RE: Anger, physical, non-physical, consent, abuse - 2/13/2009 2:54:21 AM
|
|
|
QuixoticErrant
Posts: 260
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
and it did absolutely nothing for me other than teach me how to be pissed off. I stood silent for many a whipping with a slow anger burning inside that simply is not something I will foist upon another person. I see it as a loss of control to let anger push you to the point where you have to punch, slap, spank, do whatever it is you do when you're pissed. Am I going to get in between you and someone else? No. If you and yours are ok with it, fine with me. If I'm in a public setting, its what DM's are for. Not me. They can make that decision and do whatever they choose to do. What I will probably do is walk off. I don't view it personally as wholesome, instructive, exhibiting control or good. But again, that's just me. What you do with yours and they do with you, is your business. Whether or not it is abuse is best answered by the people involved, but it is somewhat ironic to me that those actions will depend greatly upon where you are. What I mean by that is simple. If you lash out in anger, I doubt it is anywhere but in private or among those who have some understanding of your dynamic. Actually, I know you probably don't because I've not seen your mug shot on the evening news along with a distraught newscaster describing said "abuse." The observable lesson there for me is that one is capable of exercising that control when they have to but simply do not when they don't have to.
Granted we all do things in private that we don't do in public, but I quote:
ORIGINAL: StrangerThan
Somehow this thread lost its way I think, evolving from the simpler question of what constitutes abuse between you and your Dom/sub/Master/slave to intervening between others. They're not the same question so I'm going to leave the latter part alone for the most part - especially since I tend to try and stay out of anything that isn't my business and what people do betwixt themselves isn't my business. I suppose we could create a scenario where it might be my business, but again, different question.
As for what goes between my submissive and I, I don't hit in anger. I'm with Davan in that I grew up in those circumstances. Mine was a fundamentalist household where hitting in anger was common, spanking in anger was common, and it did absolutely nothing for me other than teach me how to be pissed off. I stood silent for many a whipping with a slow anger burning inside that simply is not something I will foist upon another person. I see it as a loss of control to let anger push you to the point where you have to punch, slap, spank, do whatever it is you do when you're pissed. Am I going to get in between you and someone else? No. If you and yours are ok with it, fine with me. If I'm in a public setting, its what DM's are for. Not me. They can make that decision and do whatever they choose to do. What I will probably do is walk off. I don't view it personally as wholesome, instructive, exhibiting control or good. But again, that's just me. What you do with yours and they do with you, is your business. Whether or not it is abuse is best answered by the people involved, but it is somewhat ironic to me that those actions will depend greatly upon where you are. What I mean by that is simple. If you lash out in anger, I doubt it is anywhere but in private or among those who have some understanding of your dynamic. Actually, I know you probably don't because I've not seen your mug shot on the evening news along with a distraught newscaster describing said "abuse." The observable lesson there for me is that one is capable of exercising that control when they have to but simply do not when they don't have to.
Granted we all do things in private that we don't do in public, but I see this post as more of a general relationship dynamics question with the kink-aware consent thought thrown in. I guess my question then becomes, if you do strike in anger, which behavior is exhibited when you can't? Do you devolve to stony silence, walk away, send him/her away? If silence is worse, then is finally getting home where you can be hit a relief? Its not a facetious question. I'm honestly curious because it would seem that one who did strike in anger would also have to exhibit one or more types of the behavior she's asking about as well.
Having grown up the way I did, I see striking in anger personally as a loss of control when it comes to how I interact with my girl. I've always believed that disappointment was the biggest part of any punishment. I also don't see myself in terms of Dominance on loan from God, which means, I'm going to understand my own complicity in whatever action brings discipline before it takes place. That translates to control of me before control of her because I don't want to understand that complicity two hours later after the anger has passed. So when I get really pissed, I'm going to be a walk away kind of guy until I sort it all out. And honestly, if I am really pissed I'm not going to be striking her at all either in anger or as some form of institutionalized discipline between us. I'm going to tell her I am and why. The spankings, beatings, whippings, are reserved for those long sessions that make you want to run naked in the forest and howl at the moon in my house, not as part of being pissed off at the other.
Of course, there is the making of panties. Wry smile. No, she's not a seamstress. It's more of an inside comment there that she will understand when she reads this as I had some complicity in this very issue this week. Grin.
That was really well written. I go back to my original post, that a Dom(me) should not hit in anger. I truly believe it sends the wrong message at best and leaves too much room for really bad things at worst.
|
|
|
|
[/ot] 
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