|
Padriag -> RE: Depersonalization (10/29/2007 8:26:47 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veryleggyredhead
Is this
practice safe? Does it take into account the short and longterm
mental health of the recipient? Or is it abuse cloaked in
bdsm protocol around a Master's or Mistresses's
expectations of a slave or a submissive?
How do you view this practice amd what are the longterm effects
on the slave or submissive who is conditioned/brainwashed?
to this end? Lastly how does this differ (if indeed it does)
from objectification?
Anything can be abusive, often the dividing line is found in the intent. Spanking in the BDSM sense isn't abusive, there's no intent to cause harm or trauma. If it does cause harm its still not abuse, but rather an accident, because again there was a lack of intent. Other forms of play are more dangerous and carry a higher risk of harm, so more caution is required, but even in these cases where accidents happen we still call them that, perhaps point fingers at someone's carelessness or inexperience, but without intent we rarely call it abuse. However, we don't hesitate to call it abuse when we see someone angrily verbally assaulting someone (verbal abuse), because their intent to cause harm is clear.
Depersonalization can carry risks, like so many other activities we might engage in as part of this lifestyle. Taken to an extreme it could certainly have unhealthy consequences. Utilized with intent to harm it certainly could be dangerous. Done as part of a relationship, with care taken to keep things healthy, it could be just another tool in a dominants arsenal of enabling a submissive to live up to their potential in that role.
I will say that I don't see it necessarily as brainwashing, except perhaps in extreme cases. For example, if you took it to the extreme of convincing a person they really were some sort of human animal (i.e. a dog) vs. teaching someone to play the role of a puppygirl/boy very well, the former could be considered brainwashing because you're changing the persons self image in a very radical way.
Most forms of depersonalization are far less extreme and don't threat the self image. Teaching a person to speak in third person, as LA already pointed out, doesn't remove their identity. At best it acts as a verbal reminder of individual status (and more importantly the relationship between the dominant status and the submissives status, i.e. higher and lower).
Depersonalization has other uses as well and one of my favorite has a parallel in the military. During basic training in most militiaries there is emphasis on hair cuts, changes in clothing (uniforms), eating habits, sleeping habits, etc. All these things challenge an individuals conceptions of what they know, what they believe about their privileges, who they are, etc. Its done with the purpose of forcing an individual to let go of one set of self beliefs and become open to adopting new ones. Some have compared it to brainwashing, which it isn't because it doesn't radically change a persons self identity, though it does often alter and expand it, who they were at their core still remains.
The same methods can be applied to training a new submissive, challenging either their conceptions regarding their behavior, privileges and habits from "vanilla" life, or just challenging conceptions carried from previous D/s relationship. Its useful in teaching a submissive how a particular dominant wants things done, vs whatever preconceptions they may have. Habits can be, as we all know, hard to break and this particular form of depersonalization can be useful to that end.
Some use it as an end in itself (rather than the means to an end in my above example), most chiefly in the form of objectification. Teaching a submissive to be a piece of furniture, a foot stool, an ash tray, etc. These things are done simply because stripping away their "humanity" is pleasing to some. But in most cases its not really their humanity or self identity that is removed... but rather the privileges (especially regarding behavior) and sometimes also the social responsibilities, of being human. That "footstool" is still the submissive Betty, she hasn't suddenly started believing she's a footstool. However, for a specific span of time, she behaves as a footstool, or more correctly her behavior is restricted to that of something approximating a footstool. The same is true of animal role play (puppyboys, pony girls, and other "pets"). Often an unspoken aspect of such play which the submissive enjoys is that while their behavior as a human has been restricted to that of the specified animal (or some interpretation thereof), there is also a removal of human social responsibility and expectations. A puppygirl doesn't have to act like a lady, she can do silly, playful and even mischievious things as a puppy no human could get away with... and even be praised for it... and in that there is an escape that some find liberating.
|
|
|
|
