Question - Does BDSM facilitate a haven for potential 'abusers' ?

I received the following correspondence/private message in 'BSDM Librarian' Mode yesterday after sharing a conversation regarding the Lochai Art in my AV and the also the Art Threads in the Cafe. I suggested after giving my own opinion that it might be more prudent to submit to the Forum Community for more comprehensive feedback. The gentleman whom will remain anonymous has given me his express permission to do so and will be reading the thread with interest.

He did not frame the Thread title, I did. It seems to be the undertow to the following .....

i thought to address this issue with you to perhaps gain some insight and feedback regarding my concern pertaining to the dynamic of power and control within a bdsm context.

i thought that you might be interested sharing your thoughts based on your own perceptions and experience as well as that of others that you have may have communicated with over time.

i am initially curious about how you would you define the attraction to bdsm, from both an objective and subjective point of view?

i believe that i understand, and more importantly am relieved by what seems to a strongly advocated and consistent emphasis on (safety) during practices.

my concern lies primarily with the potential of adverse psychological repercussions in individuals that for example may have a history of genuine domestic victimization, and or the perpetration of domestic abuse.

from a personal standpoint i have learned to abhor the very concept of abusive behavior on every point along it's seemingly endless continuum, and can't help but concern myself with the thought of so many systemically and perversely abusive men out there assuming bdsm as a perfect vehicle in which to subject a partner to their abuse.

in summary;
1. while the concept, practice, and attraction to bdsm for an individual remains largely elusive to me personally, i would like to understand it better from an wholly objective standpoint.

2. my concerns are far less focused on standard practices associated with bdsm, and almost exclusively with what i will consider a very probable potential for an abuser's interpretations of what may be accepted standards of behavior within the bdsm community, to serve his own inclination to use as nothing more than further means to victimize his partner.

thanks for your attention

Click to expand...

Any thoughts please

I agree that the BDSM flavour of relationship dynamic is open to misinterpretation and abuse. Everyone who posts here idealistically seeking a Master or Mistress is warned about this. There are certainly people who profess to be 'dominant' specifically because it allows them to get away with being selfish and abusive.

When I was seeking a Master I sifted through a lot of personals ads here. One that I read was specifically advertising for 'women with low self esteem who believe that they deserve humiliation.' I also know of a couple of people who post here regularly whose relationship dynamics would be potentially harmful to less grounded and self aware individuals. There are squillions of 'horny net geeks' and others incapable of safe, sane, consensual BDSM who scream 'Kneel bitch!' from the word go in the hope that someone will be stupid or inexperienced enough not to question them.

I personally know a couple of people whose submissive nature stems from negative events in their past. That's not to say that they allow themselves to be systematically 'abused' but I consider their motives to be questionable and wonder whether such a risky psychological experiment will backfire upon them at some point in the future.

I also know of a couple of people who started out with a healthy D/s dynamic that later descended into abusive behaviour when the relationship started having problems. It can be hard to identify such a shift in motivation from pleasing a partner and oneself to acting in retribution for past events or simply because the submissive party allows abusive behaviour to be inflicted upon them.

Having said all of that, I also know of many people who enjoy BDSM as the foundation of a genuine, loving relationship. Those who seek to dominate are aware of the responsibility involved in having another physically and psychologically at their mercy and of making the important decisions for their partner if their dynamic extends that far. My Master always makes sure that my view are heard and if he makes a decision that I disagree with it is because he genuinely believes that it is the best decision for both of us, rather than simply acting on his own whim.

Those who frequent this forum are generally the people who want to know the safety aspects to painful play that they inflict on their submissive. They question their motivation for causing another person pain and humiliation. There are many dominants around here who worry at whether they'll ever take things too far or become jaded by their current repertoire. The fact that they are concerned about these things is half the battle won but this forum allows them to talk to people who understand and can genuinely empathise, which many would not have access to in real life.

So yes, the opportunity for abuse is there and perhaps a greater risk in BDSM lifestyling than in other types of relationship. Any relationship has the potential to become abusive though and there are many people here who have left abusive 'vanilla' or 'normal' relationships only to find love and fulfilment in a BDSM based relationship.

Hope all that shares an insight or two.

covering up partner abuse is far from exclusive to the BDSM arena. Also, outward appearances and being two faced is also not exclusive to the BDSM arena either. Yes it is true that some will use the guise of BDSM in order to facilatate abusive situations and take advantage. It is also true that appearances can be misleading and deceptive.

Ultimately the answer to undertanding lies in a simple line of consent or not. The grey areas which arise make such a discussion sometimes cloudy, because there is always a measure of doubt when the abused defends thier abuser for a myrad of reasons.

There will always be isolated and individual incedents which will occur, but this is hardly grounds to question the whole. Take for example every legal case which goes through the system, is justice always served? No. Does that mean the system as a whole is wrong or bad? You see there in lies the danger of making blanket conclusions. Should one criminal manage to exploite the system and get away with a crime, will that be grounds for questioning the whole legal system?

the other aspect of what is being asked here raises the question of what is abuse? Who gets to decide if one is being abused? In part I answered that above with the consent aspect, but the part I didn't mention are those who take it upon themselves to decide what is abusive for others and what is not. There is a tendency to think that a person who enjoys sadomaschism is not capable of giving consent because by them enjoying pain to begin with is a sure sign that they are incapable of making the distinction between abusive pain and enjoyed pain. I think there are a lot of people who fit into tis category and there is a lot that don't. Again, this is not exclusive to BDSM but applies to all types of relationships.

There are no garuntees or safety net in reality. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. To live free, one must accept the responsibility of themselves in choosing their own path. The higher obligation on the part of the onlookers is to respect the other person's choice they make for themselves trusting that they are making the right decesions for themselves, even when we ourselves may not understand the motivation for their choices. Where consent is present, it is important that we respect that person's ability to choose what is best for them.

Lastly I will say this and be done. I think that when it is discovered that consent is not present, we have a moral obligation to help those who are opressessed by the tyrany and abuse of others. The BDSM community does not support abuse, rather it supports the freedom of individuals to be able to choose how they want to define happiness for themselves in their own lives.

I think the BDSM community as a whole does a fine job in putting out information to help people be aware of the dangers that exist in regards to abusers. Ironically that seems to never be noticed by those who question the BDSM community as a whole. Yet one is hard pressed to spend any amount of time in a group of BDSM'ers in which they are not exposed constantly to messages of how to be safe, and what to be on the look out for, red flag signs and the like. We have many things we use such as safewords or hold discussions about how to avoid making yourself a victum of abuse. We council and give advice constantly to others to be careful, take your time, know the risk and the dangers. All of this tells me that the BDSM community is made up mostly of caring people.

Sure your gonna have those who use it as a means to desguise their abusive ways, but I can point to incidents across society as a whole that are just as guilty. Clergy, Corrupt Policemen, corrupt politicians, Teachers, parents...all using positions of authority in secrecy to carry out their abusiveness against others. Welcome to life.

I think religious fundamentalism is a much better hotbed for this kind of denial and justification.

Netzach said:

I think religious fundamentalism is a much better hotbed for this kind of denial and justification.

Click to expand...

(...And in other news, I don't think I have enough experience to comment on this thread, but I'm very interested in what people have to say)

I believe bdsm is attractive to those who feel powerless, because of their past, their economic situation, whatever. It provides them a place to reinvent themselves, to act out their anger at life - a place to have complete control if they want, totally unlike the "real world."

This can be healing for some people. For others, it's a way to hide behind fantasy.

intothewoods said:

I believe bdsm is attractive to those who feel powerless, because of their past, their economic situation, whatever. It provides them a place to reinvent themselves, to act out their anger at life - a place to have complete control if they want, totally unlike the "real world."

This can be healing for some people. For others, it's a way to hide behind fantasy.

Click to expand...

Not sure I can agree with this as a blanket statement. It speaks more to stereotypes and the views of those outside BDSM and related choices who do not understand how it can be pleasureable for someone unless they are broken in need of fixing....just one of the reasons it has been frowned upon by those in psychiatry and power for so long. My experience has been that though those stereotypes may exist, they do not describe why everyone (a vast majority I suspect) is involved in and committed to this choice of lifestyle, F and myself being just 2 it doesn't fit.

Catalina

catalina_francisco said:

Not sure I can agree with this as a blanket statement. It speaks more to stereotypes and the views of those outside BDSM and related choices who do not understand how it can be pleasureable for someone unless they are broken in need of fixing....just one of the reasons it has been frowned upon by those in psychiatry and power for so long. My experience has been that though those stereotypes may exist, they do not describe why everyone (a vast majority I suspect) is involved in and committed to this choice of lifestyle, F and myself being just 2 it doesn't fit.

Catalina

Click to expand...

It's not a blanket statement. I think bdsm is attractive to that personality, but I'm not saying most people involved in bdsm are like this.

Is it the norm? I don't think so. Is the potential there? Certainly.

Assuming that BDSM is an easy and attractive opportunity for abusive people is like saying a day care worker or teacher is an easy and attractive opportunity for pedophiles. It happens for certain, but it's not the norm or something we should automatically wonder about anyone who says "I love working with children". That would be an absurd and pretty uncalled for generalization, which is about how I feel at the notion of connecting abusers to BDSM.

Besides, it isn't exactly easy to prey on people in the BDSM world. Most bottoms (slave, sub, whathaveyou) are strong, independent people with very high expectations of the people they interact with as far as safety and respect. The chances that they will allow themselves be a part of an abusive play situation or relationship are no different than that of a vanilla person.

It's not the situation or interests, its the PERSONALITIES that are at risk. I've found in the 10+ years of meeting people involved in this lifestyle that the occurrence of timid, easily coerced persons is rather slim. It takes a pretty solid person many times to embrace the things we do in the lifestyle and to actually go out and meet people with similar interests.

Of course there are always exceptions. There are exceptions in any example. There will always be teachers and child care workers out there that will be pedophiles just waiting for their next opportunity and hiding under the pretext of being a loving, doting caretaker. There will always be abusive people that are waiting to find someone to control and abuse and hide it under the mask of dominance. However, it isn't the norm by any imaginable percentage, so it's an unnecessary fear in my opinion.

Abusers are abusers because they don't care about the people they are abusing. Dominants are not abusive simply because they DO care about the people they are (consensually!) "abusing"

serijules said:

Assuming that BDSM is an easy and attractive opportunity for abusive people is like saying a day care worker or teacher is an easy and attractive opportunity for pedophiles. It happens for certain, but it's not the norm or something we should automatically wonder about anyone who says "I love working with children". That would be an absurd and pretty uncalled for generalization, which is about how I feel at the notion of connecting abusers to BDSM.

Abusers are abusers because they don't care about the people they are abusing. Dominants are not abusive simply because they DO care about the people they are (consensually!) "abusing"

Click to expand...

I think this is a fantastic post. It is a very good analogy.

I think the majority of the abusers are either victims or witnesses of abuse in childhood and are going to abuse no matter if they get involved in bdsm or not. They don't need the cover of bdsm to slap a woman around.

2 cents

intothewoods said:

I believe bdsm is attractive to those who feel powerless, because of their past, their economic situation, whatever. It provides them a place to reinvent themselves, to act out their anger at life - a place to have complete control if they want, totally unlike the "real world."

This can be healing for some people. For others, it's a way to hide behind fantasy.

Click to expand...

Halloween for adults. Pretend and guiltless interpersonal play.

Sure there are potential situation wher an abuser and one who has been abused will naturally gravitate towards another.

Like a pain slut at a fetishcon. Something's bound to happen. But that's where we as a community protect our more vulnerable members and selves. We use safe words and we have limits.
Of course there are exceptions to every rule. A few falling through the cracks and it becoming a truly abusive relationship. But for the most part, it's consentual.

Like priests and kids or female school teachers and their students....the potential for bad is always there. But that's human interraction. I don't condone it. I simply accept that not every contingency can be met to prevent every possible infraction.
But that, for the most part, it's healthy and good.

So what if he likes to beat her? So what if she loves it when he does? As long as they are happy and willingly consent to such activity, it's fine.
Does it not better serve the general population as well as the individuals in question if these types find one another?

"There's someone for everyone" I've heard it said.

So long as there is humanity. So long as there is more then one human on this planet, there's always a "potential" for cruelty to be delivered upon one another.

Humanity is far from perfect. But those who are accepting and in tune with themselves, their sexuality and how to find an amicable and agreeable outlet for it's expression places those enlightened souls in mentally healthy & beneficial states as well as in good company I think.



**** reads other posts *** Damnit jules. I JUST indirectly seconded EVERYTHING you already stated. Well, great minds think alike they say.

Nice to see you post again, RJ.

----

Yes, conceptually, BDSM can be attractive to folks with an abusive bent. Personally, I think it makes perfect sense, and I don't mind in some cases. If anything, I think it might just be healthy.

Hear me out.

I am not speaking of actual abusers. Looking at the question, the specific demographic here is "potential abusers". What is a potential abuser? Well, at its' core, someone with the requistie personality traits to afford them a higher possibility of abusive behaviour. Abusive behaviour defined any number of ways which are really outside the confines of this thread.

Within BDSM, we have a framework within which it is acceptable to express onesself in many of the ways abusers find themselves driven to express. The real difference is underlying care, present in BDSM'ers (conceptually), and absent in abusers. In this case, take the potential abuser, put him/her in an environment where it is acceptable to act out sadistic urges, but where rules are in place, and you may find the potential abuser is simply another dominant, if perhaps a harsh one.

In a case like this, societal pressure comes to bear potentially, as word gets around if a dominant is a bad one. Societal pressure can be corrective. Obviously this is not in effect over someone not involved in the community at large.

Personally, I look around me, even at those on this board, and see people that may fit into this 'potential abuser' category, and the framework may well be what helps to keep them self-moderated.

Looking at established abusers, again, yes. BDSM does provide what appears to be a potential haven. Let's face it, you have a population of pyls that openly advertise their willingness to take much of the sort of treatment that an abuser dishes out. Yes, they may be more aware, but they are still advertising their affection for things sadistic. If this was not a siren call to abusers do you think there would be so very much literature in our community about avoiding abuse?

The final step in this, however, is to look at the idea of a haven. Do I truly feel like BDSM is a haven for abusers or potential abusers? Not as a community. If anything, BDSM'ers are MORE aware of abuse, and are more likely to comment on potential abuse, than most people. Yes, our standards may be different, but we are more likely to open mouth and speak out, at least in my experience. At which point, while it may appear to be a haven, the community is not quite a place of acceptance and refuge for someone who is truly abusive.

Homburg said:

Nice to see you post again, RJ.

----

Yes, conceptually, BDSM can be attractive to folks with an abusive bent. Personally, I think it makes perfect sense, and I don't mind in some cases. If anything, I think it might just be healthy.

Hear me out.

I am not speaking of actual abusers. Looking at the question, the specific demographic here is "potential abusers". What is a potential abuser? Well, at its' core, someone with the requistie personality traits to afford them a higher possibility of abusive behaviour. Abusive behaviour defined any number of ways which are really outside the confines of this thread.

Within BDSM, we have a framework within which it is acceptable to express onesself in many of the ways abusers find themselves driven to express. The real difference is underlying care, present in BDSM'ers (conceptually), and absent in abusers. In this case, take the potential abuser, put him/her in an environment where it is acceptable to act out sadistic urges, but where rules are in place, and you may find the potential abuser is simply another dominant, if perhaps a harsh one.

In a case like this, societal pressure comes to bear potentially, as word gets around if a dominant is a bad one. Societal pressure can be corrective. Obviously this is not in effect over someone not involved in the community at large.

Personally, I look around me, even at those on this board, and see people that may fit into this 'potential abuser' category, and the framework may well be what helps to keep them self-moderated.

Looking at established abusers, again, yes. BDSM does provide what appears to be a potential haven. Let's face it, you have a population of pyls that openly advertise their willingness to take much of the sort of treatment that an abuser dishes out. Yes, they may be more aware, but they are still advertising their affection for things sadistic. If this was not a siren call to abusers do you think there would be so very much literature in our community about avoiding abuse?

The final step in this, however, is to look at the idea of a haven. Do I truly feel like BDSM is a haven for abusers or potential abusers? Not as a community. If anything, BDSM'ers are MORE aware of abuse, and are more likely to comment on potential abuse, than most people. Yes, our standards may be different, but we are more likely to open mouth and speak out, at least in my experience. At which point, while it may appear to be a haven, the community is not quite a place of acceptance and refuge for someone who is truly abusive.

Click to expand...

*Ding Ding* Give the man a qupie! By jove I think he's got it! (did in my mind anyways)

Hoo-hah!

Homburg said:

Nice to see you post again, RJ.

----

Hear me out.

-------
I am not speaking of actual abusers. Looking at the question, the specific demographic here is "potential abusers".

Click to expand...

I agree, hi RJ.

Hear you indeed - well said.

What follows is a disconnected rant not related to other points made - and this is not well thought out at this moment.

In my work with sexual violence issues I recently saw the term "pre-perpetrator" - what the hell is a pre-perpetrator? Someone who has yet to perpetrate a sex crime? Hell, that makes me a pre-perpetrator, as it does most people here (kink and local laws against consensual sodomy aside ).

I suggest that some of us struggle with self-control issues against the use of violence at times. My lack of anger control ended up allowing me to place a fist into a sheetrock wall many years ago. I have had fist fights in my youth. I allowed my country to invade another country. I have spanked my children when mad. All acts of violence. I has seduced women in the past just for my our sexual use and now I caution people about being used by the sorta jerk I was back then. We allow violence everywhere in our culture - a dungeon is not needed for one person to harm another.

I think as long as women are seen as "less then", are paid less then, are objectified, are uses and discarded, are shown in movies/TV/advertisements as sex toys (don't get me started on what the WWF does to reinforce stupid male concepts of women) there will be violence against women - a BDSM dungeon is not needed to give men permission to be harmful.

A well communicated and negotiated power exchange between two fully vested equal human beings is a must in any BDSM play in my book.

end of rant....

Shankara20 said:

A well communicated and negotiated power exchange between two fully vested equal human beings is a must in any BDSM play in my book.

end of rant....

Click to expand...

beautiful rant, Papa Shank. So honest, as always.

You know, despite my earlier post, my sense is that a true abuser gets off on the non-consensuality. Or is that simplistic? I did use that icky "true" word.

Here's my question on this topic. What if a person has desires or urges that involve rape, murder, violence - just off the top of my head. And I don't mean, fantasy. Is playing out those urges with a consensual player in some safe way (obviously not killing the person) a good thing for that person? I mean, is bdsm always a healthy release? Are there any relationships, even if consensual, that just aren't, well, safe or sane?

(usual disclaimer - I really struggle with this and am asking - I don't know the answer!)

rant continued...

this is taken from the CDC's website about sexual violence (SV).

Certain factors can increase the risk for SV. However, the presence of these factors does not mean that SV will occur.
Risk factors for perpetration (harm to someone else):
• Being male
• Having friends that are sexually aggressive
• Witnessing or experiencing violence as a child
• Alcohol or drug use
• Being exposed to social norms, or shared beliefs, that
support sexual violence
Note: This is a partial list of risk factors.

Being male is the number one predictor of who might be a perpetrator. Of all sexual violence committed (there is one rape in the USofA every 60 seconds), 93% of the perpetrators are male - 94% of the people victimized by sexual assault over the age of 12 are female. Yes, men are assaulted and females are perpetrators.

As men we can help stop the first thought that comes into a females mind when meeting a new man from being "is he a safe one". We must hold all other men accountable for every sexist non-consensual act, even if it is a joke told about rape at the office water cooler.

end of rant - I hope, I have work to do today.

intothewoods said:

beautiful rant, Papa Shank. So honest, as always.

Click to expand...

I agree, excellent post, Shanks!

You know, despite my earlier post, my sense is that a true abuser gets off on the non-consensuality. Or is that simplistic? I did use that icky "true" word.

Here's my question on this topic. What if a person has desires or urges that involve rape, murder, violence - just off the top of my head. And I don't mean, fantasy. Is playing out those urges with a consensual player in some safe way (obviously not killing the person) a good thing for that person? I mean, is bdsm always a healthy release? Are there any relationships, even if consensual, that just aren't, well, safe or sane?

(usual disclaimer - I really struggle with this and am asking - I don't know the answer!)

Click to expand...

I'll refrain from my usual badgering about the word "true" because of the context. Consider it an act of kindness

Nothing is _always_ healthy. People die while jogging all the time. Breathing ain't healthy in some places due to air pollution. Anything can be unhealthy. And I would say that the incidence of unhealthy relationships in BDSM is likely to be at least as high as vanilla relationships. No idea how it compares precisely, but people are as likely to be fucked up in any given field.

We like to talk about communication, communication, communication, and how it makes us functional. Much like my above assertion that the vast profusion of anti-abuse literature in BDSM indicates a likelihood of abuse, the constants cries for communication, SSC, RACK, etc tells me that excess and crap communication is probably not all that uncommon.

Am I saying there we're dysfunctional as a community? Nah, not really. My gutcheck anecdotal impression is that we're as dysfunctional as everyone else. We just express it differently.

There are some extraordinarily intelligent and articulate things being said in this thread. I have little to add except the confirmation of my own profile.

I entered into the area of BDSM rather later in life than most people and for some odd reasons. Previously to that I will admit to having had a perception of folks in the lifestyle as "broken" and "fixing themselves" through various kinks. While my version of that opinion was pretty compassionate, it was still wrong. While that factor may be present for many (including me, in a way) it is certainly not a generalization one can make.

From either side, the issues of anger and violence and the issues of self-worth and submissiveness, the journey may or may not be about "fixing" something that is "broken." Even if it is, what that implies is that this is a healthier community, at least sexually, than the average profile, simply because most people have some sort of injury or misperception within their sexuality, and at least communities like this are full of people who gleefully acknowledge their crooked bits, subject them to healthy standards and interactions, and manifest them honestly and without shame. To me, there's nothing "broken" about that. That's what a healthy sexuality looks like. Growth, authenticity, individuality and comfort and satisfaction with one's own desires.

As to the "abuse" issue, the point was made earlier that the BDSM community is perhaps MORE conscious of issues of abuse than most. I tend to believe that. Certainly the lines and boundaries of "abuse" look stranger from the outside, but for those of us who have experienced one, the other would be relatively more obvious, I should think. There's an immense difference between a dom taking me on a journey for our mutual enjoyment and a dom treating me as worthless and subhuman. I guess one has to examine the motivation, and the attendant activities and personality. Does a dom learn stuff, get training, seem like a reasonable person in general, treat humans with respect under normal non-play circumstances? Stuff like that.

My gratitude for this dialogue. I'm learning a great deal.

bijou

intothewoods said:

beautiful rant, Papa Shank. So honest, as always.

You know, despite my earlier post, my sense is that a true abuser gets off on the non-consensuality. Or is that simplistic? I did use that icky "true" word.

Here's my question on this topic. What if a person has desires or urges that involve rape, murder, violence - just off the top of my head. And I don't mean, fantasy. Is playing out those urges with a consensual player in some safe way (obviously not killing the person) a good thing for that person? I mean, is bdsm always a healthy release? Are there any relationships, even if consensual, that just aren't, well, safe or sane?

(usual disclaimer - I really struggle with this and am asking - I don't know the answer!)

Click to expand...

I think abusers, at least most of them, get off more on the sense of power and control than the actual non-consensuality of it, though that is part of their sense of P & C.

I would think for many who had desires such as you mention, that playing it out in a controlled, consensual environment with someone who connected to their needs would benefit from it immensely. There will always be the ones who find it just leads them into darker waters, but I elieve they would have gone there anyway. Being allowed and able to release some of the desires can be very productive. I have long believed that if we didn't live in such a sexually uptight society and were free to be more open and exploratory of our feelings, there would not be near the amount of violent sex related crimes.

As to whether BDSM is a healthy release and if some consensual relationships don't fall within the category of safe and/or sane, I think it is a very subjective topic. Everyone is going to have a different limit as to where they believe safe/sane ends and unhealthy begins. Most will find those limits change as they gain experience and wider understanding of how others live and survive. I know we have been told from the beginning by various people that what we do is not SSC according to some. Usually those telling us such things are new to BDSM or not interested in it personally. That being said, we began rather mildly as most do and yet still received such comments just as we do now we live much edgier and heavier. It is subjective, and for me only those involved are in a position to know what is healthy for them. What is healthy for one person is the complete opposite for another and vv. After all, some people in mainstream believe oral sex or sex outside marriage is unhealthy...it is all about people's perspectives and understanding.

Catalina

unpredictablebijou said:

There are some extraordinarily intelligent and articulate things being said in this thread.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, I'm so genuinely happy that this topic is being broached and that it came from someone who posed his concerns/interest in a non inflammatory manner. It has been a great read to date.

All I had to say in private reply to the correspondence quote in the opening post is the following.

bdsm_librarian said:

In the interim and regarding the above quoted, I understand your concern. Consider this please though, can you imagine women more skillfully armed to know what constitutes abuse than women that are submissive and or masochistic by nature ? We are quite the empowered bunch believe me. Participation is consensual and in the majority of situations abusers ( potential ) are fairly readily dismissed . BDSM will not cover it. Takes a fairly strong woman to embrace submission , we may appear fragile, it's rarely the case.

Click to expand...

No epic, nor artfully expressed, I was fairly mentally tired and was clear it was my opinion exclusively.

unpredictablebijou said:

Even if it is, what that implies is that this is a healthier community, at least sexually, than the average profile, simply because most people have some sort of injury or misperception within their sexuality, and at least communities like this are full of people who gleefully acknowledge their crooked bits, subject them to healthy standards and interactions, and manifest them honestly and without shame. To me, there's nothing "broken" about that. That's what a healthy sexuality looks like. Growth, authenticity, individuality and comfort and satisfaction with one's own desires.
bijou

Click to expand...

Spot on. The vast majority of people out there have some sort of bend to them, and many do not wish to acknowledge it. For some this becomes suppression and repression, and gives way to unhealthy behaviour. In my own world, there is not one bend or kink in my sexuality that I have not at least given thought to internally. I may not act on a given bend, but I at least acknowledge it, and do my best to approach the concept rationally, even if it is only to dismiss it for some reason.

In my estimation, it is healthier to decide to pursue a fetish in a controlled fashion, than to only succumb to the urge when weak, depressed, or on chemical assistance. In short, better to just go ahead and cross-dress, or whatever, than to get smashed on booze and wake up in a pinafore, with a sore ass, and no memories of last night. In this sense, better that a pre-perpetrator simply explore sadism in a RACK/SSC manner. It's healthier.

ok, well, I have been in an abusive bdsm relationship but I would say that the bdsm was just another tool he used to make me feel bad and if it wasnt that it was something else. It didnt matter who was topping or whatever he would always find a way to make me feel bad and/or physically hurt me in a way I had not consented to.

This experience has not put me off bdsm. It has put me off having abusive partners. I think an abusive person will use any tool available to them but that doesnt mean everyone in this community is an abusive person. Its like, some people join the army to help their country and some do because they like to shoot people.

I know I havent expressed this very well so feel free to ask me to clarify.
twiggy
x

@}-}rebecca---- said:

Consider this please though, can you imagine women more skillfully armed to know what constitutes abuse than women that are submissive and or masochistic by nature ? We are quite the empowered bunch believe me.

Click to expand...

This is likewise spot on. Regardless of appearances, the core meme that defines our milieu is Power Exchange. In healthy, functional BDSM, the pyl cedes power to the PYL at some level. By assumption, the pyl is an empowered entity. This is so because there must be power present to cede in the first place, else the exchange cannot occur. In short, I have to first possess an apple if I am to give you an apple. Much in the same way, a submissive has power, and cedes it to the dominant, thus the submissive explicitly had power to begin with.

Can it be a haven for abusers? Yes. In my experience, limited though it is, the perceptive subs give wide berth to the Dom/mes who are questionable. And as for the subs who don't? I'll probably get flamed for it, but I think it's a form of social Darwinism.

I would like to add, as I've added before on topics such as these, that while the stereotype of the poor, abused sub still lingers, it irks the living shit out of me. Hell, it may even be true often enough to bear out the stereotype, but it's not true in 100% of the cases. Can I go on a tangential rant here?

I am living, breathing proof that the stereotype does not bear out in all cases. I am a mostly sane, mostly healthy 24-year-old who was never once abused in any way that she can remember. Incidentally, the degree I have in psych came from a department that was very behaviorally-oriented, though they were swinging toward a more modern cognitive-behavioral approach at that time. For that reason, I don't understand the constant (and outdated) psychoanalytical need to delve into people's backgrounds and childhoods. At some point, if that's what's always focused on, the person will always use it as an excuse--"Oh, I'm this way because of my shitty background,"--rather than being proactive in the way I was trained--"Here's an undesirable behavior. Let's fix it."

So...going with that, let's figure out why I'm wired this way. No abuse, nothing. I was an only child, overprotected, fussed over. My mother, though she could be a pain in the ass, wasn't a terrible mother so much as a clueless one. I idolized my father. (Still do.) I don't have Mommy or Daddy issues. So what's my reason for being the way I am?

I learned at some point, as we all do, that certain things make me feel a certain way. I suppose you can call it an addictive personality, but not really. I'm overweight, mostly because I learned that food tastes REALLY good, and it's way more fun to sit on my ass than exercise. I have more shoes than I'll ever wear because I learned at some point that shopping--especially for shoes--triggers the "feel good" area in my brain. (It's also why I keep my credit cards hidden from myself nowadays, LOL.) I normally limit myself to just a few drinks when I go out because alcohol makes me feel good, at least to a certain extent. Then, of course, it's all downhill from there. I like being tied up and tortured because it makes me feel good. All of these things are learned behaviors. They don't have to be blamed on some occurrence in my childhood. And none of them are bad behaviors, as long as they're done in moderation.

There's not something inherently wrong with me. There's nothing that really needs fixing (except maybe my urge to shop when things get difficult--it's rough on the pocketbook!). There's nothing in my childhood that made me this way. Most of all, I don't need someone with a psych degree looking out for me. I've got my own. By my own standards, I'm fine.

In behavioral psychology, nothing is inherently bad or good. Behaviors are either desirable or undesirable. Some behaviors can be desirable in some cases and undesirable in others. They only become something that needs to be "fixed" when they interfere with the individual's quality of life. So if I'm happy and my life doesn't get screwed up because I let someone tie me up, then I'm perfectly all right, and I don't need anyone to psychoanalyze me.

/end rant