Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TexasMaam
You do not know his intentions.
True. None of us do. But we can make guesses, based on the available information. And my guess, based on the stuff that eventually came up in the thread is this:
She gets going from a simple gesture of attention/affection to a sufficient degree that she drops afterwards. She discussed her problems regarding the drops with him, and he expressed concern. What she did not manage to make clear to him, was that it isn't the sessions that are causing the problem, but these small gestures. Hence, he could not deal with it appropriately, as he thought the post-session drops were the problems.
If I've gotten this summary of events wrong, I'd appreciate if someone corrected me.
quote:
You are also unfamiliar with conditioned psychosomatic/psychophysiologic responses or desensitizations or you would kow that such damage can be irreversible.
Could you please comment on the background for this assertion? I'll readily admit to not being a licenced professional, but I'd hardly say I'm unfamiliar with it. If you're a licenced professional with experienced in treating such issues, I'd like to know, as I'm sure you could then point me in the direction of better research than what I base my own conclusions on.
I'm quite aware that conditioned responses can be beyond some professionals' skills to decondition, just like any other condition can also be refractory. Many professionals give up, or just don't know what to do, when faced with a refractory mental health issue. Some simply solve the problem, and don't realize that others would consider it entirely resistant to treatment. Skill levels and experience vary widely.
I'm reluctant to consider what you mentioned "damage", but I'll concede the point for the sake of argument. Just about anything one could consider "damage" will take a long time to deal with. But in most cases I've encountered, it can be dealt with, given time and effort, provided there aren't too many interlocking issues that are individually refractory as well so that one can't resolve or improve any of them.
quote:
As for: Sadism being the driving element of the lifestyle, just as masochism is:
I never said it was the driving element. I said it was a valid element. The D/s dynamic is driving to me, and I'd be content never exercising my sadistic side again.
quote:
Anytime there is risk of permanent physical, emotional, psychological damage, it's negligent at best, and it can be heinous.
Branding is permanent physical damage. Do you consider that negligent, or heinous? 
Seriously, though, the fundamental issue is consent. When our medical establishment accepts a DNR order, or an advance health directive, they are operating on prior consent. When they perform a voluntary procedure with associated risks, they obtain informed consent, or go by prior consent (advance health directive) if the patient is incompetent at the time.
I do not hold personal freedoms, rights and safeties to be inalienable. I hold them to be something that can only be relinquished by the person they apply to. Anything else would, IMO, be to limit that person's freedoms and rights without consent.
quote:
If it causes permanent damage, if there's risk of permanent damage, it deserves to be recognized for what it is and guarded against, whatever the activity might be.
Yes, the risk needs to be recognized by whatever party/ies are involved in making the risk-benefit tradeoff. This is why most of us don't let anyone sign a slavery "contract" while they're drunk, for instance: they cannot properly consider the risk-benefit tradeoff involved in prior consent. But with proper prior consent, one can hand responsibility and authority to someone else with regards to making a risk-benefit tradeoff on any specific issue, within the bounds of the terms of consent.
quote:
I've seen the anguish of a sub who cannot orgasm due to repeated orgasmic interupption, it's a pervasive Dominant technique, and while it's professed to be 'hot' and 'titillating' for the Dom/me, I think it's important to always remember that it can be harmful when taken to extremes.
OK, personally, I don't see why it would be that much of a loss, but I'm not the person in question, and there are things that would give me anguish that wouldn't give others anguish, so I'll set that aside.
Anything can be harmful when taken to extremes. This is something to consider before agreeing to take it to extremes, and why we say these relationships require quite a lot of trust. Unintentional conditioning happens throughout our lives, whether we're in a D/s relationship or not. To ascribe the intention of harmful conditioning to the Dom should not be done lightly, and so far you're the only one to imply that intention.
Either way, whatever falls under the terms of consent in a relationship, goes. It's not our business.
quote:
I responded to the OP out of concern, and given the same subject matter and initial set of circumstances, will likely respond out of concern again, whether you express any opinion about My response, or not.
Ah. Well, I was initially concerned, too. But not at the moment.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: Anti sub drop? - 
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