|
Honsoku -> RE: Not always Safe, Not Always Sane, Always (2/15/2008 1:45:03 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BlackPhx
I am reminded in regard to these women of the song by the Rolling Stones (corrected), two lines in particular: "You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, well you might find you'll get what you need"
Without talking to the women involved it is nearly impossible to know whether the treatment they recieved was indeed, what they needed without it being actually what they wanted. You have to remember, that everything written, fiction, non-fiction, thesis, all of it is written through the filters of the authors own experiences, observations, emotions, and slanted towards the audience it is designed to reach. No matter how hard we try, we are not computers, taking in and spewing out data without marking that data with ourselves. I am well aware of perception bias. If what Pizzey described was even remotely accurate, something wasn’t right.
quote:
I told you I have been married vanilla, like a lot of people, and I have been married rocky road with extra nuts. Do you think, that in those vanilla relationships, I did not "push" to get what I needed regarding pain? Masochists are very good at doing exactly that, pushing, and pushing until they get what they need and then reveling in it. Hell to be honest I can push a Midline Sadist if I am not getting what I need, until he is ready to explode and give it to me. Do I enjoy broken bones? Nope. Slows down the play horribly, but in my adult life I have had bones in my ankle broken, my jaw dislocated, a tooth broken, a ruptured ear drum, 3 fractured ribs and a few other things that were relatively minor. Not healthy, not safe, not sane, and yes Abusive. But who was abusing whom?
Who was indeed? He had the power to leave and so did you. You both were consenting to the relationship, yet it was abusive, was it not? Is abuse purely subjective, or can there be an objective measure? (yes/no, why?)
quote:
Children should not be involved in such things, I made sure they were at a sitters when things were going to explode but it is when he turned on the children that I extracted myself from the situation. realistically however, if there had not been Ums, I probably would have stayed until he killed me. Some of my most powerful orgasms happened during those acts. What I do now, with my Master is far more healthy, nearly as satisfying and consentual on BOTH sides.
There are people who are JUST that masochistic, people who have that death wish, people like Sharon Lopatka, or the gentleman in Germany who desired to be cannabilized, others who are desireous of castration, genital mutilation (I have known a few including one man who hammered nails into his own testicles for pleasure (at a club in NY)), people who hang from hooks in their backs, pierce every part of their bodies with long needles. If you are unaware of some of the things that humans do in pursuit of pain and pleasure, please take a look at http://www.bmezine.com/index.html particularly the section on Extreme/Heavy Mods and Erotic Mods. While it is nice to think that everything that we do encompasses the full extent of BDSM and pain/pleasure play it doesn't, not by a long shot. There are people just that extreme who need and push, self inflict or find Sexual Sadists to provide it and they consent to what is being done. Is it abusive? To you yes, to me and most of the people here, yes, to them No.
This is where you seem to imply your position. Your position appears to be that it isn't abuse if the person doesn't consider it abuse. That abuse is purely subjective. Have I inferred your position correctly? (yes/no, why?) For the record, I am well aware of the extremes that some people will go to.
quote:
You quoted my Master, and yes there are people who are attracted to the bad boys, and to people who were bad for them, but please note the "literally throw themselves at" that is telling. they are making a choice regarding the men they are seeking and continue to do so, going from one to another until they find what they seek. I have also known these women, many I have pointed to information on BDSM and healthy relationships within them. If they need this type of treatment, it is far better it is gotten in a healthy environment without drugs, alcohol and cheating, where they are valued, while still getting the thrill of the Bad Boy personae.
So these relationships weren't abusive? (yes/no, why?)
quote:
As to why I keep bringing up the law? It is simple really. Even if your sub says yes, yes, I love when you hit me, spank me, clamp my nipples until they turn blue, slap me, the Law says or decides if it is Abuse. If she feels you have gone beyond her limits, damaged her beyond what she is willing to consent to and accept, she can walk into any police station and you are defending your freedom from that point on. No matter what you two have done prior to that moment (and yes you can use it as a defense), when she withdraws consent and heads for help, you (generic) have a problem.
So, consent is needed because the law requires it? The law is the sole definition of what constitutes abuse? If so, what about the recent changes in violence prosecution where people are prosecuted regardless of the wishes of the person on the receiving end of the violence?
quote:
What is right for me may seem abusive to you, what is right for you may seem abusive to me, we can agree that your kink is ok, my kink is ok. I consent to my treatment and it gives me what I need, therefore it is not abuse in my eyes. My Master consents to my treatment therefore it is not abuse in his eyes. The law does not make that distinction. It steps in if it feels it is waranted, and based on the political atmosphere, morals of the community, etc. and says..Nope..this was abuse your going to jail..or not.
So the law isn't a good judge of abuse (which is one of the things which I have been saying). What if the person’s kink is to be treated in a non-consensual manner? They can’t technically consent to that, otherwise it isn’t non-consensual (yes, that is a kink for quite a few people). One paragraph you use the law to argue for consent, the next you use it to say that it isn’t a good judge of abuse. Which is it? Which matters? Your view of the relationship, or the law’s?
quote:
Pizzey may or may not have understood BDSM or SM dynamics, we don't know. Coming from an abusive background herself where her grandmother was killed, she may not have. It may have been totally unacceptible to her and made her incapable of wrapping her mmind around the fact that there are people who need this the same way we need air to breathe, but may not have found acceptible, healthy ways to feed that need.
But yes it is possible to consent to things that to any other person on the face of this earth is abusive. Frankly I consider public displays of kink to non consenting adults and Ums abusive, but that's just me. The hidden chain is one thing, placing a parent in the position of having to explain why that woman is wearing see through clothing, a collar, is on a dog leash and led about by another person, to their child is another. She's Goth doesn't quite cover it and Walmart isn't the place for it.
If I am still missing your point, perhaps it is because it is not clear. Please feel free to lay it out list style and I will try and take it point by point.
poenkitten
Now I think I can infer your stance accurately. Let me know if I have got this correct; your stance is that consent is the difference between abuse and BDSM because a person can not consent to abuse. This is the case because you define abuse as including non-consensual treatment. As a person can not consent to something they truly don't want, abuse is purely a subjective thing. Ie. until a person decides it is abuse, there is no abuse. How close am I?
If I am reasonably on target;
1: What level of consent is required for it not to be abuse (assumed, implied, explicit)? Any?
2: Can a person be on the receiving end of non-consensual treatment without it being abuse? If not, what about raising UMs, emergency surgery, and care for the insane and mentally incompetent. Are these all cases of abuse?(yes/no, why?)
3: Can a person capable of consent be treated in a non-consensual manner which isn’t abusive?(yes/no, why?)
4: Can consent be withdrawn retroactively?(yes/no, why?)
5: How does all this fit with your saying that a previous relationship that you both were consenting to was abusive?
I notice that when I ask a direct question, you don’t directly answer it, but say something where I have to infer what your response is. Please explicitly state your positions, rather than leave me to infer them, as explicit statements reduce errors in communication. Illustrations are great, but without the explicit statement of position, I don't know what parts of the illustrations are important nor what conclusions to draw. I’m slow that way. [;)]
|
|
|
|
