RE: Abused into submission (Full Version)

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



Message

Aswad -> RE: Abused into submission (4/13/2007 9:35:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
Insofar as the ratios are similar, it is relevant to the topic. If there is no difference, there is no correlation, which strongly implies no causation.


Prove it.  Cite it.
I have come to see that it is the opinion of some in this community that it should be assumed to be the same.  This is willful ignorance.  I will not use it.


I might ask you to do the same. That is, citing the correlation. Although, as I pointed out, it'd have to be something representative. Most current research is based on samples that don't readily generalize.

Baring good evidence to either side, we'll have to assume both options are possible, which is what I've done so far. Although I lean in one direction, I'm always very happy to have hunches replaced by hard facts, or even better-supported hunches, to the contrary.

And I don't need to cite my statement: it is intrinsic to scientific method, and indeed logic (IIRC fundamental to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy). If you want me to cite other posters' statements, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. I don't have the energy for that. I barely have track of my own cites, as I read and absorb information at a fairly high pace, and frequently, I don't keep the reference around if I don't need it for data.

Also, bear in mind that I'm not a researcher myself, although much of what I bring up is from talking in-depth with people who are. This is also one of the reasons I haven't got the cites handy: some information has been passed on in-person, and the rest has been absorbed in the course of reading up on something for a specific purpose, I just happen to not have forgotten it.

quote:

In depth introviews. Why assume- blindly, I might add- that it hasn't?


Introspection is generally considered a suspect methodology, although I'd be inclined to admit its validity for some people. Secondhand introspection is more suspect, though. I am willing to concede that abuse may have contributed in the cases you've mentioned, in the interest of argument.

And why assume that I made the assumption? I'm inclined to think that it only rarely is a significant part of the underlying causology, based on my experiences with how the mind works and how this contrasts with how people think it works. That's an inclination, and not even a strong one, but not an assumption.

quote:

They didn't.  Quite the opposite.  They just don't like the subject.


Ah. My apologies, then. I got the impression that you said that some of them even denied that abuse had been a factor in their attraction to BDSM.

quote:

It is due to rape in the respect rape led to it.  Cause/effect.  And, yes, some of them -are- using BDSM to overcome it.


Using BDSM to overcome it can be fair, although if the trauma is extensive, it should be done with a Dom that has a thorough understanding of any mental health conditions they may have "contracted" (for lack of a better term), as well as the treatment methodology preferred for those conditions. Prior experience in treating people outside a BDSM context is preferrable, but not necessarily required. Not understanding the treatment methodologies and conditions, however, will at best lead to a less optimal recovery than what could be achieved with professional therapy.

If you'd like advice in this regard, you can PM me, or start another thread about it and alert me to it via PM. I can't deal responsibly with PTSD or Borderline, for instance, but I can offer responsible advice with regard to e.g. depression and anxiety. Seriously, I do want to help, and I'm not "out to get you", which is the vibe I get from your post. Forgive me if that isn't the case. Forums aren't big on body language and intonation.

As to cause/effect, that is why I addressed the issue of how important it is to have an idea of the correlation. If there is no difference in prevalence between vanillas and BDSM'ers, then there is very little grounds to suspect any causal relationship. I understand the causality you suggest, I'm just not sure it's really there. Bear in mind that people are notoriously bad at self-evaluation, although I'm not necessarily implying that this is the case when your subs tell you their abuse led to their interest. I'd love to map it out if it is, though.

quote:

God damn it.  People are assuming I'm saying BDSM is evil.  This assumption is freaking annoying.


Hardly. If you wanted to say that, you wouldn't be on this board, and engaging in serious debate, at that.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm making no such assumption.

quote:

I can't possibly understand how such researches might have trouble with open and honest inquary.  It's not like people have been overly defensive.


Some people are overly defensive, no doubt. But the main problem with the research is simpler than that... It's about agendas, political correctness, and toeing the party-line. Research usually gets funded, and the funding often gets cut if assertions are made that the funding body does not like; research in these areas is usually funded by people that have clear biases. Political correctness is very important to avoid having one's research disregarded and one's reputation tainted by being a "troublemaker", or worse yet, a "radical". And not toeing the party-line is equivalent to taking on the "establishment".

There's a very large machine out there, built on the current assumptions in the field. Those assumptions are frequently erroneous. Yet taking on a machine that includes those that have made a living out of the field, as well as media and society itself, is a daunting task, so those that publish serious research often keep it fairly quiet, and try to avoid making headlines. Which of course does nothing to further the acceptance of their findings into the current paradigm.

quote:

But, seriously. You're telling me people fail to get good information, then go on to cite a grievance of the community against someone that may have once claimed to be interested in research, expecting me to understand- and, further, accept- the assumption nothing can come from thought.  -No.-


I'm sorry, this paragraph didn't quite parse for me. Could you please rephrase it?

quote:

You're excused.  I hope you remember there's a time and place for things in the future.


I hope you were being sarcastic, and that you see my point about how this is actually on-topic for the thread.

quote:

To help you out, please remember a park being pulic doesn't mean you can have a naked picnic, nor a public thread on how to remove a particular virus from your computer isn't an area for you to complain about your low tax return this year.


Obviously. Yet, my comments, as well as those of others in this regard, have been on topic. While discussing from an assumption that the cause/effect relationship has been established is certainly a valid intellectual exercise, it is hardly in the interest of getting to the bottom of the matter without first establishing the causal relationship. Absent an established causal relationship, it becomes of relevance to the thread to discuss both options; i.e. the option that there is a causal relationship, and the option that there isn't.

Hope this made sense.




Aswad -> RE: Abused into submission (4/13/2007 10:02:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

No, not everything is up for debate.  Threads have specific agendas and guidelines.


Of course, and this debate is on par for the course, IMO. And obviously in the opinion of others, since they've chimed in along that tangent. Lighten up, can't you take a joke?

The Sunday school analogy was simple. Your teacher was offering you assumptions, and you challenged those assumptions because they didn't seem right to you. You are offering assumptions in this thread that don't make sense to me, and it seems they make sense for about half the participants here. Hence debating those assumptions as well.

quote:

This isn't a place for you to talk about Teletubbies, or to complain you can't get enough Viagra in your system to get it up, or to insult <insert name of random political or entertainment figure>. This is quite important for you to realize.


Interesting choice of examples. I haven't tried Viagra, although I probably should. [:D]

I quite realize this, though. But you have to realize that these are public debates, and will end up spawning sub-issues (no pun intended), as well as potentially involving questions directed at the premise of the debate. The latter is certainly on-topic.

quote:

You find something offensive that they teach in Psyc 101 to college freshmen..?
The truth isn't always pretty, but you're not going to grow by trying to get it ignored.


Nah, I'm not offended by anything in this thread so far. Except possibly Teletubbies, but I'll excuse that on account of: it wasn't Barney. [:D]

But, please bear in mind that Psych 101 is really 101. It is more important to teach information that isn't potentially harmful than to teach information that is useful, to some extent, and it's really pared down. Also, it is uniformly based on the consensus in the field, which isn't always supported by the facts. "A little knowledge can be..." and all that.

And I'm quite aware the truth isn't always pretty, or more relevantly that it isn't always what we want, fear or assume it to be. And I also know that ignoring it isn't the way to go. Hence my comments about Rind et al, for instance.

quote:

Already a flame war, apparently.  I suppose I should stop here.


I'm not wearing my flame retardant suit, and we are not, I hope, insulting each other. Hence, no flame war. Please, let's continue the civil and constructive debate, rather than having one or ignoring the topic. Neither of those two would be constructive.

quote:

I was interested in answers to the posted questions.  For reasons of offense or fear, some have continued to post oppositions, despite having absolutely nothing to contribute.


Opposing views are contributions to the open mind, which I'm assuming you have. Feel free to share with us the insight that you base your assumptions on. If we agree with it, we will buy into your assumptions. If we disagree, we'll debate the meaning. This is a constructive contribution, and will eventually lead to everyone being on the same page, as well as getting fuller answers to your questions.

quote:

No, I haven't read '[Rind et al 1998]'.  Is there a statute I should be aware of?


Google it. It's a great example of how "science" isn't always based on science. Or, rather, the reactions to it are a great example of this. It's also a great example of the "conclusions we can't accept" argument for those who can't accept the conclusions drawn in the paper. I'm not going to comment on the conclusions many people might read into the paper, though.

Discussing the topic of the paper directly, however, would be in conflict with the CollarMe terms of service.

quote:

I'm not replying to the rest.  I'm tired of the flames.


Please realize that I'm not flaming you. I found the topic interesting, which is why I responded. There are some parts of your argument I agree with, and others I don't. Hence the debate.




CuriousLord -> RE: Abused into submission (4/14/2007 12:45:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
Insofar as the ratios are similar, it is relevant to the topic. If there is no difference, there is no correlation, which strongly implies no causation.


Prove it.  Cite it.
I have come to see that it is the opinion of some in this community that it should be assumed to be the same.  This is willful ignorance.  I will not use it.


I might ask you to do the same. That is, citing the correlation. Although, as I pointed out, it'd have to be something representative. Most current research is based on samples that don't readily generalize.


It would be wasted breath.  I'm not claiming that there is or isn't a correlation.  I've been claiming that I don't care and it doesn't answer anything I've been asking on the thread.

It's not an issue.  It's not the topic of this thread.  It's a defense for people who think that rape victims coming to BDSM must mean BDSM is somehow a rape lifestyle.

We can't tell if there's a correlation.  There's not enough data.  I told you I'm not willing to assume there's no correlation because that would be willful ignorance.  I'm also not assuming that there is a correlation.  The assumption, either way, would be unfounded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
Obviously. Yet, my comments, as well as those of others in this regard, have been on topic. While discussing from an assumption that the cause/effect relationship has been established is certainly a valid intellectual exercise, it is hardly in the interest of getting to the bottom of the matter without first establishing the causal relationship. Absent an established causal relationship, it becomes of relevance to the thread to discuss both options; i.e. the option that there is a causal relationship, and the option that there isn't.


This thread.. isn't.. about the ratios between the vanilla population and the BDSM population.  This is the unwelcomed bit.

I also find it unwelcomed is the claim that a handful of people can say "Yes, it led me to this lifestyle", while others are saying that, no, that's not possible.
It is plausible.  It can be quite logical.  And it's a claim made by sane individuals on a level of certainty about themeselves.
There is no counterpoint to it.  If you wish to make one- about why these girls could not possibly have come to BDSM after a rape- you can make it, as challenging the basis of this thread.  But there's been nothing but people trying to say that it's not possible, it's offensive, or it's possible that they're completely misunderstanding themselves.  Vulcan must be tossing in his grave.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
Hope this made sense.


As the OP, I have to say that these late posts haven't been at all helpful.  They've done nothing to answer the posted questions and have wasted time as I've had to clear up misunderstanding after misunderstanding by responders when the misunderstandings could've been answered by simply reading the OP.



CuriousLord -> RE: Abused into submission (4/14/2007 12:55:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:

I'm not replying to the rest.  I'm tired of the flames.


Please realize that I'm not flaming you. I found the topic interesting, which is why I responded. There are some parts of your argument I agree with, and others I don't. Hence the debate.


Alright, if this is so.  I'm just so tired of defending the basis.  That sevearl individuals I know have been led to BDSM out of rape.  I'm so tired of the arguments that it can't be so, that I'm misunderstanding them, that they're misunderstanding themselves, that BDSM isn't a rape thing, etc.

The book quote was helpful.  I did Wiki it a bit after replying to that response.

Having responses on even tangents can be neat.  Hell, FukinTroll makes a career on this board out of tangets that typically have nothing to do with the posts, and that can be pretty funny.

I suppose I've taken offense in the questioning of if I've correctly interepted the fact that they've come to BDSM after rape.  After what must sum up to at least a week's worth of twenty-four hour periods of talks, I would have to be crazy, stupid, or lying to make such a mistake.  Yeah, I am pretty upset about it.  It was alright, the first time, or the second, maybe even the third I had to explain.  After this?  It's just been aggrivating.



Aswad -> RE: Abused into submission (4/14/2007 2:49:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Alright, if this is so.  [...] The book quote was helpful.  I did Wiki it a bit after replying to that response. [...] I suppose I've taken offense in the questioning of if I've correctly interepted the fact that they've come to BDSM after rape. [...] It's just been aggrivating.


Sorry about that. I didn't intend for you to be aggravated, nor did I intend to offend. From your last couple of replies, it seems one or both of us are missing something the other person is saying, since we both feel like we're repeating ourselves. Again, sorry for that, I'll take the blame on that one.

I'll try to leave it for tomorrow, and reread the thread once more, plus try to avoid the mammoth posts that I tend to make, or at least limit myself to just one at a time. Maybe I'll better understand your posts the second time around, and maybe my response will be more clear as well.

Just curious, though, which book quote? I had one cite and one quote, as I recall. The former might have some direct bearing on the OP, while the latter has a bearing on the nature of humans in general; I can see ways both might've been useful, and both might have been called book quotes.



SusanofO -> RE: Abused into submission (4/14/2007 3:12:20 AM)

CuriousLord: It is nice of you, IMO, to be concerned for them. But hey - what is the matter with the idea of simply getting them some therapy - or, if you are sufficiently experienced enouigh yourself, as Aswad suggested, offerring some yourself?

It is a very sad situation, that some submissives have been abused in childhood. I agree. If you want to try to help, nothing is really stopping you, is it?

- Susan



darkinshadows -> RE: Abused into submission (4/14/2007 3:25:21 AM)

quote:

Yes, it can be seen as a dangerous statement.  I can empathize with people being afraid of what it may mean.  I do not, however, see covering up the fact or denying it as in any way a healthy means of dealing with it.

For me, much of BDSM has been about searching for understanding and truth.  To me, it is a violation to refuse to consider something out of fear of its implications.

What is a violation is making a huge and sweeping statement and expecting and labelling everyone with the way you think.  What is consensual about that?  Forcing your idea on what BDSM is and what it means to you on everyone else?  Isn't that like abuse?  Force?
 
Its a dangerous statement because its not correct for EVERYONE.  And to assume that it is, is a gross misunderstanding of then human psyche.  Just because it is what you see - does not mean it is right or correct for everyone, or the majority or even a minority.  If you have only experience of abuse victims in BDSM, then stand back and look at yourself and ask why?  Maybe it is a pattern you repeat, just as (some) abuse victims can fall into patterns - because not everyone in BDSM are abused.  In my experience, the majority aren't abuse victims - even though I have worked with victims of abuse.  It isn't about BDSM - it is about your personal experiences within the 'scene'.  And to belittle 'people who might be afraid of what it may mean' is petty.  There is no fear in anything when you understand it, because when one learns and understands, the ignorance is gone.  The power something can hold is gone - and then you can begin to live your life without fear.
 
Is all good.  To you, maybe BDSM = abuse or victims - white knights and saviours.  But that doesn't mean that rings true to everyone.  To me, its about love, compassion, empathy, consensuality and exploration of the self.  You may not agree.  But unless you have suffered abuse or rape yourself, I do not believe you can make such a statement that people enter BDSM only for that reason or that the majority are abuse victims.  The human brain is complex and beautiful - but not always ignorant.
 
And this is where the original meaning of SSC does come in.
 
Peace and Rapture



subminster -> RE: Abused into submission (4/15/2007 9:39:32 AM)

KnightofMists:

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists

quote:

ORIGINAL: daddysprop247

i am not submissive because i was abused, i was abused because i was submissive.

think about that. kinda makes sense doesn't it? for some reason it took me until the age of 21 to come to that realization. would i have been so submissive had i not been abused early in life? of course, i would just be a submissive without an airport hangar's worth of baggage.


On it's surface.. it's a good quote.... but there is an implication that is gained from the quote that I think is not accurate.

"I was abused because I was submissive" equates to "I am submissive therefore I will be abused"

I consider it likely that many submissive individuals maybe at an increased risk of being abused. However, just because a person is submissive doesn't equate that they will be abused or that they are going to even to allow it to happen. Being submissive doesn't equate to disregarding their own personal Well-Being. But, for individuals that are abused they very much compromise their own personal Well-Being. Many submissives are very much well aware of their own personal boundaries that protect their Well-Being. They will not allow themselves to compromise on these boundaries that shift from living a healthy fulfilling life to an abused life. I am very troubled when anyone considers it appropriate to be submissive also equates to allowing oneself to be abused.

Abused individuals are person's that fail to protect the boundaries that maintain a healthy Well-Being. They are submissive and they can be Dominant personalities as well.

"I wasn't abused because I was submissive... I was abused because I failed to protect my Well-Being"

this to me is a more accurate quote.




Your quote, "I wasn't abused because I was submissive... I was abused because I failed to protect my Well-Being," didn't sit well with me for a couple of days, and I couldn't quite put my finger on why. It is true that failure does not have to connote bad feelings, although it is a culturally weighted word (in an islamic culture, a woman who is raped is expected to commit suicide. i would consider that a harsh punishment for a "lack of success" as Aswad put it), and women tend to judge themselves for failure more often than men. But the reason why this quote bothers me is not because it is intended to blame the victim, but that it abdicates all others for responsibility to support the abused person out of the abusive situation. I dated a young man in college who was abusive, for months. I finally broke out of the relationship, after nearly failing out of school and losing some of my closest friends. I was in therapy thoughout the duration of the relationship, as well as having a family members who I love and trust very close by. I was abused because it was like a frog in the boiling water.... I was too naive (or too forgiving, many adjectives could apply here) to notice the warning signs until I was in much too deeply to escape easily. I loved my abuser, I feared for his life (one of many lies he told me was that he was suicidal), my heart hurt at the thought of leaving him. I didn't fully understand these feelings until I started to study BDSM and learn about the Submissive temperament, which I have been as long as I can remember (in the vanilla world, i'm a "people pleaser").

No, being submissive does not automatically lead to being abused. But it takes training and education (and maybe even a few emotional/physical bruises) for a submissive individual to be able to recognize the difference between dominance and manipulation, between a Dominant personality and a Narcissist, and that was missing in my life until a few months ago. You seem to be a very logical person; I am not. I craved the feeling of being controlled by another so greatly that I ended up hurt, not just with the man I mentioned, but many other times over the years. I have only recently learned that submission is my CHOICE, not my boyfriend's (or anyone else's) right.

For me, the submission vs. abuse question is a chicken vs. the egg scenario. I fantasized about being raped since I started masturbating (~9 years old), but nonconsensual sex is not arousing to me in the slightest (I've been raped by several men of varying attractiveness, so I'm comfortable making that blanket statement). And I say that as I recall having my ex-boyfriend tie me up, because I thought if I could make his manipulations into a BDSM scene, they wouldn't be real, I wouldn't have to leave him, I wouldn't have to come to terms with loving someone who didn't respect me in even the most basic way. But I did leave him, and I have since come to terms with the limits of my submission: I've finally learned that I have the right to say no, and the right for the person I'm with to respect the fact that I've said no. I learn more everyday, from a Dom who was abused himself and is scrupulous about never crossing the line to become an abuser.

Back to your quote... In a way, I do feel that I "failed" to protect my well-being, but this attitude is claiming more responsibility for what happened than I deserve. The failure was in the hands of my abuser. He failed to TREAT me as a human being.



longtimemuse -> RE: Abused into submission (4/15/2007 10:15:57 AM)

 I would have to agree with Knight...  "On it's surface.. it's a good quote.... but there is an implication that is gained from the quote that I think is not accurate. "  "I was abused because I was submissive"  equates to "I am submissive therefore I will be abused"

I myself was a victim of incest at age 4-6 and a victim of rape/sexual assult at age 14 and age 17. Did this happen because I was submissive? I doubt it...it happened because there are an unfortunately high number of predators out there in both the vanilla and the BDSM world. I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and born to the wrong father....bad shit happens in life.

I do believe that some of my "kinks" may stem from my very early life experiences...but they tend toward the positive and not toward abusive relationships at this point in my life. I enjoy and need the feeling of protection and superior strength from my Master (like Daddy never gave me) but  I would never tolerate treatment that I felt was demeaning or destructive to my person or my mental /emotional well being. Of course, I can't say that this was always true. I did put myself in relationships in the past that were harmful emotionally/physically...I believe that this may have been (for me) because I had not learned they that there were more healthy ways to express myself...I went with what I knew...and that was abuse in one form or another.

One day I woke up from the stupor of my youth and realized that I was repeating a pattern with roots that lay way back in my childhood...I got PISSED at myself because I had merged the word submissive into the word victim.  Those words do NOT mean the same thing.

I think perhaps this is what frequently happens with submissive personalities that are/have been seriously abused in some way. (especially when they are younger). But being submissive need not open the door for abuse...and not all submissives have had abuse in their past.

It is a sad fact that many Women (and some men) have had significant sexual/physical abuse happen to them. I've know lots of people from Sexual abuse survivor groups  that are strong, wise, healthy people who have grown past their experiences into a whole and happy human being. Some were submissive, some dominant, some vanilla.....so there ya go

Just my two and a half cents.



SusanofO -> RE: Abused into submission (4/15/2007 10:27:29 AM)

I am not arguing w/anyone's comments particularly, (and some of these are really well-written, insightful posts) but for what it's worth, I do think daddysprop247 was mostly referring to being abused as a child in her posts, in which case, I tend to agree w/her to an extent (and I do work w/abused and neglected UMs so I have some experience w/this).

A grown adult is another matter (although I have to say submissive behavior can provoke an abuser, more than non-submissive behavior, in some cases, IMO).


I applaud anyone w/abuse in their own past, who is working hard to overcome its after-effects.

I agree it is up to the other person to "take responsibility for themselves" and try to get out and or get help, if the situation is something they find unbearable (some people think staying is the "lesser of two evils", apparently.

I am not one to interfere, unless they have kids, no matter how weird that might seem, if they appear to want to stay. It's their relationship - they need to live w/their own decisions. If they do have kids, I get much more adamant thinking they should try really hard to leave an abusive situation - BUT-

I think it is worth considering that - if it weren't a genuinely difficult situation for many, then the "battered wife syndrome" defense as a viable legal defense would not exist, or have been used successfully. People may not agree with it, but it has been successfully used as a legal defense, where an abused person ends up killing or seriously injuring, their batterer.

Not that anyone may have been debating this, but in case anyone "goes there", it is worth considering, IMO.

- Susan    



KnightofMists -> RE: Abused into submission (4/15/2007 2:48:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subminster

Back to your quote... In a way, I do feel that I "failed" to protect my well-being, but this attitude is claiming more responsibility for what happened than I deserve. The failure was in the hands of my abuser. He failed to TREAT me as a human being.



You look at in absolutes... because I am responsibile for my choices doesn't equate I am responsible for all consequences that occur to me.  We live in a world that we affect others.  How I affect another is my responsibility no less than my choices will affect me as well.  To look at responsibility in the narrowness of total responsibility is foolhardy.  No person is an island.

I failed to protect my boundaries does not relieve a person from being responsible of violating my boundaries.  I failed... is is a result... but the responsibility of that violation could largely rest with the violator.. or I may indeed share some responsibility.  I don't think the violator is ever relieved of their responsibility.  However, some victims have made choices that put them in harms way and they must accept that responsibility as well.

It is great to believe that it is Morally wrong that any one individual harms another.  However, it is reality that we live that shows people harm people.  It is foolhardy to not live with this reality and protect ourselves and those around us as best we can.  Knowing full well that we will fail from time to time. 



captainmarvelous -> RE: Abused into submission (1/29/2008 9:22:39 AM)

i think abuse can be something that happened before you were that conscious as a child and dont remember the event but it is still working in a persons unconscious untill it surfaces.



meticulousgirl -> RE: Abused into submission (1/29/2008 10:01:16 AM)

i think the love of force comes from me being raped but not my submission....i've always been this way for as long as i can remember.

~meticulous~



domiguy -> RE: Abused into submission (1/29/2008 10:54:30 AM)

I have a question....How did captainmarvelous come across this thread?

The last post prior to his was 4-15-07....Remember the day well...I was pondering whether to defraud the government out of $4,600.00 or the typical $6,500.00...I went for the lower amount due to the war on terror...Didn't want to think that the extra $1,900.00 might cause some soldier not to have some needed armor. But I'm altruistic that way.

How do you find this shit? And why restart something that had dried up...Where's the foreplay? You would think that you should at least squeeze the thread's tit a time or two and possibly give it's snatch a quick lick or rub before diving in with a new response. Then again I have taken many "a thread" from behind while it was sound asleep....So, never mind.



shavedandready -> RE: Abused into submission (1/30/2008 11:46:49 AM)

I am an abuse survivor. And while I don't think it plays a role in my submission, it does play a role in my feelings of self--worth. I was abuse and raped as a child. I think this is now affecting my self-esteem.

I really have to work on that aspect as part of my submission to Master Tim.



LadyJane -> RE: Abused into submission (2/2/2008 5:09:32 PM)

I was contacted a few years back by a young woman, not yet 18, the age of sexual adulthood in Washington.  She was seeking a dominant who who would beat her, give her bloody lips, broken nose and blacken eyes.  She was prepared to write notes absovling me of any responsibility for her injuries.
 
Seems she had been beaten up while a school girl and had eroticed her experience.  I was appalled!
 
I have kept contact with her over the years; she lives near to my community.  I have felt such concern over her and have sought to direct her to other activity within the bdsm options to redirect  her interest.  I have not had much success. Alas.
 
Lady Jane



liljoy -> RE: Abused into submission (2/2/2008 7:17:33 PM)

When i read Your first post i read it as You blaming the victim and it made me angry. After further thought and Your further clarification i realize that You are right.

As an um there was little i could have done to stop the abuse or prevent it. As an adult however each time i've been harmed i could have done something differently to prevent it. Thus i bare some responsability for it. That does not in any way absolve the person or people who harmed me. It does haover give me a chance to learn from what happened and take steps to prevent future harm



SayaNereida -> RE: Abused into submission (2/2/2008 8:06:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists

On it's surface.. it's a good quote.... but there is an implication that is gained from the quote that I think is not accurate.

"I was abused because I was submissive"  equates to "I am submissive therefore I will be abused"

I consider it likely that many submissive individuals maybe at an increased risk of being abused.  However, just because a person is submissive doesn't equate that they will be abused or that they are going to even to allow it to happen.  Being submissive doesn't equate to disregarding their own personal Well-Being.  But, for individuals that are abused they very much compromise their own personal Well-Being.  Many submissives are very much well aware of their own personal boundaries that protect their Well-Being.  They will not allow themselves to compromise on these boundaries that shift from living a healthy fulfilling life to an abused life. 

Abused individuals are person's that fail to protect the boundaries that maintain a healthy Well-Being.  They are submissive and they can be Dominant personalities as well. 

"I wasn't abused because I was submissive... I was abused because I failed to protect my Well-Being"

this to me is a more accurate quote.




KoM,
 
I believe that in order to be in control of ones own Well-Being, one must learn and know what it means to be well.  If one is raised in an abusive enviroment, it is possible that what is best for ones Well-Being is more difficult to determine. 
 
As a child and an adult I reasoned out why I should take the abuse; I believed it helped my abuser. 
 
As one that has the desire/need to serve, I tend to put other's Well-Being and comfort ahead of my own.  The key, for me, is being with someone that realizes this and does not exploit it; as well as now being able to see when I pushing past my own Well-Being in concentrating on maintaining anothers, and stopping.  The reasoning that worked for me: if I am damaged then I cannot serve effectively.  Yep, perhaps still a little twisted, but it works for me.
 
Saya



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875