. This should be obvious, but it bears repeating.
In short, many different conditions we categorize as mental illnesses can indeed be very beneficial to some kinds of BDSM relationships, but most require a lot of extra care, and some require special skills.
|
|
|
|
