quote:

ORIGINAL: akisha

I hate when you time out then have to remember what you wrote lol

FR

For me consent has not a damn thing to do with whether or not something is abusive. I person can not actually consent to be harmed. This is why law enforcement in many areas has taken over the ability to charge an abuser, as too often the abused is too afraid, to programed or to unwilling to do so on their own behalf

*** The above is such a pertinent point, I think, when discussing this topic.
 
How does a society agree upon what constitutes "consent"?
 
 I dare to venture that even within the context of some bdsm relationships (as with any other relationships) there exist people who even as they are saying "I like this" - have actually been "programmed" (or, rather allowed themselves to be programmed), via a gradual series of incidents and events, into allowing things to happen to themselves that are considered generally detrimental by a "majority" (not that the majority opinion matters, that's not my point)  - anyway - they allow things considered detrimental to happen to them on an emotional or a physical level  that they never would have considered in their "own best interest" at some point before then. The question (to me) is: Is this a "bad thing"? Or not?
 
I guess this is where I start to ask if it's affecting anyone else in their lives in an adverse way: Unmentionables? Other friends and relatives? An employer, even.
 
Then again, it is all "relative to one's value system". I know people sometimes hate phrases like "relative to one's value system"- But - there are some people who don't think it's necessary to consider this at all - and I am not saying it is necessary. I am just saying there are people who do consider it necessary to consider how a situation affects certain others as far as classifying something as "abusive"  - and then the question can become - how many others are you going to consider?
 
Abusive - to whom? Even (I think) if it's not abusive to oneself, it could be abusive to others. I know this example may be getting pretty "heady" - but - if this wasn't true, then there would be people running red lights, for instance, all the time in traffic - because they'd think they could "stop on a dime", whereas someone else might not be able to do that, etc - to prevent an accident. People stopping when it suited them individually. Sounds fair. Until someone "unintended" gets hurt because of it.
 
The end result (my personal opinion and a general statement)- is that it doesn't matter - if- when someone winds up dead, for instance, what anyone really "intended". I realize lawyers exist because it does, in fact, matter - I am saying generally that it doesn't matter (or that it would be impractical to try to gauge when it does on a case-by-case basis) .
 
Which is why (I think anyway) we have general laws that don't suit everyone, and aren't "tailor made" for individuals, to begin with. But who knows how the laws were legislated. Was it a case of who screamed the loudest in some legislative session re: Why something was voted into law? It's (the law) probably never going to be "fair"for reasons like this one (to mention just one reason). But - I figure having laws is better than no laws - and we do have a system where the laws can change (and they do). I am not defending mediocrity - just saying why I think it exists - and why "better" alternatives aren't always practically possible. Nor am I not in agreement with the fact that individuals and situations do need to be considered - individually. Of course they do (that's why we have lawyers and a justice system).
 
But - I think that if considering everyone's definition of "abuse" was possible - then I think we wouldn't have the laws we do. We'd have anarchy instead, because (I think) there's no way there will ever be laws (or a general agreement of what constitutes "abuse") - that consider every separate, single context where it supposedly occurs between individuals and why the situations exist they way they do. Ever. And I am not an anarchist - (but it's okay with me if they exist, hehe). 
 
And in case you're wondering, akisha, I do agree very much with what you said - just wanted to elucidate why I do.    

On the whole debate of what is and is not abuse, it's pretty simple really. If something causes long term or permant damage mentally, physically or emotionally, it is abusive.

I agree. And lawyers have a field day defining things like the "extent of the damage". The Catholic church (as one example) is going to be in court for years paying out damages from lawsuits people would never have considered bringing years ago. Why? Because "nice people didn't discuss those things" - even when and if they happened. It was just too "shameful" for many people.
 
Then Oprah Winfrey, Alfred Kinsey (and similar shows and book authors willing to discuss topics like this) came along (I'm not being sarcastic - I think Oprah's show has done a lot for public awareness on many previously "taboo" topics for the general public).
 
And then it seems, for awhile, sometimes, the 'see-saw' of what is "tolerable" to some folks tilts in the other direction. It (to me) can be interesting to watch (of course I am older, so I've watched for while).
 
- Susan

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 12/5/2006 4:47:36 PM >

_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to akisha)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kalira

Maybe I missed something, but nowhere did I see Kyra ask for 'definitions' of abuse. She asked for explanations of how CONSENT plays into OUR ideas of abuse.

quote:

The OP did not make any statements to a person saying they are happy or do not feel harmed.  All it asked for was what role others thought consent plays in the determination of abuse or perhaps you are referring to some of the tangents that the thread has taken.   

quote:

  From what I understand from your posts is that you think consent does play a role and I am curious to know the reasoning behind that.  Does the very fact that consent was given automatically prohibit abuse from occurring and if so why?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kyraofMists

This post is inspired by another thread in the Ask a Submissive section but I did not want to hijack that thread with these thoughts.  The idea was brought up that if a person consents to something then it cannot be abuse.  However, I have a hard time accepting that concept because of what I consider abuse to be and to me consent is irrelevant to it. 

Through discussions with my Lord, I have come to the conclusion that someone is abusive when it is reasonable to expect that their actions would harm another person.  We consider harm to have occurred when a person has been permanently damaged or is less of a person than before the incident.

Okay, so for the sake of argument, let's just say the term abuse = harm.  It doesn't seem like we need to get into specifics here.

What is harmful and abusive will vary depending on the people involved and the circumstances, but I do not think that consent will change whether something is abusive or not.  In my relationship, I gave my consent for him to do whatever he wanted with me. 

Okay, so you initially gave KoM consent to do whatever he wanted to do....but we're still not talking about abuse at this point.

However, there are things that would be harmful to me.....Such as?  When i say that there are things that would be harmful to me, i am generally talking psychologically.  In my case, let's take being ignored by my partner and not allowed contact for x number of days.  (This was brought up on a thread some time ago and at that time, i stated something like that would be psychologically harmful to me and actually, that is a hard limit for me).   So anyway, in lieu of knowing what you feel might be harmful to you, i'll just use that as an example picked out of the blue. 

So let's say you have told KoM something like this would be harmful to you.....

and if he chose to do them, then he would be abusive.

He does it anyway, so then he would be abusive.
 
Do i have this correct in the context you mean?


I am curious to hear other's opinions on what part, if any, consent plays in your ideas of abuse.

As i said earlier, i think people got caught up in what defined abuse for them....but you are saying that abuse is harm to you....and if your partner so chooses to cross that line and do it anyway....he then becomes abusive.  i can now see what you mean (if i am understanding this correctly of course).
 
i can think of a couple where the A says to B "if you cheat on me, you will really harm me psychologically and that would be permanently damaging to me".  B cheats anyway so A calls him abusive.  This has nothing do to with physical abuse.  This has nothing to do with consent.
 
Another scenario might be....A does not mind at all if B comes home from a bad day at work and takes it out on her by beating the shit out of her.  If that is not harmful to her, then B is not abusive.
 
If this is the case, then again, what one considers harmful (which will obviously differ from person to person).....plus the actual act of their partner doing so anyway....then that, in your definition, makes him abusive.  No where in any of this, is the word consent used except at the very beginning where you gave him consent to do what he whatever he wanted to do with you. 
 
This is a very interesting perspective.
 
So....just for the heck of it kyra.  Has KoM ever been abusive to you?  Have you told him that you feel something would be harmful to you (as you have described harmful in your OP)....and he has done it anyway?
 
DG

quote:

ORIGINAL: catize
So yes, for me, consent is the bottom line. If someone tells me they are content with what they have agreed to, that they have no doubt that this is right; it is not my place to tell them otherwise. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Good question about scenario #1, particularly, Master Fire Ma'am, I think. If it's not intentional, I don't think it's abuse. Which isn't to say it still can't be harmful (I think it still can be, of course).

- Susan

quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

If you will allow me the liberty, I will use an example that you have discussed several times….kicking and punching.  Take this out because it involves consent (You not only consent to it), but if I recall correctly, you have requested that it be done to you....Yes....because she does not feel it would be harmful to her. 

My body cringes and my mind recoils at the very thought.  If master kicked or punched me, it would be (without my consent)  Take that out and replace it with 'harmful to me' and I would say that he had abused me.  Yes, that is the equivalent. 

However, I can accept that you like/love/crave/enjoy it.  I doubt that you would appreciate it if I suggested to you that you are being abused based on my own reaction.  You have consented to it....no, she has deemed it not harmful to her, which for me mitigates the concept of abuse....right.

i think that many would agree that most people give consent when they don't feel something will be harmful to them (psychologically) in the long term....but they would not give consent if they feared the opposite were true.  But as kyra pointed out, it is not about giving or not giving consent to her.  It is about expressing what is harmful to her, and well....if her partner chooses to do it anyway, that is when he becomes abusive. 
 
For me, just removing the word 'consent' has been quite thought provoking.  And i'm actually still throwing it around in my head 
 
DG

quote:

ORIGINAL: kyraofMists

Catize,

I have given consent to whatever he wants and that includes things that I do not enjoy doing and things that may be harmful to me.  So even if I hated kicking and punching, he would still do them as long as he perceives that there is minimal chance of me being harmed.  I do not consider that a person only consents to the things that they enjoy. 

Knight's kyra

quote:

ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl
Okay, so for the sake of argument, let's just say the term abuse = harm.  It doesn't seem like we need to get into specifics here.

quote:


Okay, so you initially gave KoM consent to do whatever he wanted to do....but we're still not talking about abuse at this point.

quote:

However, there are things that would be harmful to me.....

Such as? 

quote:

So let's say you have told KoM something like this would be harmful to you.....

He does it anyway, so then he would be abusive.
 
Do i have this correct in the context you mean?

quote:


As i said earlier, i think people got caught up in what defined abuse for them....but you are saying that abuse is harm to you....and if your partner so chooses to cross that line and do it anyway....he then becomes abusive.  i can now see what you mean (if i am understanding this correctly of course).
 
i can think of a couple where the A says to B "if you cheat on me, you will really harm me psychologically and that would be permanently damaging to me".  B cheats anyway so A calls him abusive.  This has nothing do to with physical abuse.  This has nothing to do with consent.
 
Another scenario might be....A does not mind at all if B comes home from a bad day at work and takes it out on her by beating the shit out of her.  If that is not harmful to her, then B is not abusive.
 
If this is the case, then again, what one considers harmful (which will obviously differ from person to person).....plus the actual act of their partner doing so anyway....then that, in your definition, makes him abusive.  No where in any of this, is the word consent used except at the very beginning where you gave him consent to do what he whatever he wanted to do with you. 

quote:

 
So....just for the heck of it kyra.  Has KoM ever been abusive to you?  Have you told him that you feel something would be harmful to you (as you have described harmful in your OP)....and he has done it anyway?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: kyraofMists

This post is inspired by another thread in the Ask a Submissive section but I did not want to hijack that thread with these thoughts.  The idea was brought up that if a person consents to something then it cannot be abuse.  However, I have a hard time accepting that concept because of what I consider abuse to be and to me consent is irrelevant to it. 

Through discussions with my Lord, I have come to the conclusion that someone is abusive when it is reasonable to expect that their actions would harm another person.  We consider harm to have occurred when a person has been permanently damaged or is less of a person than before the incident.

What is harmful and abusive will vary depending on the people involved and the circumstances, but I do not think that consent will change whether something is abusive or not.  In my relationship, I gave my consent for him to do whatever he wanted with me.  However, there are things that would be harmful to me and if he chose to do them, then he would be abusive.

I am curious to hear other's opinions on what part, if any, consent plays in your ideas of abuse.

Knight's kyra

I've always been of the school of thought that abuse is that which damages another in a way that, no matter the extent of physical, emotional, and/or mental recovery that takes place, leaves the recipient changed in a way that is "less" than they were before...less sure of themselves, physically impaired, emotionally shut down, etc..  As sophia37 noted though, this is where the conversation is going to get interesting, for someone has already noted that what may seem like abuse to you may be fun for them.  But there again, perhaps sophia is referring to types of play, levels of play, intensity of play...and what we need to look at for abuse is that aspect noted by kyra and KOM and Susan and myself (and I am sure there will be others) and that is the end-result of the "play" or the situation (because abuse could be occurring outside of play).

It's a difficult situation to gauge...I've known masochists who enjoyed being beaten to the point where they could hardly walk the next day.  On the intellectual side, I know that ongoing beatings of this type are probably going to create physical problems someday.  But that's someday.  And...there are people who go out and ride moto-cross and play football and so on and so forth and some of those activities are no doubt going to create a problem for them someday.  I am sure there are submissives out there who crave not just humiliation but abject humiliation that I would consider degradation of the worst sort.  We've discussed this on the boards before...the idea that it becomes degrading when the humiliation is not a sexual/mental "turn-on", when it damages self-esteem, etc.  But there again, that is subjective for each person.  The best example of the subjectivity of humiliation that I can think of is the number of submissives who have stated on here that they were proud to be called "slut" by their dominant AND the number of submissives who proclaimed just as strongly that they were "nobody's slut".

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

I've always been of the school of thought that abuse is that which damages another in a way that, no matter the extent of physical, emotional, and/or mental recovery that takes place, leaves the recipient changed in a way that is "less" than they were before...less sure of themselves, physically impaired, emotionally shut down, etc.. 

quote:



It's a difficult situation to gauge...I've known masochists who enjoyed being beaten to the point where they could hardly walk the next day.  On the intellectual side, I know that ongoing beatings of this type are probably going to create physical problems someday.  But that's someday.  And...there are people who go out and ride moto-cross and play football and so on and so forth and some of those activities are no doubt going to create a problem for them someday. 

quote:

 My understanding of what you wrote is that a person consents to what they enjoy, so then giving consent would mean that the action is not abusive.  Is this accurate?  

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists
more thinking to do on this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

quote:

ORIGINAL: catize
So yes, for me, consent is the bottom line. If someone tells me they are content with what they have agreed to, that they have no doubt that this is right; it is not my place to tell them otherwise. 

That is a good way to define it but...it only stands when you are dealing with mentally healthy people who have made that decision to consent based upon full knowledge and understanding of the risks involved. Unfortunately though, there are many other forms of "consent". As some here have mentioned, women who stay in abusive relationships are implying consent simply by staying. There are a myriad of reasons why they stay...but that type of consent is the result of coercion and fear. There are many people who have lives that have left them with such poor self esteem that they can no longer make healthy decisions regarding consent. There are many people whose desperation leads them to consent. There are many people who give consent because they are naive and don't understand what that consent implies. So in my mind, we can not say that the word consent is all encompassing and nullifies the possibility for abuse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

No, that's not what I'm saying, lemme try again. I don't believe I implied enjoyment as the criteria.  Comfort may be a better word......to consent and then be comfortable, knowing that it was the right choice to make, feeling okay about it after, or if I don't feel okay about it, discussing it with master and working through my feelings. 
Does that clarify or make things worse?  I appreciate your questions because it helps me attempt  to put my thoughts in a coherent fashion.