marieToo
Posts: 3595
Joined: 5/21/2006
From: Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: marieToo
quote:
ORIGINAL: kyraofMists
I am curious to hear other's opinions on what part, if any, consent plays in your ideas of abuse.
Im hitting almost a brick wall with this one.
Abuse is subjective between consenting adults, therefore if someone is enduring it, is it still abuse?
quote:
To call an act "abuse" is to evaluate the act, to evaluate it negatively.
First I would have to assume that for the sake of discussion-- *abuse is always viewed by everyone as a negative.* I'll try to address that below.
quote:
Evaluation is fundamentally a subjective activity. I'm talking about the word, not some ontic theory. To "Evaluate" is to assign a value and we don't all value everything equally. The word evaluate seems by its very grammar, if you will, to address itself pretty much neccesarily to issues which entail a strong degree of subjectivity.
Ok Im still with ya here. But of course everyones evaluation may differ and yes, this would "entail a strong degree of subjectivity."
quote:
One could reply that it is possible to evaluate an act, and lots of other things, as against a set of objective criteria. This is true as far as it goes but it only serves to put the inevitable subjectivity at one remove. The adoption of that set of criteria (e.g. "anything which causes permanent damage") as opposed to some other set of criteria is a matter of acceptance based on evaluation. That is to say, based on a subjective activity.
Was that the basis the OP was asking for? Focus on "Anything that causes permanent damage"? Maybe I read her too quickely. But even the word "damage" is subjective.
quote:
None of that is to say that nothing objective is taken into consideration. Of course there are the objective facts of the case, physical (and psychological) results and evidence, etc. But in evaluation we assign meanings to these objective things and proceed to a great extent in terms of the meanings over and above the facts.
This is sort of my point only more 'pointed' (I think). Given the fact that we would all have varying ideas on these criteria, and "meanings" over and above the facts, (and I use the term facts loosely) I find it nearly impossible to define what abuse in a consenting adult relationship is to someone other than myself.
Ok....Hypothically....If we define abuse as something negative, and yet someone consents to it (the abuse) because they like it, then it refutes the all abuse is negative theory.
If, on the other hand we turn it around and say ok...abuse is bad and negative but some people LIKE bad and negative things, then it's still not a really a negative.
Which is why its a circular question for me, like the ole "who's really in control question" or "If someone is being forced but they consent to it, is it really force?"
Maybe Im missing the OP's point and or yours, (which wouldnt be the first time)
quote:
I'm not sure what your word "enduring" was put there to do, marie. If no one is experiencing the result of an action then the action isn't profitably seen as abuse, right? How can a thing be abuse which no one is "enduring"?
I guess for the sake of this discussion, I should have used the word "consenting". In my mind I went directly into a bdsm mindset and personalized it rather than thinking more in general terms. There are some things or acts, that I define as abusive but that I would endure because its enjoyable to me, therefore, while someone might see it as abuse (something negative), I see it as abuse too, but as a positive. I mean....for instance... so I dont sound too 'out there'. Whipping an ass is abusive to the body, no? Welting, bruising, even opening skin in some cases. Its abusive, but given the fact that a person is "enduring" it (consenting to it), and given the fact that the person desires it, volunteers for it, puts up with it, wants it, likes, it etc, we either have to expand the definition of abuse to include "consentual abuse" vs "non-consentual abuse" or change the flat-out belief that abuse is necessarily always a bad thing.
eh..dont worry about the intuition thing. Not everyone has the gift. :)
To rephrase the question:
If 'abuse' is consentual, is it really abuse?
I'm not being a smart ass here, but like I said, it's the old "chicken and egg" thing, the way I see it, because we can't define abuse for everyone, we cant define if it's a negative for everyone, we cant even define what "Permanant damage" is for everyone. We can only define one thing absolutely...consent. And if consent is present, either someone LIKES something negative (abuse) or abuse isn't always negative. I think Im repeating myself now.
< Message edited by marieToo -- 12/4/2006 9:49:45 PM >
_____________________________
marie.
I give good agita.
|
RE: Abuse and Consent - 
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