Padriag
Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline
|
A lot of good stuff Dave  Don't feel bad about the Helsinki mix up I've even seen psychologist make the mistake. Personally I blame Hollywood which seems to love to mix them up in movies like Die Hard, the Babylon 5 TV series and others, not to mention a few reporters for various networks. That may even be what caused you to mix them up.
quote:
Many of the psychological limits we place on ourselves are actually social programming we recieve from childhood. "Nice girls don't." "Men don't cry" "If you do that, you'll go to Hell." We are trained from childhood to become the adults society wants us to be. However, social evolution is extremely slow.
Absolutely agree here. I spoke on this some in an essay I posted in another thread about how this very thing is sometimes the reason a submissive will want a dominant to "push their limits" and "force" them to do certain things they actually have secret (or not so secret) fantasies about. Its a way of transfering the guilt of the "guilty pleasure" to the dominant allowing the submissive to enjoy the fetish without the associated guilt that would normally be felt.
quote:
Applying psychology to a BDSM situation allows a Dominant to break down the social barriers that have been placed on a submissive. The more a Dominant understands how to make the mind associate various sensations with positive re-enforcement, the more limits he/she can overcome.
Again absolutely agree here and much of the reference material I listed in my previous post applies directly to this very point. Its also why I disagree with you about using Stockholm Syndrome as a model.
quote:
As Padraig stated, Stockholm Syndrome itself has nothing to do with BDSM. However, as a model, it is closely related to the more edgy aspects of BDSM, especially with submissives new to the lifestyle.
I do see your point here in relating it to a dominant modifying behavior, and superficially there is a resemblance. However, what I also see are some striking and key differences. First, the conditions commonly associated with Stockholm Syndrome all have this in common, they are non-consensual, threats are common, use of guilt, use of force. Conversely positive reinforcement is not generally associated with the methodology that characterizes Stockholm Syndrome. Part of the reason I object to it as a model is that by its nature it is non-consensual and abusive vs what we intend which is consensual and positive. One of my concerns is that we do not know who is reading this. Consider for a moment that while there are certainly those reading this who want to practice this lifestyle conscientiously... there are also those reading who may well have criminal intent, and/or those who may be so naive as to misunderstand the model as being only a general comparison and instead take it literally. If we were speaking privately in a group where we knew all involved understood precisely what was intended, I would not have a problem with it; but being that this is a public forum with a wide range of readers I'm simply suggesting we be more cautious. I have one other objection on slightly different grounds but I'll save it for the end of my post.
Because of the above I would suggest we find better models, and if necessary even create our own. One of the reasons I suggested both the work of Alfred Adler and B F Skinner is they deal with behavior modification using positive reinforcement in entirely consensual settings. These situations can involve force, for example a drug addict who checks in for treatment (consent) and later is restrained during withdrawals to prevent them from hurting themselves or from leaving to obtain more drugs. Positive reinforcement can be used to associate one behavior with another or to generally improve the individual. For example, many submissives lack the self confidence to take a lot of initiative in how they serve their dominant, positive reinforcement can help improve this. I'd refer those interested to the work of Nathaniel Brandon for more on this, in particular his books Honoring the Self and The Six Pillars of Self Esteem. I also feel that by using these sorts of things as models we avoid the possibility of criticism by those outside the lifestyle and can even point to it in defense of what we do... we're practicing good psychology designed to help people improve.
quote:
However, it is the submissives trust in the Sadist that allows the submissive to open up emotionally to participate in an activity he/she fears. It is the emotional connection to the monster; the dread fascination with the sadistic will, that directly relates to Stockholm Syndrome.
I can't agree here and I think you've misinterpreted what happens in various cases involving Stockholm Syndrome. Going back to the original case of the bankrobbery where this all begins the hostages did not trust the bank robbers. What occured was this, the bank robbers through fear, intimidation and other tactics managed to convince the hostages that the police and government were more dangerous than the bankrobbers. They exchanged one fear (fear of the bank robbers) for a much larger fear (the fictional fear of the police they created). There was never any trust involved nor any "dread facination with the monster", these people were literally terrified to the point they could no longer think rationally. I'm certain you are not advocating this sort of thing as a model for the lifestyle. A submissive does trust the dominant, even when painful and sadistic play is involved, the submissive consents to the play and may actually desire it. These points all stand in stark contrast to the abusive and damaging events in the landmark case of Stockholm Syndrome. Its also worth noting that even after those hostages were rescued they suffered anxiety attacks, fears of being killed by either the police or the bankrobbers, paranoia and other neurosis. Though in one case, one woman actually married one of the bankrobbers, her motives for doing so have been hotly debated (was it love or appeasement for example?).
The remainder of your points I generally agree with. I would emphasize the following for anyone comtemplating putting this into practice.
- In cases where the submissive if feeling guilt at the prospect of the activity and most especially enjoying the activity, the dominant needs to provide and "escape" for this guilt. Often the illusion of "forcing" the submissive into it is enough.
- In any form of activity, positive reinforcement is necessary both to create a desire for the fetish and to maintain a postive self image for the submissive. An example of this is teaching a submissive to be a slut... normally this is negative, but by using positive reinforcement to encourage "slutty" behavior and also encouraging the submissive to see being a slut as a good thing, it allows the submissive to retain a positive self image / self esteem.
- The dominant must take care not to misuse the authority and trust they have... part of what makes this kind of behavior modification possible in a healthy relationship is that trust, if it is lost the relationship will be in jeopardy until the trust is regained. So always act responsibly!
quote:
Several years ago, I witnessed a scene at BMSL that went beyond the Dominants ability to cope with on a psychological level. In his efforts to maintain the balance of the power exchange, he went through the motions of sadism that were required of him to keep up with the needs of his submissive, even though he was not prepared to deal with the emotional turmoil his own actions caused him. Watching a submissive giving emotional aftercare to a Dominant is rather sobering to say the least.
This is another important point that needs to be stressed. We often talk of how vulnerable submissives are to dominants, but we rarely talk about how vulnerable dominants can be. Sometimes dominants need safewords too, and the above example is a damn good case in point!
Okay, now for my second objection to using Stockholm Syndrome... and actually this goes to include using any examples of abusive behavior as models for anything in the lifestyle, or comparing abuse or the dynamics of abuse to the lifestyle as well. I hinted above about concerns regarding outside criticism of the lifestyle and this is pretty much the crux of my second objection. Right now in the US we are faced with increasing conservativism and increasing intolerance. These things are symptoms of the climate of fear we currently live in. When people get scared they get intolerant as a reaction to that fear, they tend to lash out at anything and anyone they feel is different than them, immoral, weird, etc. The ban on gay marriage was just one wake up call to what is happening. Keep in mind that right now gay's make up about 5-6% of the population in the US, yet they have been very well organized and very effective in lobbying the government for laws giving them equal and fair treatment... until recently. Comparatively the BDSM community makes up about 10-12% of the population (that's an estimate, hard numbers are difficult ot come by on this) and is far less organized. If gays, as well organized as they have been, could not stop the ban on gay marriage, what are our chances if the focus becomes legislation against BDSM or the treatment of this lifestyle as a disease? This is why I caution us all to be careful in how we present any aspect of this lifestyle. If... for example, a law was brought before Congress which would allow discrimination against those involved in BDSM and as part of the hearings someone presented an essay or article advocating the use of Stockholm Syndrome in the training of submissives imagine the fuel that would add to the fire and how hard it would to be to defend against. This is my second objection to using this and why I caution against it. Its not a personal attack, I'm just thinking in the long term here as to how it might potentially affect us all someday. I may be being overly cautious but things being what they are, I'd rather be over cautious than not cautious enough.
Again, for the record, I do believe Dave had the best of intentions with his post and he makes many good points. I also think it is clear he is not advocating any form of abuse. Just wanted to make sure that point was clear.
_____________________________
Padriag
A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer
|
painslut training - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread