RE: If You Love Your Doormat...

RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

NihilusZero -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:25:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl im just happy that i was able to produce so many meaningful discussions! Is it meaningful? I thought I was just trying to brainwash people here. [:(]

tazzygirl -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:26:18 PM)
Thats the danger of allowing statements, such as you made about their being no fake, abusive or cruel doms, go without comment. Obviously there are. They are very real, very serious, and very dangerous.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:26:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Im hardly stupid. neither are you. Again, despite his candid style or asking what may otherwise seem rhetorical, I don't recall Ialda ever actually begging the question. But, fixating on the use of one adjective in one post because it seems dismissive of unviersal human value isn't really addressing the topic. Neither was he addressing the topic by addressing her that way Actually, yes I was. Everyone here has this wonderfully quaint notion that "the Rules" mean something. Even when you point out that no one agrees what "the Rules" are; even when you point out that "the Rules" get violated all the damn time; even when you point out that "the Rules" cannot be followed, people keep crawling back to "the Rules" as some end-all, be-all of "clean living". There are no rules; there's just what happens. We get all worked up in this bullshit of "oh, maybe if I tried harder", or "oh, maybe if she just had a better support network", or "oh, maybe I should help out", or "oh, maybe he just needs to grow a pair", but all that bullshit is arbitrary. Two people can be in goddamned identical situations, and we'll say that one is "being a doormat and needs to man up" and the other is "being abused and needs to be rescued". We'll jump in and rescue people who are perfectly happily consenting to their relationship while we sit by and cluck our tongues while someone else screams for help. There are no goddamned rules. It's just what happens. It's just what we allow to happen. It's just what we allow to happen. Us. Flawed, imperfect, clueless little apes, operating out of our hairy primate instinct far more often than out of anything approaching the prefrontal cortex's level of complex rationality. Because this shit is complicated. It isn't pithy. It can't be distilled down to little Rules and Maxims and Words like "abuse" and "doormat" and "respect" and "consent", because those terms are utterly arbitrary. There is no reality to them; there is only the social consensus we weave to keep from pissing ourselves in fear from the realization that none of this shit makes any goddamn sense. Some people get away with shit, other people don't, and other people never even have what they do blip on the radar. Just how it is. Let me put it another way: I remember being 12 years old. I remember being stripped naked, dragged out of the boy's locker room, held down outside and anally penetrated with a broomstick, all while screaming for someone to help. Then I remember being thrown into the girl's locker room while the girls were undressing. I remember being dragged in front of the principle, and suspended for inappropriate behavior. Then I remember being sternly talked to by very concerned parents, who were afraid that I was turning into some sort of pervert. Was I abused? No. You know why? Because no one allowed what happened to be called "abuse". And what good does it do to throw one label on it or another? We pick "good" guys and "bad" guys all the time, with no goddamn clue what's actually happening. That story I just told you? I could have made it all up. You have no clue. I could just be sitting here, whining for attention. You decide whether I was "abused". If you see me now, working my ass off to get other people what they want, while begging for help with my mental health issues, you decide whether I'm a "doormat" or a "con man". And you don't decide that based on what I do; you decide that based on how you feel about me - well before you gather any evidence. Because any evidence you do gather will just be used to justify your preconceived notions. Read this and then we'll talk about whether anything any of us want to say about the subject "means" anything. Then you tell me if you think I was abused as a kid.

juliaoceania -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:28:36 PM)
quote: Then I apologize for the presumption that objective intellectual debate could take place. Any time I try to have an "intellectual" debate with someone... and I have academic debates more often than most......we first have to agree about the terms we use and what they mean. There are things called dictionaries, they have words in them... we go through and specify how we are going to use a key word. If we cannot agree on how that word is to be used, game over, no intellectual discourse can take place... since we cannot agree on the very basics of consent and abuse... which are the cornerstones of identifying the dictionary definition of a "doormat"... well we can't have an intellectual conversation about this topic... I think a lot of people think that any sort of impassioned point is arguing emotionally, it isn't.. it can illustrate a point. People use examples to bolster their positions... this shows me that you try to come from a position of lacking emotion thinking it will make your intellectual position stronger... it doesn't, it makes it lack any sort of relevance in my eyes because your points are not derived from the reality that people live, which is filled full of messy situations and messy emotions.... Like I have always said.. you can call your submissive a purple people eater for all I care...

NihilusZero -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:29:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Thats the danger of allowing statements, such as you made about their being no fake, abusive or cruel doms, go without comment. Obviously there are. They are very real, very serious, and very dangerous. But "Doms" is irrelevant, at that point. I suppose it could happen if the guy is someone else's Dom (consensually) but is pushing someone else , by overt force, into a non-consensual area. But it doesn't take a dom to do that at all....just a human being who wants to abuse someone. But, you do make a good point about the interpretability of the statement I made.

jujubeeMB -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:29:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Ialda brought up a very good point, although I was yielding to your declaration of abuse having happened. It's still a very slippery slope because human culture traditionally gives the parents of the child control over their ethical structure...meaning, "abuse" could get redefined any which way the parent wants. Maybe most of us would see raising a child to be a racist as "abuse", but that, strangely, is not something we can take a parent to court over (at least based on my knowledge of legality). Some people see daring to bathe with your child as potentially abusive (sexually). It's a dangerous blob of gray. In the cases of physical damage or overt sexual misconduct, it's a bit easier to say when child abuse is happening...but, unfortunately, it's far from being a clear issue. This reminds me of people who argue that the Holocaust never happened, or that it might not have happened, "we're not sure." It's one thing to be morally flexible. It's quite another to deny others' reality. Women are abused the world over. Men are abused too. And so are many, many children in many different ways. That is reality, and it's not up for debate. We can debate your definition of abuse, to see where you stand on the issue, but we can't debate whether or not (or to what degree) I was abused as a child because it just. plain. happened. The same goes for women who have been abused. It's not up to anyone to define except the person who has experienced it, and there are oh so many people who have, unfortunately, experienced it. The thing that has me up in arms a bit about the whole doormat thing is that doormats are usually people with low self-esteem and a prior history of some abuse, or an expectation for it. These are not people that we need to be taking advantage of. These are people that we need to be supporting and helping to find their way to their own self-interests. Once a person has found the backbone to really make their own choices (including the choice to submit completely - mind, body, and soul - to another person), then they can be reasonably trusted to be consenting. Until then it's a roll of the dice whether you're hurting the person or not, and who wants to be party to that murky, non-consensual mess?

Ialdabaoth -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:32:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB This reminds me of people who argue that the Holocaust never happened, or that it might not have happened, "we're not sure." It's one thing to be morally flexible. It's quite another to deny others' reality. Women are abused the world over. Men are abused too. And so are many, many children in many different ways. That is reality, and it's not up for debate. We can debate your definition of abuse, to see where you stand on the issue, but we can't debate whether or not (or to what degree) I was abused as a child because it just. plain. happened. The same goes for women who have been abused. It's not up to anyone to define except the person who has experienced it, and there are oh so many people who have, unfortunately, experienced it. Realities get denied all the damned time. What ultimately decides which ones are allowed to be denied, is what power structures choose to back which realities. quote: The thing that has me up in arms a bit about the whole doormat thing is that doormats are usually people with low self-esteem and a prior history of some abuse, or an expectation for it. These are not people that we need to be taking advantage of. Guess what? People are going to get taken advantage of; it's how life works. And people with low self-esteem and prior abuse have been manufactured to be taken advantage of. Why do you think it's called a "cycle of abuse"? quote: These are people that we need to be supporting and helping to find their way to their own self-interests. Once a person has found the backbone to really make their own choices (including the choice to submit completely - mind, body, and soul - to another person), then they can be reasonably trusted to be consenting. Until then it's a roll of the dice whether you're hurting the person or not, and who wants to be party to that murky, non-consensual mess? Honestly? Most of us. The thing is, we just don't want to be called on it.

NihilusZero -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:33:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Any time I try to have an "intellectual" debate with someone... and I have academic debates more often than most......we first have to agree about the terms we use and what they mean. There are things called dictionaries, they have words in them... we go through and specify how we are going to use a key word. If we cannot agree on how that word is to be used, game over, no intellectual discourse can take place... since we cannot agree on the very basics of consent and abuse... which are the cornerstones of identifying the dictionary definition of a "doormat"... well we can't have an intellectual conversation about this topic... But, we were specifically discussing the variable definitions of the word. This is precisely the precursor necessary to engage in further discussion. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I think a lot of people think that any sort of impassioned point is arguing emotionally, it isn't.. it can illustrate a point. People use examples to bolster their positions... this shows me that you try to come from a position of lacking emotion thinking it will make your intellectual position stronger... it doesn't, it makes it lack any sort of relevance in my eyes because your points are not derived from the reality that people live, which is filled full of messy situations and messy emotions.... I address topics from the point of logic. There are reasons why emotions aren't considered substantial in debate and why court systems go out of their way to avoid people who may be emotionally skewed by an issue. This isn't to say humans can divide emotions from their being...yet that doesn't also make them incapable of addressing things without succumbing to them. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Like I have always said.. you can call your submissive a purple people eater for all I care... She does like purple.

tazzygirl -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:37:10 PM)
quote: Two people can be in goddamned identical situations, and we'll say that one is "being a doormat and needs to man up" and the other is "being abused and needs to be rescued". We'll jump in and rescue people who are perfectly happily consenting to their relationship while we sit by and cluck our tongues while someone else screams for help. Ahem. I did not lable anyone a doormat in any thread. I pointed out time and time again how they were not doormats. They labeled themselves as one. And, depending on the situation, labling yourself a doormat to the wrong people can have huge consequences. THURMAN V. CITY OF TORRINGTON Read up on that case. The officers held the same views you seem too now. And were just as wrong as you are.

tazzygirl -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:39:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Thats the danger of allowing statements, such as you made about their being no fake, abusive or cruel doms, go without comment. Obviously there are. They are very real, very serious, and very dangerous. But "Doms" is irrelevant, at that point. I suppose it could happen if the guy is someone else's Dom (consensually) but is pushing someone else , by overt force, into a non-consensual area. But it doesn't take a dom to do that at all....just a human being who wants to abuse someone. But, you do make a good point about the interpretability of the statement I made. Would that not make the fake part of her statement correct then? Not to mention abusive if he is dominant, and cruel without a doubt, since murder isnt typically seen as SSC or RASK

juliaoceania -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:41:10 PM)
quote: But, we were specifically discussing the variable definitions of the word. This is precisely the precursor necessary to engage in further discussion. No... because we cannot come to an agreement on what abuse is ... you and I cannot talk if we cannot agree on the basics of the definition of the word "abuse". To me it is like trying to debate the definition of "pot" if I mean a cooking vessel and you are talking about a plant you smoke. quote: I address topics from the point of logic. There are reasons why emotions aren't considered substantial in debate and why court systems go out of their way to avoid people who may be emotionally skewed by an issue. People use emotional examples all the time to illustrate their points, even in debates... they use startling statistics, their life experiences, etc etc etc.... it is called "persuasive speaking".... quote: This isn't to say humans can divide emotions from their being...yet that doesn't also make them incapable of addressing things without succumbing to them. In my work I have to be self reflexive in everything I do, it has become second nature to me in my work. I have to think about my connection to the people I work with, what I have in common, and how I differ.. because the observer can never be separated from that being observed.... I am not emotional when discussing this topic, but my perspective is borne out of personal experience, and that cannot be divorced from my perspective.

NihilusZero -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:42:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB This reminds me of people who argue that the Holocaust never happened, or that it might not have happened, "we're not sure." It's one thing to be morally flexible. It's quite another to deny others' reality. Placing the onus on consent is specifically not denying their reality. Actually, it's people denying their own reality that becomes the issue often in these cases. "I was abused in a relationship that I stayed in longer than I should have because I thought there might be something to hold onto if I tried hard enough." That reality is one of owning up to making a crap choice as to when to back out of a failing relationship. Unless there was forcible coercion or physical restriction/assault, the only thing keeping the person in what they saw as an abusive relationship was their own intellectual shortcomings. If we are making exceptions for people who suffer from being able to overtake their flaws, then I want retroactive dates with all the girls I was too intimidated and insecure to ask out because I grew up as the token unpopular kid in school. quote: ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB Women are abused the world over. Men are abused too. And so are many, many children in many different ways. That is reality, and it's not up for debate. We're debating what instances actually qualify as debate and which don't. Is all it takes for abuse to have happened is just the retroactive accusation of someone? quote: ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB We can debate your definition of abuse, to see where you stand on the issue, but we can't debate whether or not (or to what degree) I was abused as a child because it just. plain. happened. I would like to humbly suggest we refrain from personal examples. It's not conducive to objective debate because my initial response here is to address the fact they we don't know what happened (specifically), only you do. So, if your ethical structure would consider a spanking as "abuse", then you would call it abuse but many people might be skeptical of whether such was the case. And since I am not fond of having to dissect something personally relevant to someone, I'd prefer if we introduced a non-personal hypothetical scenario. quote: ORIGINAL:jujubeeMB The same goes for women who have been abused. It's not up to anyone to define except the person who has experienced it, and there are oh so many people who have, unfortunately, experienced it. So every woman who has ever broken up with a guy badly and then accused them of rape after the fact, was in fact raped?

Ialdabaoth -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:43:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Two people can be in goddamned identical situations, and we'll say that one is "being a doormat and needs to man up" and the other is "being abused and needs to be rescued". We'll jump in and rescue people who are perfectly happily consenting to their relationship while we sit by and cluck our tongues while someone else screams for help. Ahem. I did not lable anyone a doormat in any thread. I pointed out time and time again how they were not doormats. They labeled themselves as one. And, depending on the situation, labling yourself a doormat to the wrong people can have huge consequences. THURMAN V. CITY OF TORRINGTON Read up on that case. The officers held the same views you seem too now. And were just as wrong as you are. She still got shot. And, I would point out, this same shit has happened to more people than her, and still does today. One level of power decided this particular girl deserved what she got. Another level of power decided she didn't. Other people in the same situation have had their local power structures react differently, which is precisely what I'm trying to point out. And you can shake your tiny fist and declare how "wrong" they are, but that won't keep people from being raped tonight, or from being shot tonight, or from starving to death tonight.

NihilusZero -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:44:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Would that not make the fake part of her statement correct then? Not to mention abusive if he is dominant, and cruel without a doubt, since murder isnt typically seen as SSC or RASK I suppose. But whether he was fake or not is just a matter of misrepresentation. If he had called himself a kangaroo and done those things, the issue of abuse would still be there. But, yes, again...the sentence I wrote is flawed in how open to interpretation it is.

tazzygirl -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:48:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Two people can be in goddamned identical situations, and we'll say that one is "being a doormat and needs to man up" and the other is "being abused and needs to be rescued". We'll jump in and rescue people who are perfectly happily consenting to their relationship while we sit by and cluck our tongues while someone else screams for help. Ahem. I did not lable anyone a doormat in any thread. I pointed out time and time again how they were not doormats. They labeled themselves as one. And, depending on the situation, labling yourself a doormat to the wrong people can have huge consequences. THURMAN V. CITY OF TORRINGTON Read up on that case. The officers held the same views you seem too now. And were just as wrong as you are. She still got shot. And, I would point out, this same shit has happened to more people than her, and still does today. One level of power decided this particular girl deserved what she got. Another level of power decided she didn't. Other people in the same situation have had their local power structures react differently, which is precisely what I'm trying to point out. And you can shake your tiny fist and declare how "wrong" they are, but that won't keep people from being raped tonight, or from being shot tonight, or from starving to death tonight. And its because of the opinion that i bolded above that this continues.

NihilusZero -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:48:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania No... because we cannot come to an agreement on what abuse is We weren't discussing "abuse". We were discussing "doormat" (in terms of differing definitions). quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania ... you and I cannot talk if we cannot agree on the basics of the definition of the word "abuse". To me it is like trying to debate the definition of "pot" if I mean a cooking vessel and you are talking about a plant you smoke. We can if cases can be made to put under scrutiny varying definitions of a term. Unless we're not really interested in putting our thoughts and definitions up to scrutiny. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania People use emotional examples all the time to illustrate their points, even in debates... they use startling statistics, their life experiences, etc etc etc.... it is called "persuasive speaking".... Actually, that's usually called anecdotal evidence ("hearsay", in the legal jargon) and is usually inadmissible and not substantial. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania In my work I have to be self reflexive in everything I do, it has become second nature to me in my work. I have to think about my connection to the people I work with, what I have in common, and how I differ.. because the observer can never be separated from that being observed.... I am not emotional when discussing this topic, but my perspective is borne out of personal experience, and that cannot be divorced from my perspective. It can, yes. Humans can step outside of their experiences to view things from other perspectives. the growth of humanity has been based on it being possible. If you feel that you are unable to, however, I respect your position.

tazzygirl -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:50:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Would that not make the fake part of her statement correct then? Not to mention abusive if he is dominant, and cruel without a doubt, since murder isnt typically seen as SSC or RASK I suppose. But whether he was fake or not is just a matter of misrepresentation. If he had called himself a kangaroo and done those things, the issue of abuse would still be there. But, yes, again...the sentence I wrote is flawed in how open to interpretation it is. Yet he called himself a "dom". He was abusive. He was cruel. The argument can definitely be made that he was not dominant in the way we typically define the word. So your statement was incorrect. I would not push this issue but i do believe it needs to be pushed for the safety of those who lurk and are new.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:53:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And its because of the opinion that i bolded above that this continues. No, generally, it's because it continues that the opinion you bolded develops.

NihilusZero -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:55:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Yet he called himself a "dom". He was abusive. He was cruel. The argument can definitely be made that he was not dominant in the way we typically define the word. So your statement was incorrect. I would not push this issue but i do believe it needs to be pushed for the safety of those who lurk and are new. But what does that do? "Bad people will misrepresent themselves to you in life." I guess it bears repeating, sure...but it's as tautological as a moral story gets. There are people who will lie to you. That is a vehicle for abuse too. But, that's a different thing than someone being entirely up front about something and another person choosing to stay with them, even though they don't like it, because of some other odd reason. I am not necessarily fond of moral stories of "doms" like this because it divorces importance from the issue. If you are a new submissive, do not assume "doms" are any more or less reputable, honest or integrity-bound than any other human sub-populace on the planet. You will run into weirdos in every avenue of life and the location you run into them at has nothing to do with it.

tazzygirl -> RE: If You Love Your Doormat... (2/25/2010 11:56:09 PM)
Im sorry you were abused. Im sorry your parents did not support you. Im sorry you were then abused by the school and your parents as a result. But it doesnt change the fact that it was abusive, that you were a victim, and that those who did the deed were wrong.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125