Another Attempt at Abuse

So here we go again, same question. When is abuse wrong, when is it right?

Here is a bit of an epiphany I had.

If the top has no interest, compassion, empathy, etc for the bottom before the act, after the act, or at both times, then it’s plain abuse.

However if the top cares for the bottom before and after, then its all in the good name of BDSM.

What do you think?

YourCaptor said:

So here we go again, same question. When is abuse wrong, when is it right?

Here is a bit of an epiphany I had.

If the top has no interest, compassion, empathy, etc for the bottom before the act, after the act, or at both times, then it’s plain abuse.

However if the top cares for the bottom before and after, then its all in the good name of BDSM.

Click to expand...

Ish.

I'd certainly agree that feeling care and empathy is a necessary ingredient of the PYL's makeup, of what makes me believe I'm somehow different from a rapist. But the rapist probably believes he feels empathy and compassion as well - according to psychologists who work with them, rapists construct narratives about their victims which makes the rape acceptable, and very often those narratives are about the victim 'wanting' it. So you can certainly feel empathy and compassion while perpetrating abuse.

I'd like to say something like 'empathy and consent', but abusers construct narratives about their victims' consent, too. It's tough. You just have to listen to your conscience, and be aware of the possibility of self delusion.

I'll venture to say that when it comes out of anger and hate then it is abusive.

But how can a PYL demonstrate care/empathy that is credible if s/he knowingly commits acts that are abusive?

If a guy talks with you sympathetically about how he knows you'd hate to have your nose broken, punches and breaks it, then patches you up afterwards and gives you some painkillers, how does any of that make the punch itself less abusive and unwanted?

You're getting close to manipulation/coercion here, favourite tools of abusers because they cloud and devalue consent.

I think you also have to look both at motivation and what the end result is.

• Treatment of a pyl that causes psychological/physical harm wilfully/deliberately is abusive.
• Treatment that causes psychological/physical harm unintentionally isn't really abuse so long as the PYL moderates/ceases harmful behaviour once s/he has identified it.
• Continuing practising treatment that a pyl has identified as harmful and withdrawn consent to is abusive.

I know we wear our bruises and welts with pride but there is a difference between consensual sadistic treatment and abusive/harmful treatment. Whipping a consenting pyl is not abusive. Throwing a hot plate of an unimpressive dinner at him/her or taking a hammer to his/her knee-caps because s/he left the house without permission is. If you know a pyl well then these limits should be little more than common sense.

Everyone has their hot buttons and their electrified razorwire protected no-go zones. Some pyls love humiliation and objectification, others would go to pieces. Some will take any amount of verbal humiliation except for a particular topic they are genuinely insecure about. Some pyls will take hours of flogging but would go batshit hysterical if you covered their eyes and ears. It all therefore depends on what an individual pyl is capable of finding gratifying/tolerable within the construct of a consensual PE dynamic.

osg, for example, lives an extremely sheltered and strictly controlled life where, for example, she doesn't go out without her Master, visits only pre-agreed websites online, interacts only with her Master and his friends, does not handle money or have any financial independence etc. Most people would find that lifestyle intensely oppressive and psychologically abusive. osg however, happily consents because she feels she needs such a lifestyle. Her deep need for security and her Master's protection has been a huge factor in how their dynamic has evolved. What most would view from the outside as abusive, she has just eloquently described on the doormat thread as intensely protective and secure.

So I think it's really all about the mindset.

It's tricky, because some people want abuse (and I don't mean "the good kind").

My husband had a history of abuse, and after his father died, on a day in which my husband was being publicly celebrated, I found myself cruelly berating him. I could hear his father's words coming out of my mouth, and I didn't even believe what I was saying.

I don't know how the mechanism works, but I do believe that my husband needed the abuse to make himself comfortable, and not being able to get it from his father, managed to pull it from me. It was a strange experience to say the least.

I also realized that I had been acting this way off and on throughout our marriage. Interestingly enough, this occurred around the time our marriage turned TPE - which made me much more aware of my behavior.

I have almost completely held these impulses in check since then, even when my husband seems to be inviting them. At first he found an incredibly abusive boss to play out this scenario, and his clients still abuse him pretty regularly, but he is much happier at home.

My point . . . you have to take responsibility for the effect of your actions on other people, even if they appear to want it. If you're honest with yourself, you know whether you're causing harm. Most of us avoid that level of honesty, but it's important to develop it in these types of relationships.

Is there something you're doing that you're concerned is abusive?

I think it is impossible to look at any individual act and call it abusive. It must be viewed in context, and with an eye towards patterns. Looking at individual acts, Gordon Ramsay on "Hell's Kitchen" is abusive. But, in context, it is acceptable behaviour given the show itself. Abuse exists in patterns of degradation, and, as VelvetDarkness said, clouds and devalues consent.

I personally think that the word "abuse" means just that, abuse - which is not a good thing. If a sub wants to be whipped or caned, etc. then that is not abuse. Maybe the word consent means something. If a sub consents to being caned until red marks are left then that is not abuse but if the sub doesn't consent to be caned to the point of bleeding and needing medical attention of some kind, then that is abuse. The dom cannot decide on their own how hard to cane a person, somewhere there has to be a meeting of the minds as to what extent. I would apply this general definition to whatever activity they are involved in. In my mind, no one can consent to being "abused" because abused means going to far over that consent line. I would also ad that if a sub "consents" to something they really don't want then that is actually not consenting. A dom could impose his will and intimidate or coerce someone to "consent" to something they really don't want to do and that would still be "abuse".

VelvetDarkness said:

But how can a PYL demonstrate care/empathy that is credible if s/he knowingly commits acts that are abusive?

I know we wear our bruises and welts with pride but there is a difference between consensual sadistic treatment and abusive/harmful treatment. Whipping a consenting pyl is not abusive.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is as simple as this. People consent to all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. Because they're lonely. Because they feel worthless. Because they're hungry for any sort of attention. Because an abusive parent has trained them to associate abuse with security. In countries with less developed social security systems than ours, because they want a bed and a roof and a meal. Because they're infatuated with someone who is abusive and want to please him. Just because someone says 'yes, I consent to...' does not prove that consent is freely and willingly given. Just because consent is freely and willingly given does not make abuse moral.

And whipping someone to the extent of producing lasting bruises (which I have done many times and intend to do again also many times) is assault in the eyes of the law. It is, inherently, an abusive thing to do. Doing it as an act of affection or love to someone you care deeply about is, to a rational being, perverse.

But it's also a deep and primitive part of our psychological makeup, both men and women. Higher primates - chimpanzees to which we are so nearly related - use sexual behaviour to mark social dominance. Closer to us, in primitive hunter gatherer communities an aggressive, dominant man may have been a better provider and protector; and rape may have been an important way of spreading genetic variance. Whatever the reason, many men have a deep and instinctive need for raw and forceful displays of sexual dominance, and many women (fortunately) have a deep and instinctive need to submit to this.

But even though this is my behaviour, and I own it, it is still (for me) ethically troubling behaviour.

Homburg said:

I think it is impossible to look at any individual act and call it abusive. It must be viewed in context, and with an eye towards patterns. Looking at individual acts, Gordon Ramsay on "Hell's Kitchen" is abusive. But, in context, it is acceptable behaviour given the show itself. Abuse exists in patterns of degradation, and, as VelvetDarkness said, clouds and devalues consent.

Click to expand...

OK, I don't watch much television and have never knowingly seen Gordon Ramsay (unless he's the chef who climbs the white cliffs of Dover in that BBC intermission piece). But from what I have read about it it seems to me that the behaviour in Hell's Kitchen is highly abusive. Yes, it's also performance, but that doesn't make it OK.

YourCaptor said:

So here we go again, same question. When is abuse wrong, when is it right?

Here is a bit of an epiphany I had.

If the top has no interest, compassion, empathy, etc for the bottom before the act, after the act, or at both times, then it’s plain abuse.

However if the top cares for the bottom before and after, then its all in the good name of BDSM.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

care for the submissive makes no difference in defining abuse...people tend to be most abusive toward those they love.

but the other issue that is often ignored, is what eastern sun said...some people want/need abuse. i would take that even further and say that abuse is not necessarily "wrong"...in some relationships it is just natural and right.

YourCaptor said:

So here we go again, same question. When is abuse wrong, when is it right?

Here is a bit of an epiphany I had.

If the top has no interest, compassion, empathy, etc for the bottom before the act, after the act, or at both times, then it’s plain abuse.

However if the top cares for the bottom before and after, then its all in the good name of BDSM.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

Abuse = actions, words, or behavior causing material & sustained physical or emotional damage.

Though an uncaring top may be more likely to abuse his/her partner, the existence of interest/compassion/empathy in the top will not necessarily guarantee that abuse will not take place.

SimonBrooke said:

People consent to all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. Because they're lonely. Because they feel worthless. Because they're hungry for any sort of attention. Because an abusive parent has trained them to associate abuse with security. In countries with less developed social security systems than ours, because they want a bed and a roof and a meal. Because they're infatuated with someone who is abusive and want to please him. Just because someone says 'yes, I consent to...' does not prove that consent is freely and willingly given. Just because consent is freely and willingly given does not make abuse moral.

Click to expand...

Very well said.

I feel that if actions taken can build up a relationship, and increase the closeness of both you and your SO, it's not abuse. If it damages the relationship, and pushes one away from another, it is.

One, or both parties, can justify "it is for their own good", but unless the 'receiver' of the action can take pride and joy in what the 'giver' does in the bigger picture of things, even if it's not pleasant right then and there, then it could be abuse.

For example, I am expected to clean a certain fan today. I certainly don't relish the idea of having to clean it, and I am by no means skilled with hand tools, when my Husband is pleased I am pleased, and I will certainly appreciate both the effort I put into cleaning it as 'a job well done' (or, at very least, happy that I didn't break it while putting it back together), as well the cool air it gives afterward (meaning we can actually cuddle in this heat). In contrast, in the same scenario, my cousin (while of an equally submissive nature, yet does not have the same mindset that I have) would be upset over being pushed out of her comfort zone, and lament having to do something so menial when there are more important things to do, and never concerning herself as to what benefit there is to cleaning it in the first place... yet do it anyway so that no argument ensues with her boyfriend, make it seem that she enjoyed it for the sake of preserving the peace, and even make the excuse/accept being told that it was in her best interest to get it done... or worse, lie that it had been cleaned to spare herself from his disappointment now, only to fret over him finding out later.

While, certainly, household chores are far from abuse, I feel that illustrates the mindset between "happy submission" and "abuse". Whether there is a real sense of joy in the partaking of pain... or whether the pain is simply tolerated, or thought "right" because of a supposed need (as opposed to the real want) to please the SO.

Likewise, communication plays a big factor... Abuse, imho, comes into play when one, the other, or both people cannot or choose not to understand how their actions negatively affect the other or themselves. Abuse is not "I praise my SO for being this way, because my SO's strength compensates for my own weakness; it makes both of us stronger and brings both of us closer", but rather, "I tolerate the way my SO acts, because it's for my own good, even if it means we lose some of our closeness"... or worse, "I hate the way my SO acts, but I deal with it because I am afraid to be without that person". It's the whole "No means no" (or, "safeword means stop") issue... if you say no, and your SO says to themself "no means yes", and there is no sorrow for the action, nor any likelihood that the situation will not happen again, it's abuse, simple as that... for that, though, you need to be 100% honest with yourself, as well as with your SO, and vice versa.

The difference is, at the end of the day, is, do the words and actions build up a relationship? Or does it tear it down?

SimonBrooke said:

Ish.

I'd certainly agree that feeling care and empathy is a necessary ingredient of the PYL's makeup, of what makes me believe I'm somehow different from a rapist. But the rapist probably believes he feels empathy and compassion as well - according to psychologists who work with them, rapists construct narratives about their victims which makes the rape acceptable, and very often those narratives are about the victim 'wanting' it. So you can certainly feel empathy and compassion while perpetrating abuse.

I'd like to say something like 'empathy and consent', but abusers construct narratives about their victims' consent, too. It's tough. You just have to listen to your conscience, and be aware of the possibility of self delusion.

Click to expand...

I should have clarified, I mean all this within an extensive BDSM relationship.

VelvetDarkness said:

So I think it's really all about the mindset.

Click to expand...

Homburg said:

I think it is impossible to look at any individual act and call it abusive. It must be viewed in context, and with an eye towards patterns.

Click to expand...

Situation has a huge influence, but I’m still trying for something less subjective.

eastern sun said:

It's tricky, because some people want abuse (and I don't mean "the good kind").

Click to expand...

subwannabe said:

I personally think that the word "abuse" means just that, abuse - which is not a good thing.

Click to expand...

ownedsubgal said:

but the other issue that is often ignored, is what eastern sun said...some people want/need abuse. i would take that even further and say that abuse is not necessarily "wrong"...in some relationships it is just natural and right.

Click to expand...

I think generally what much of BDSM is all about abuse. For most getting spanked does not feel like and orgasm, while they may not want to call it abuse either its certainly rather interconnected.

I’m trying to figure out how to define the limit, when the PYL just pushed too far and squashed the pyl. Most if not all relationships I think have such a point.

Ravenwind said:

I feel that if actions taken can build up a relationship, and increase the closeness of both you and your SO, it's not abuse. If it damages the relationship, and pushes one away from another, it is.

One, or both parties, can justify "it is for their own good", but unless the 'receiver' of the action can take pride and joy in what the 'giver' does in the bigger picture of things, even if it's not pleasant right then and there, then it could be abuse.

Click to expand...

You know I was thinking along those lines today too.

In social psychs investment model they say that people inherently weigh the rewards and costs in a relationship, when the costs outweighs the rewards the relationship is heading down.

I think that could also be applied to individual acts of abuse.

When a pyl feels the cost outweigh the reward, then it was an abusive act.

For some simply going past a limit is an overwhelming cost.
For others simply knowing that the PYL likes it is an overwhelming reward.

Maybe thats a question to ask in aftercare, "was that worth it?"

Hows that one sounding?

YourCaptor said:

Situation has a huge influence, but I’m still trying for something less subjective.

I’m trying to figure out how to define the limit, when the PYL just pushed too far and squashed the pyl. Most if not all relationships I think have such a point.

You know I was thinking along those lines today too.

In social psychs investment model they say that people inherently weigh the rewards and costs in a relationship, when the costs outweighs the rewards the relationship is heading down.

I think that could also be applied to individual acts of abuse.

When a pyl feels the cost outweigh the reward, then it was an abusive act.

For some simply going past a limit is an overwhelming cost.
For others simply knowing that the PYL likes it is an overwhelming reward.

Maybe thats a question to ask in aftercare, "was that worth it?"

Hows that one sounding?

Click to expand...

This reminds me of Marquis' idea that it not abuse until the pyl leaves the PYL. He caught some heat for that one.

Abuse
* Abuse is not negotiated
* Abuse is an out of control environment
* Abuse does not have safe words
* An abuser does not give a damn about the victim
* Abuse is always one sided
* Abuse is never negotiated.
* In abuse, no one is enjoying the results
* The abuser is into non consensual violence
* The victim has no respect towards the abuser
* In abuse the victim is harmed
* In abuse both parties are left unfulfilled
* The abuser always feel they are superior
* A person does not ask for abuse
* In an abusive relationship there is no trust
* The abuser does not care for consent
* Abuse has no trust
* Abuse destroys self esteem
* An abuser destroys the spirit of the victim

Now the above is *not* a list I composed. Rather, I got it from the site of a local BDSM club. I bolded the couple of points I think are the most important.

missginger2177 said:

Abuse
* Abuse is not negotiated
* Abuse is an out of control environment
* Abuse does not have safe words
* An abuser does not give a damn about the victim
* Abuse is always one sided
* Abuse is never negotiated.
* In abuse, no one is enjoying the results
* The abuser is into non consensual violence
* The victim has no respect towards the abuser
* In abuse the victim is harmed
* In abuse both parties are left unfulfilled
* The abuser always feel they are superior
* A person does not ask for abuse
* In an abusive relationship there is no trust
* The abuser does not care for consent
* Abuse has no trust
* Abuse destroys self esteem
* An abuser destroys the spirit of the victim

Now the above is *not* a list I composed. Rather, I got it from the site of a local BDSM club. I bolded the couple of points I think are the most important.

Click to expand...

Respect is the huge one for me. At a minimum, the PYL must respect the human existence of the pyl. That they are a human being deserving of certain minimum considerations. That the treatment given must, -must- be consented to. That's one where OSG and I will always differ, because I feel that consent is revocable, and she feels that it's a commitment that must be upheld regardless. Well, she's got her own boss and her own deal, c'est la vie.

Now, that's my minimum ballpark. For my own part, I regard being a PYL as an obligation to the needs of a pyl, above my own desires. Now, naturally my desires take precedence over hers if that's how I want to play it, but needs are the most important thing. I regard my PYLing as the ultimate responsibility, because I'm very literally taking a life into my own hands.

I like this list, though.

missginger2177 said:

Abuse
* In abuse, no one is enjoying the results
* In abuse both parties are left unfulfilled

Now the above is *not* a list I composed. Rather, I got it from the site of a local BDSM club. I bolded the couple of points I think are the most important.

Click to expand...

OK, I disagree with these two points. Just because the abuser is enjoying the results, doesn't make it not abuse. Just because the abuser is fulfilled, doesn't make it not abuse.

On the other hand I strongly agree with this one:

missginger2177 said:

Abuse
* The victim has no respect towards the abuser

Click to expand...

Respect - both ways - is I think part of the key. The pyl must respect the PYL and vice versa, as a minimum; that, and some level of emotional attachment - not necessarily 'lurve' but at least mutual care.

Ravenwind said:

I feel that if actions taken can build up a relationship, and increase the closeness of both you and your SO, it's not abuse. If it damages the relationship, and pushes one away from another, it is.

One, or both parties, can justify "it is for their own good", but unless the 'receiver' of the action can take pride and joy in what the 'giver' does in the bigger picture of things, even if it's not pleasant right then and there, then it could be abuse.

Click to expand...

H'mmm...

There's a practice known as 'bride stealing'. Essentially, abduct a woman of your choice, rape her until pregnant, marry her. It was common in this part of Scotland four hundred years ago and is common now in parts of Khyrgistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan (and many other places). The romantic stories surrounding bride stealing suggests that the couple fall in love, then the bride's father plans to marry her off to an old, ugly, rich man, then the young man steals the girl away and she goes willingly (for example, Young Lochinvar in Sir Walter Scott's poem Marmion - the water supply for this house comes from Lochinvar). And I'm sure that has happened - sometimes. I doubt it's the common case. People who defend this practice have argued that it often leads to very successful marriages, and certainly in Scottish history it seems to have done - at least on some occasions. The repeated rape clearly does 'build up a relationship, increase closeness'. Of course, in many of the cultures in which bride stealing has been practised, a woman would have little say in the choice of husband anyway, and you might say that a forced arranged marriage is just as abusive as a bride stealing.

Stockholm syndrome, in which an abductee, often having been raped, develops loyalty to the abductor, is well documented. That, too, clearly does 'build up a relationship, increase closeness'. And quite possibly some such abductees, and some stolen brides, later come to look back on their abductions with pride.

I think we'd still agree that this sort of behaviour is abuse.

I am not arguing that what we kinked people do is necessarily abusive or wrong. I do it, and I plan to continue. But it is undoubtedly very close to, geared to the same primitive drives and needs as, some behaviours which clearly are abusive.

SimonBrooke said:

I don't think it is as simple as this. People consent to all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. Because they're lonely. Because they feel worthless. Because they're hungry for any sort of attention. Because an abusive parent has trained them to associate abuse with security. In countries with less developed social security systems than ours, because they want a bed and a roof and a meal. Because they're infatuated with someone who is abusive and want to please him. Just because someone says 'yes, I consent to...' does not prove that consent is freely and willingly given. Just because consent is freely and willingly given does not make abuse moral.

Click to expand...

I'd say it is determined by the net effect on the person who is receiving, but I'd also say, then what's the line? At what point has, you know, this person had agency from a-z here and now saying they're a poor abused puppy because what they wanted is strong stuff is taking away the notion of any agency at all and reducing them to a kind of infantile status, in which their "yes" has been taken away from them, which is societally abusive in the extreme.

A lot of people would call my financial use of my slave, H, abusive of him. However I can't possibly imagine slavery that involves no material enrichment for the owner that I'd still call slavery. (If you think all that housework and beej stuff you guys are into isn't a commodity too, dream on.)

It was his choice. FFS, he is a grown man, albeit with some issues, seeking fulfillment with all his issues notwithstanding. I never made secret of it. I did not spring this upon him after romancing him.

But it's also a deep and primitive part of our psychological makeup, both men and women. Higher primates - chimpanzees to which we are so nearly related - use sexual behaviour to mark social dominance. Closer to us, in primitive hunter gatherer communities an aggressive, dominant man may have been a better provider and protector; and rape may have been an important way of spreading genetic variance. Whatever the reason, many men have a deep and instinctive need for raw and forceful displays of sexual dominance, and many women (fortunately) have a deep and instinctive need to submit to this.

Click to expand...

I'm also an animal behavioral fan and the actual reality is "um, sort of."

Bonobos are also close relatives and they tend to fuck around for social dominance AND social cohesion. The ppl that orgy together stay together. Also, genetic variance is maintained in *many* populations, mammalian and avian and other - less by rape and more by selective female cheating. The number of animals that reproduce by rape versus by courting and selection is low. Ducks. Definitely. Ducks = rapists. Apes, much less so than humans. Simian bride stealing plays out more like the old Scottish romantic ballads.

This may seem like hair splitting, but what about those of us who don't have some kind of "it's natural" fallback. Are we OK too?

OK, I don't watch much television and have never knowingly seen Gordon Ramsay (unless he's the chef who climbs the white cliffs of Dover in that BBC intermission piece). But from what I have read about it it seems to me that the behaviour in Hell's Kitchen is highly abusive. Yes, it's also performance, but that doesn't make it OK.

Click to expand...

I don't watch the show regularly, but my SIL is in The Industry - a high volume mid ticket joint makes Ramsay sound like a kitty cat.

I hope people begin to realize that any commercial kitchen not sanitized by a camera from FN, is often at least that abusive an envionrment, that this is the rule and not the exception. Though there are exceptions. And servers and kitchen alike tend not to be shrinking violets just taking it, seasoned ones thrive on that kill or be killed kind of thing.

Escpecially in the context of that show - these people have surely been briefed or watched the thing, they have careers to go back to and lick wounds and their own lines to abuse if they don't like it.

Homburg said:

This reminds me of Marquis' idea that it not abuse until the pyl leaves the PYL. He caught some heat for that one.

Click to expand...

I like this line of inquiry and I actually like Marquis' catchphrase, too. I'm not proposing it be a legal definition, but I think it works for me in my perversions.

I also like the list posted and I also like the last line of it "abuse destroys the spirit of the victim"

- I think this is really worth paying attention to, and I'm not known for my spirituality. But I do believe that people have an essential fiber, a set of principles at core, that are not to be fucked with and ultimately even *cannot* be fucked with.

Amnesty international deals with people who have had theirs fucked with. I think we do need not to be that.

ownedsubgal said:

care for the submissive makes no difference in defining abuse...people tend to be most abusive toward those they love.

Click to expand...

That's what i was thinking.

YourCaptor said:

I’m trying to figure out how to define the limit, when the PYL just pushed too far and squashed the pyl. Most if not all relationships I think have such a point.

Click to expand...

it seems like the goal in these discussions (and not even by you personally YC, this is just how folks respond to it) is to learn how to avoid "crossing the line" over into abuse, and of course to draw thick black lines in the sand between what it is that we do within this "lifestyle," and yucky dirty abuse, which is not considered to be part of the "lifestyle."

first, i believe that for some abuse does have a place in this lifestyle. i believe one can consent to abuse, that the presence of consent or the fact that someone hangs around afterward does not make a situation any less abusive. it just means you have a highly devoted, or highly conditioned, or highly afraid, or often a mix of all 3...submissive/slave.

secondly, i'd define abuse generally as the intent to cause real psychological, emotional, or physical harm to another. also i think it needs to happen repeatedly over the course of time...a one-time thing which both parties are able to move past, i would not label as abuse.

ownedsubgal said:

it seems like the goal in these discussions (and not even by you personally YC, this is just how folks respond to it) is to learn how to avoid "crossing the line" over into abuse, and of course to draw thick black lines in the sand between what it is that we do within this "lifestyle," and yucky dirty abuse, which is not considered to be part of the "lifestyle."

first, i believe that for some abuse does have a place in this lifestyle. i believe one can consent to abuse, that the presence of consent or the fact that someone hangs around afterward does not make a situation any less abusive. it just means you have a highly devoted, or highly conditioned, or highly afraid, or often a mix of all 3...submissive/slave.

secondly, i'd define abuse generally as the intent to cause real psychological, emotional, or physical harm to another. also i think it needs to happen repeatedly over the course of time...a one-time thing which both parties are able to move past, i would not label as abuse.

Click to expand...

I take a contextual definition. Only allowing you to be used by men who want to eat your pussy and nothing else would be abuse, imo.

You can thus see why I am not a lawyer.

Netzach said:

I like this line of inquiry and I actually like Marquis' catchphrase, too. I'm not proposing it be a legal definition, but I think it works for me in my perversions.

I also like the list posted and I also like the last line of it "abuse destroys the spirit of the victim"

- I think this is really worth paying attention to, and I'm not known for my spirituality. But I do believe that people have an essential fiber, a set of principles at core, that are not to be fucked with and ultimately even *cannot* be fucked with.

Amnesty international deals with people who have had theirs fucked with. I think we do need not to be that.

Click to expand...

We're on the same page here. I recalled Marquis' idea and mentioned it here not because it was contentious, but because I thought it was pretty accurate.

I am also of the opinion that the destruction of essential personhood is not what we need to be about.

Interestingly, I was at a convention, and Midori gave a talk on humiliation play, and she was very serious about identifying core values and principles, and not tearing them to shreds. Yes, you can mess with a person's identity and dick with the things they hold dear, but don't rend them asunder.

ownedsubgal said:

secondly, i'd define abuse generally as the intent to cause real psychological, emotional, or physical harm to another. also i think it needs to happen repeatedly over the course of time...a one-time thing which both parties are able to move past, i would not label as abuse.

Click to expand...

This is also core to my definition. One time thing, and it doesn't happen again? Probably not abuse. Intent to cause actual harm in some way, and repeated over the course of time? Probably abuse.

Netz...your definition of abuse is a very strict and harsh one then..."only what you hate and fear most, all the time, always." lol

i acknowledge abuse when bones are broken or pee and things are colorful, or when that despaired "alone" feeling sucks me in. that whole harm thing. but i certainly don't think it must be a 24/7 constant state, and include something as heinous as pussy eating!

ownedsubgal said:

Netz...your definition of abuse is a very strict and harsh one then..."only what you hate and fear most, all the time, always." lol

i acknowledge abuse when bones are broken or pee and things are colorful, or when that despaired "alone" feeling sucks me in. that whole harm thing. but i certainly don't think it must be a 24/7 constant state, and include something as heinous as pussy eating!

Click to expand...

LOL, funny. No I meant not 24/7 but "any dick not me" kind of thing.

Anyway, it would fuck with that little kernel of you-ness that abuse fucks with, by my prior definition.