|
BeingChewsie -> RE: Defining Domination v. Abuse (1/31/2006 9:27:55 AM)
|
Wow. Thank you Master Leonidas, this is an excellent explanation of the difference between abuse and domination for those of us in enslavement relationships. I hope it doesn't get lost in the trees here. This is really a worthwhile read. Thank you again.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leonidas
quote:
Now my question is how can yu tell the difference between Domination and abuse,because I've heard of some things that definately sound like abuse.
This depends on how you are using the word. Abuse is most often (in our culture) used as a normative term when it comes to people. It represents an agreed to standard of interpersonal behavior. When you use the word in that sense, "abuse" means whatever the group of people in question defines it to mean. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that, at a battered women's shelter, they defined abuse as "a pattern of behavior that establishes control over another person" . If that is the standard, abuse and domination are the same thing and your question is moot. In other words, to the folks at the battered women's shelter, domination, and submitting to same, is wrong. Given the context, one would assume they're talking primarily about men establishing control over women with whom they are involved. If they extended their definition generally, they'd be anarchists, and I'm guessing they probably aren't.
For the vast majority of people who engage in "BDSM" the issue is resolved by differentiating what is acceptable (not abusive) during play (a scene) and what is acceptable as someone else said in this thread "in life". During play, just about anything goes that has been agreed to. Outside play, the standards for what constitutes abuse are roughly the same as for the general population, and tend to vary with the politics and ideology of the individual. Keeping this separation allows most folks who engage in BDSM to do "kinky stuff" like verbal or physical humilliation, beatings, etc. while sidstepping the issue of abuse altogether.
A small minority doesn't differentiate between "play" and "life". For them, dominance and submission go on all the time. If this is the case they've already run afowl of the folks down at the women's shelter. No two ways about it, by that standard, its abuse if one engages in behavior that establishes control over the other, which is pretty much the definition of dominance. Suprisingly, some folks who engage in BDSM would agree. For them, if it's done outside the play context (a scene), its wrong.
If you don't reject someone establishing dominance over someone else as wrong period, you probably need a different working definition of "abuse" than is used by the general population, the legal establishment, or the folks at the women's shelter. Behavior restriction of any kind, for example, would be abuse by generally held standards, especially if the party having their behavior restricted is female. Men having their behavior restricted by women far more culturally acceptable. If a women is overheard telling a man "you'd better come straight home after work" nothing is thought of it, or it is met with laughter and encouragement ("you tell him, girl!"). If a man tells a woman the same thing, eyebrows are raised.
Someone mentioned the term "power exchange" in another post. It's become a widely misused and misunderstood "buzzword". The original definition of "power exchange" was the exchange that takes place when one surrenders their personal autonomy, or power to make their own choices, in exchange for the other party assuming responsibility for them and the outcomes in their life. When that exchange is unconditional, you have a "total power exchange". So, how do you define abuse in these situations? We already know that its abusive by definition for the folks at the woman's shelter.
When you think about it, its not really all that hard. Abuse in the case of a "power exchange" can pretty much be defined as the abdication of the repsonsibilty that was assumed as part of the "exchange". In other words, if you are submitted to me, I must be responsible for you. What happens to you, what you achieve in life, and what kind of person you become is up to me, because you have surrendered your choices about that to me. If those outcomes can generally be characterized as positive (the submitted party is living a life at least as functional, happy, fulfilled, and healthy as they would otherwise), the repsonsibilty assumed is being executed, and no abuse is going on. Its actually a higher standard to meet (for the dominant party) than the general one, because benign neglect (not actively doing any harm) isn't good enough. We wouldn't, for example, generally consider a man ignoring his wife while she put on 10 dress sizes, withdrew into television, stopped talking to friends and family, and started having trouble getting up and down stairs to be abusive. He isn't actively doing any harm. For a dominant in a power exchange (or a slave owner), it probably is abusive, simply because the health and wellbeing of his slave is in his hands and he has the power (presumably) to effect a better outcome. If he does not, he wasn't up to the challenges of ownership, and probably had no business accepting the submission of another human in the first place.
Long post, I know, but didn't have time to craft a shorter one, and it's a good and important question.
|
|
|
|
