A case study in power, control and abuse

[Kajira Callista]

Let the record state, on Thursday, August 10th, 2006, at 9:15pm EST, Marquis said to Kajira Callista:

I FUCKING LOVE YOU!!!

awww shucks

 

[Marquis]

I was a cop for 17 years, and one of the many reasons for burnout many cops (myself included) is exactly the kind of situation we find in State vs Norman. The abused _staying_ with the abuser. When time and time again intervention is offered, pushed, practically thrown at the victim.

And they do NOTHING.

Which is why many states have passed Criminal Domestic Violence laws that take the decision to press charges out of the victim's hands. Many states have _mandatory_ arrest statutes. Without going into legalese if there is visible evidence of fresh violence (ie redness, bruising, scratches, cuts, etc), somebody's behind is going to jail. Period. The officers do NOT have any discretion in the matter.

Damn skippy.

I think the ultimate irony here is that the same law that protects abuse victims means big trouble for BDSMers. At the last munch I went to, we discussed this very law, and that if your neighbor calls the cops on you when your bottom is screaming during a scene, there's a good chance you're going to the slammer.

Lesson?

Gags!

And there have been times where I've arrested both parties because they were both beat to hell and gone, and it was he said, she said about who started it. Screw it, let the judge sort it out, they get the big bucks.

What's kinda funny, if you think about it, is that not once, in 17 years, not ever, did anyone put forth "we were playing rough" or "she likes it like that" in their own defense or the defense of their partner. I heard a LOT of "she deserved it..." or "He didn't _really_ mean to hurt me..." excuses, but consent was not raised the first time.

That is funny.

Oh... back to State vs Norman... The jury should have voted "Not Guilty" simply because the bastard needed killin'. Jury nullification is a wonderful way for people with common sense to tell the criminal justice system to stop wasting tax-payer dollars. Where's the "Yer Honor, he just needed killin'!" defense when you need it?

I don't know, I kind of feel bad for Norman. The sadists always end up looking like the bad guys, but I bet he was hurting inside too.

 

[SpectreT]

These are ones I have something to say on; other points will take some thought

I don't think it'll be quick, and I agree that it will occur in stages.... but "ever" is a real long time.

Some things will never change. I think the general public is one of those things. Little details move here and there, but by and large, I'm conviced this is one thing that isn't going to change as long as there are human beings.

I think it's almost impossible for a sub to know exactly what they're getting into unless the scene has been laid out and rehearsed to the letter. Not exactly exciting, IMHO.

There are just too many variables. I'm reminded of a situation where a sub agreed to be videotaped during a session as long as she was wearing a mask. She later freaked out when she realized the videotape contained audio, and she was easily recognizable by her voice. Is audio implied when you tell someone you'd like to videotape the session? I don't know, but there's no way to spell out EVERY possibility.

<snip>

...situations like that go back to "adequate physical, mental and emotional safeguards". Because you're right, "No battle plan has ever survived contact with the enemy." In your specific example, though, audio should reasonably be assumed to be included in videotaping. Kind of like coffee should be reasonably assumed to be too hot to spill in your lap. Unless someone can argue diminshed capacity, they should be presumed to know what was up in those specific instances.

Also, thanks for the legal information. Oddities of the law, holdovers like the one I mentioned bother me. Now I've got one less screwball to worry about.

 

[Marquis]

Kind of like coffee should be reasonably assumed to be too hot to spill in your lap. Unless someone can argue diminshed capacity, they should be presumed to know what was up in those specific instances.

Interesting example.

I assume you've heard the McDonald's case?

 

[SpectreT]

Interesting example.

I assume you've heard the McDonald's case?

Heard of it? I was exploiting my disgust for it by referencing it. (also, hoping to get a cheap laugh...)

 

[graceanne]

This seems like an easy enough plan to execute, it makes me wonder why she didn't think of this. I suppose his influence over her was so great that he would've been too intimidating to shoot in any other state than asleep.

That's actually the primary logic of the "Battered Woman's Syndrome" defense; that a woman placed in continuous harm shouldn't have to wait until she is at the brunt of the danger before retaliating. Bad word choice ( ), defending herself.

I guess. Probably she was just so stressed out and all that she couldn't think of anything but him being dead. Nonetheless that's what I'd have done. I'd have made sure it was self defense.

 

[catalina_francisco]

So let's say Francisco bites off your nipple as you've indicated elsewhere that you fear he may do. I assume he employs aftercare, and I assume some serious aftercare would be needed after such an incident. What makes you think his loving side is more genuine than his sadistic side?

Sheesh, I wasn't attacking you, I was just answering your question from a POV I am trained and experienced in and one which does not allow the slimey people who like to abuse and pass it off to the world as SM to get away with it through lack of public education and knowledge. As to if he did bite my nipple off....it wouldn't surprise me, it would depend on his mood and moment as to whether there was aftercare and to what level, and I accept it as I take it seriously when I commit to a no limits arrangement like we have. Actually, I am not sure such an act would require much medical attention if any..I once dated a guy who had one nipple because as a child he had bitten the other one off himself (yes, he was strange) and no-one in his family ever knew.

Your example about the picture and mine about the excuses abused women make have no correlation in my world. It is a totally unrelated matter and the excuses of abused women are locked in the psychological workings of the mind, not in a matter of personal choice being misunderstood by others. There has always been this accusation that abused women enjoy it and that's why they stay...I will not stand by and let that misinformation be promoted as consensual D/s or SM or enjoyable and free choice because it is not correct and is abusive in itself, and it also damages the lifestyle we choose of our own free will to live within. Surely you are not one of the ones who would promote this?

Catalina

 

[Marquis]

Sheesh, I wasn't attacking you,

Ummm.... ok. I wasn't attacking you either. I'm not sure I understand the sensitivity here.

Your example about the picture and mine about the excuses abused women make have no correlation in my world. It is a totally unrelated matter and the excuses of abused women are locked in the psychological workings of the mind, not in a matter of personal choice being misunderstood by others.

Many would (and do) say the same about you Catalina, you must see the irony here.

There has always been this accusation that abused women enjoy it and that's why they stay...I will not stand by and let that misinformation be promoted as consensual D/s or SM or enjoyable and free choice because it is not correct and is abusive in itself, and it also damages the lifestyle we choose of our own free will to live within. Surely you are not one of the ones who would promote this?

Catalina, you know I have much love for you, but truthfully, debating with you is an exhausting and frustrating experience.

Where the fuck is Pure?

 

[RJMasters]

You're right, they're very similar. In fact, everything you've said up to this point is very astute. This thread was actually inspired by the reemergence of the pimp thread. The underlying question I'm driving it is much the same, I wasn't ignorant of that fact, or trying to be clandestine about it.



I can't agree with you there. I think there is plenty of gray area and the legal community agrees with me.



I think you don't give old man Norman enough credit. The creative and unique ways he degraded his wife were clearly a form of psychological domination. Fuck, it says that right in the case! From an expert!

As for me taking it in the ass from Bubba, I'd have to say the situations are pretty different. Mrs. Norman had a lot more options than an inmate. Oh, but she was scared right?

Don't the reasonableness of her fears and some personal courage have to come into account? A few examples:

1. I send you an email saying that if you don't rob a bank and wire me all the money, I'm going to kill you and your whole family. Don't tell the cops or the dog gets it too! You rob said bank, and get caught. Do you get off? Not a chance.

2. Back to the prison rape example. Let's say Bubba isn't actually a hulking behemoth, but a fiesty little character, more diminutive than a ballerina, but full of piss and vinegar. I, on the other hand, am a total wuss. He climbs up on a stool and tells me to suck his dick. Instead of socking him one, I'm so scared that I feel I have no choice but to do it. Then I suck his dick RJ. Am I giving consent then?

I don't know, but it certainly doesnt seem like the brute force dominance you tried to portray. Think of how these essentially congruent examples relate to the case at hand.



What the fuck do you think I'm doing?



I hardly think it's a brick wall. In fact, I think it is what propels me forward.

Its your bed so make it how you like it.

There are many things in which one can walk on the edge. Consent IMO is never to be one of them.

What the fuck do I think your doing? I think you are trying to build links and connections which don't exist in order to somehow make sense or justify something deep down inside yourself you have yet to fully embrace in order for you to reach your full potential as a Dom. Instead you choose to remain a playboy dominant in search of a loophole you will never find, where consent is concerned.

Then you go and say you feel sorry for this guy, because the sadist always gets blamed? (nothing like throwing a little gas on the fire to throw a discussion into high gear eh?)

Fucker

Regardless where this conversation goes...the main lesson from the case you presented can be summed up in three simple words.

Bang! Bang! Bang!

 

[catalina_francisco]

Ummm.... ok. I wasn't attacking you either. I'm not sure I understand the sensitivity here.



Many would (and do) say the same about you Catalina, you must see the irony here.



Catalina, you know I have much love for you, but truthfully, debating with you is an exhausting and frustrating experience.

Where the fuck is Pure?

LOL, apologies...only excuse was early morning with grocery shopping ahead of me in the pouring rain..and then the checkout chick had an attitude like anything over 5 items was really too much and more than she felt like putting through. And you know I love you too.

Catalina

 

[JMohegan]

I could've predicted this, and probably should've included something about this in the original post, but what you all are focusing on is the differences between this situation and a healthy D/s relationship. These differences are not exactly subtle. This relationship breaks every letter of the SSC code that all ethical Dominants, including myself, adhere to.

What I find most interesting, however, are the similarities between this relationship and the realities of D/s that many of us live out. Unlike the differences, the similarities are far more subtle, and far more worthy of provocative intellectual discussion.

I alluded to a fundamental similarity in my earlier post. I'll expand upon it here.

Norman: married for 25 years; started drinking and beating his wife after five. That means Mrs. N. put up with this shit for 20 years, presumably in a spiralling escalation of violence and degradation. It seems fair to assume that, had she known what would happen from day one, she would have refused to marry the guy.

As I mentioned yesterday, my partners have all had submissive streaks much longer than their masochistic ones. If they had been told in the beginning of the relationship that I would be doing X to them in 6 months, Y in one year, and Z after three, they would have slammed the door in my face and never let the relationship commence.

Some might say that informed consent was therefore lacking, but I don't see it that way. Upfront, they know my rules (the six above, and a few others) and have a general idea of what it means when I say I'm a sadist. But I can't outline X, Y, and Z, because that's something that even I don't know. Each partner is different, and I honestly have no idea in the beginning how far I'll be able to take her.

The fact remains: I have done many things to my partners that they did not know would transpire upfront and would never have consented to on day one. They experienced physical pain, they cried, and they stuck around anyway.

The creative and unique ways he degraded his wife were clearly a form of psychological domination.

I agree. Using extreme violence, threats, and intimidation, he got his wife to stick around for 20 years of abuse - including the murder of an unborn child.

We certainly differ here. There are plenty Lit stories worse than this, so I know I'm not alone.

I'm sure you're not.

Haven't read the Lit stories, but I know many men (and a few women) with a taste for violence and degradation that far exceeds my own. They don't just fantasize about, but actually practice (consensually) many of the things outlined in your case summary.

Somewhere out there, there is a line. A line that when crossed takes you away from what we call "healthy" or "consensual" D/s and "abuse". I don't think those labels are entirely accurate, but to further the discussion I will accept this polarization as a rebuttable presumption. Even so, the line that seperates these two opposites is neither thick, nor straight, nor static.

The only way I have found to bring order to my personal universe is to create for myself, as SpectreT said, a line that is "unimaginably thick, perfectly straight and absolutely static. Informed, uncoerced preconsent is the lynchpin."

Some of my rules relate to my personal definition of consent and absence of coercion (e.g., safeword, free to leave, & no exaggerated threats). With these rules & a few others in place, my Dominant can make my superego put down the goddamn sword.

Other rules (relating to alcohol, anger, and an audience) exist to help maintain control of my sadist, who is perennially pissed off about the existence of regulations in the first place.

I'm not sure there was a total lack of affection in this relationship, somehow I even doubt it. It wasn't included in the case brief, but that certainly doesn't mean it didn't exist.

I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that Mr. & Mrs. Norman shared an affection for one another that even remotely resembles the tender intimacy I enjoy in relationships.

Nevertheless, I'm willing to concede the point that there are all kinds of affection, and move on to the next question. Which is..... Do you believe Norman was aroused when beating his wife? I understand that you are looking for similarities here, but to me this guy reads more like a person with extreme behavior/personal control issues than a man who is aroused at the sight of a restrained female with an upturned ass. Aside from the fact that he has a dick and hurts his partner, what similarities do you see between yourself and the guy described here?

 

[crazybbwgirl]

"I’m posting this for several reasons:

1. In a very dark way, I find some of the details of this case to be humorous and even a little erotic.
2. I am fascinated with the impulses and personalities that draw people to, or keep them in, relationships with high power differentials. I think there are some undeniable patterns that emerge, and I’d like to discuss those.
3. I think the question of whether Mrs. Norman’s actions were legally and/or morally justifiable is an interesting one."


Being the victim of domestic abuse (although nowhere near what this poor girl went thru? I'll take a stab at this.

1. Yes. Both humorous AND erotic. One of the reasons victims stay. We laughed over abusive episodes afterwards on more than one occasion. None of the episodes ever turned in to a sexual thing - but the power behind them definately spurred our sexual tensions/releases.
2. Our passion was one of the reasons the abuse got out of hand. I will admit there were times when I provoked him just because I was looking for that sort of response. But in the end, it was that same pattern that made me leave.
3. Not gonna touch that one - that dude deserved to die.

I ended it after 5 years when he beat me while I was pregnant with our second child - as our 3 year old looked on. But I have said to myself many times - if it were not for the kids - I'm not sure how long I would have stayed. Thankfully my mother instincts were stronger than my selfish desires. I broke the chain of abuse in that family.

As for you ... I agree there is a very fine line between D/s and abuse for some people. I figured out how I should deal with it. But I do not have any advice on how you should deal with it. ?

 

[Pure]

some thoughts

hi marquis! (you rang?) (just got back from vacation).

it's a fine thread, and it's perhaps too bad the facts are of such an extreme nature.

i don't want to get into the legal side that much, but i remember several cases of abused women killing the spouse, e.g. the woman in the movie 'the burning bed' who set the guy on fire while he slept. it's intriguing whether 'self defense' can be exercized preemptively.

i think the point raised by you was to do with similarities between Norman's behavior and that of the more respected 'doms' and 'masters' and 'sadists.' spectre T and rjm do not agree to this alleged similarity.

i think Hester is correct that the actions, while extreme, could be conceived in a way that might arguably make them moral, if not legal.

as you say, the question of consent is not an easy one, not even the way Spectre wants it, as definite and before the fact. the miewes case fulfills Spectre's conditions, but makes many of us uneasy.

the legal axiom is 'one cannot consent to serious bodily harm.' as you say, this is what make prosecution of fellows like Norman possible: the wife's testimony is irrelevant; the medical facts will suffice.

as you say, all in not well for bdsm folks under this approach, as the Spanner case in England illustrated. it renders all statements, agreements, etc. even if written and notarized, irrelevant where injury/harm has occurred.

marquis //Somewhere out there, there is a line. A line that when crossed takes you away from what we call "healthy" or "consensual" D/s and "abuse". I don't think those labels are entirely accurate, but to further the discussion I will accept this polarization as a rebuttable presumption. Even so, the line that seperates these two opposites is neither thick, nor straight, nor static.//

<snip>

Spectre :I'll address this part first.

For several of us here, the line is unimaginably thick, perfectly straight and absolutely static. Informed, uncoerced preconsent is the lynchpin. The alpha, and the omega. Whatever similarities can be seen in other behaviors, doesn't make them right, explainable, or excusable without informed, uncoerced preconsent.

I may be showing my nerdy background and my age, but it's a light side/dark side of The Force kind of thing. One is good and right, responsible behavior, the other is a twisted, mocking reflection that only deserves notice in order to stamp it out wherever it's found. So yes, I see the similarities, in a dark, twisted, funhouse mirror sort of way.

Pure: i think this exchange is based on a misunderstanding, and a certain 'bias' in Spectre and a few others.
there is misunderstanding since you [M] clearly are aware of the *line* that ethics dictates, and where it falls.

the 'bias' --or perhaps error-- of Spectre is to think that ethics is the only pov that one may take in understanding the phenomenon.

i find it most peculiar to define a sexual taste or proclivity in terms of ethics. yet this is what bdsm authorities do all the time. as in the quote furnished by Catalina, of the gay activist: 'these are the kinds of SM that we take an interest in and defend.'

it's justifiable as a PR tactic and has 'worked' [in generating acceptance] to a degree. but it avoids all kinds of issues.

along the line of Hester: consider a male overcorming female 'resistance' and with some 'force', taking her. and just suppose there is sexual gratification on the part of both. i call this 'forceful intercourse.' i want to look at it as an entity; it's preferred by some men and some women.

i want to be able to look at it apart from the ethics; i.e., as an anthropologist. (the same way we look at forceful 'takings' in the animal kingdom.)

against Spectre T, i'd argue that what *follows* the event is key in its moral and legal dimensions: first alternative, she says "wow." she accepts what happened. second alternative, she says, 'my body betrayed me, i'm embarrassed and angry about being overcome.' we friends solicitously ask 'but did you consent?' 'did you agree to sex at that time in that manner?' she will say 'no.'

[needless to say, this is a pit into which many have fallen. life is like that. you don't know who after the fact is going to say 'i've been fucked over.' indeed the 'prior consent' to which Spectre is attached does not prevent this. the woman simply says, 'well i was under certain illusions, fostered by the man.' IOW, the aftermath is key.]

these alternatives are far more realistic than the contracts and explicit agreements so beloved of the bdsm officialdom.

BY the same token and line of reasoning as in the 'forceful intercourse' case, actions that inflcit pain on or degrade the other are sadistic. the sadistic sexual taste and inclination is to find gratification thereby. i want to be able to describe that, in and of itself.

[ultimately the 'consent' issue may be decided purely 'constructively' as in the Norman case--i.e., it is legal construction irrelevant to anything the woman may have said, e.g., "I'm going back to him."]

MY pov, reiterated as often as yours, is that ethics questions are separate ones. We all pay attention to them to varying degrees. (Of course Spectre, like rj, does this 23 hrs and 59 mins of every day.)

In the context, and assuming we want to get into ethics and legality, Norman's acts are immoral and illegal. (I leave aside whether they justify homicide, though i'm sympathetic to the wife.)

In short, there may be a line:

ST: unimaginably thick, perfectly straight and absolutely static.

*in the realm of morals or the law.* It has to do with consent, implied, imputed, 'constructive', etc. I defer argument about that.

BUT in the realm of biology (sociology, anthropology), i don't think that line has much meaning. iow, marquis, the question of similarities is a valid one, imo. i think the basic categories of biology and social science work this way. Consider examples around 'aggression' and 'withdrawal/retreat'. the possible ethical dimensions of either act are not relevant to scientific description and understanding.

relevant to your posting, i don't think pre occupation with ethics alone helps in self understanding: the impulses are there. they are amoral. if you are prudent you'll handle them in certain ways. if you are 'sociopathic', in others.

 

[Marquis]

Its your bed so make it how you like it.

Actually, my sub makes my bed. How I like it.

There are many things in which one can walk on the edge. Consent IMO is never to be one of them.

The problem is that the edge of consent is not that clear, as I illustrated earlier. I think even the most minor forms of D/s (although not necessarily S&M) at least approach the consent line.

What the fuck do I think your doing? I think you are trying to build links and connections which don't exist in order to somehow make sense or justify something deep down inside yourself you have yet to fully embrace in order for you to reach your full potential as a Dom.

I disagree with the orange text and completely agree with the green.

You accuse me of building links that don't exist (or trying to). Yet, even you admit that the link existed, you said yourself this guy was dominant (albeit a "dominant asshole"). The bigger question is whether this is the only similarity between an abusive relationship and a D/s one. I think most of us on this board are in relationships that have more in common with the Norman's than with the average employer/employee relationship, where one party is also dominant and one is submissive.

Why?

Because in employer/employee relationships or in soldier/commanding officer relationships there is a clearly definable and external reason for the power exchange. Your employer pays you to do his bidding. Military hierarchy is essential to it's survival.

But what makes two equal parties, in a relationship that could easily be (and according to many people should be) egalitarian choose to act out those roles?

It's an area of study that has barely been scratched, and a question that I think everyone involved in a power exchange relationship has a right, if not a moral duty, to wonder about.

I think you're spot on about one thing. The more sense I make of this "thing" deep down inside me, the closer I reach to my full potential as a Dom.

Instead you choose to remain a playboy dominant in search of a loophole you will never find, where consent is concerned.

I take it that you see being a "playboy dominant" is somehow less than being some other kind of dominant. For the record, I've been with my sub for almost two years now, so I'm not just a playboy dominant. Being a playboy dominant and a good dominant aren't mutually exclusive, are they?

As for loopholes, I wonder what loophole you think it is I am trying to find. Here are several "loopholes" or justifications I use for politically incorrect behavior, rated by my comfort level.

Justifications I am entirely comfortable with:
- Causing someone pain is ok if they interpret that pain as physical pleasure
- Using all your faculties of persuasion to get your desires fulfilled is ok as long as you are totally honest
- A disproportionate amount of service in a relationship is acceptable if the differential in effort and pleasure is compensated for in other areas of the relationship

Justifications I am mostly comfortable with:
- Causing someone pain is ok if they are willing to endure that pain for the mental satisfaction of pleasing you
- Using all your faculties of persuasion to get your desires fulfilled is ok as long as you respect the appropriate level of forthrightness that the other party can reasonably expect from you
- A disproportionate amount of service in a relationship is acceptable if both parties are comfortable with it

Justifications I am somewhat comfortable with:
- Causing someone pain is ok if they feel like they need or deserve it, psychologically
- Using all your faculties of persuasion is ok as long as you don't exploit a pathological weakness in the other party (retardation, childhood/adolescence, psychological issues, etc.) where they could not possibly be expected to have adequate defense mechanisms in place
- A disproportionate amount of service in a relationship is acceptable if the parties will tolerate it

Justifications I am not comfortable with (but curious about):
- Causing someone pain is ok if they will tolerate it
- Using all your faculties of persuasion is alright under all circumstances. Might makes right.
- A disproportiante amount of service in a relationship is acceptable under any circumstances

In case there were any questions, this should give you a pretty good idea of the code I follow in both my intimate and extracurricular relationships.

Then you go and say you feel sorry for this guy, because the sadist always gets blamed? (nothing like throwing a little gas on the fire to throw a discussion into high gear eh?)

Not trying to inflame, just stating my opinion. In my mind, these are two equally fucked up people. What occurred over those 25 years was a result of both of their actions, or inactions, as it were. It's easy to demonize the man and canonize the woman (more on this later), but as they say, it takes two to tango. If I had a son who was abusive and a daughter who was allowing herself to be abused, I would think I'd be equally disappointed with them both.

Fucker

Regardless where this conversation goes...the main lesson from the case you presented can be summed up in three simple words.

Bang! Bang! Bang!

Not sure if that's the main lesson, but it is a lesson to be sure. For me, that lesson is "keep playing with fire, and eventually you get burned."


I want to add one more thing.

I've noticed you have a reoccurring theme as well. Most of us on this forum do. You like to explore the link between physique/fitness and dominance, and I've seen you ask about this in many threads. I think it's an interesting topic, and worthy of exploration. However, it would be easy to make a value judgment on this study, you said yourself that the ability to overpower your partner does not give you the right to dominate them in that matter.

The truth is, there is an entire spectrum in which one could read why it is good to have a strong physique, it might look something like this:

You can do more for your partner, and they will find you more attractive <------------- a more powerful physique exudes the kind of confidence and ability that makes domination easier ---------------> a stronger physique will allow you to overpower your partner when they try to resist you.

Yet no one assumes you want to be a bully when you say that having a more powerful physique will make you a more powerful Dom. At least it isn't the singular topic of discussion, preventing any further exploration of the topic. The topic I've brought up is certainly more sensitive, but I think attitudes employed in approaching these two issues should be relatively similar.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

One day, Mrs. Norman shot her husband in the back of the head three times while he was sleeping.

and wasted two perfectly good rounds.

 

[Marquis]

I alluded to a fundamental similarity in my earlier post. I'll expand upon it here.

Norman: married for 25 years; started drinking and beating his wife after five. That means Mrs. N. put up with this shit for 20 years, presumably in a spiralling escalation of violence and degradation. It seems fair to assume that, had she known what would happen from day one, she would have refused to marry the guy.

As I mentioned yesterday, my partners have all had submissive streaks much longer than their masochistic ones. If they had been told in the beginning of the relationship that I would be doing X to them in 6 months, Y in one year, and Z after three, they would have slammed the door in my face and never let the relationship commence.

Some might say that informed consent was therefore lacking, but I don't see it that way. Upfront, they know my rules (the six above, and a few others) and have a general idea of what it means when I say I'm a sadist. But I can't outline X, Y, and Z, because that's something that even I don't know. Each partner is different, and I honestly have no idea in the beginning how far I'll be able to take her.

The fact remains: I have done many things to my partners that they did not know would transpire upfront and would never have consented to on day one. They experienced physical pain, they cried, and they stuck around anyway.

I agree completely. It is a mutual progression as the standards of normality that the couple believes in changes together.

The only way I have found to bring order to my personal universe is to create for myself, as SpectreT said, a line that is "unimaginably thick, perfectly straight and absolutely static. Informed, uncoerced preconsent is the lynchpin."

Some of my rules relate to my personal definition of consent and absence of coercion (e.g., safeword, free to leave, & no exaggerated threats). With these rules & a few others in place, my Dominant can make my superego put down the goddamn sword.

Other rules (relating to alcohol, anger, and an audience) exist to help maintain control of my sadist, who is perennially pissed off about the existence of regulations in the first place.

There are things which are far beyond the line that seperates good from evil, but that doesn't make the line thick. There are still some things which are going to be close to the line, no matter how you cut it. I think the fact that you created these rules to placate your superego is proof positive of that fact.

I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that Mr. & Mrs. Norman shared an affection for one another that even remotely resembles the tender intimacy I enjoy in relationships.

I don't know you, but I certainly hope you're right about that. I'm sure Mrs. Norman probably felt appreciated when Mr. Norman didn't beat her for a day.

Nevertheless, I'm willing to concede the point that there are all kinds of affection, and move on to the next question. Which is..... Do you believe Norman was aroused when beating his wife? I understand that you are looking for similarities here, but to me this guy reads more like a person with extreme behavior/personal control issues than a man who is aroused at the sight of a restrained female with an upturned ass. Aside from the fact that he has a dick and hurts his partner, what similarities do you see between yourself and the guy described here?

I think that our sexual identities are intrinsic to who we are as people. I know nothing of their sexual habits, but I do think that the relationship they were in fed a deep seated need for both of them, much like a person's need for sex and/or love. Sometimes sex and love can be the most beautiful thing in the world, and sometimes it can be destructive, addictive and defy any conceivable logic; just like D/s.

 

[Marquis]

"I’m posting this for several reasons:

1. In a very dark way, I find some of the details of this case to be humorous and even a little erotic.
2. I am fascinated with the impulses and personalities that draw people to, or keep them in, relationships with high power differentials. I think there are some undeniable patterns that emerge, and I’d like to discuss those.
3. I think the question of whether Mrs. Norman’s actions were legally and/or morally justifiable is an interesting one."


Being the victim of domestic abuse (although nowhere near what this poor girl went thru? I'll take a stab at this.

1. Yes. Both humorous AND erotic. One of the reasons victims stay. We laughed over abusive episodes afterwards on more than one occasion. None of the episodes ever turned in to a sexual thing - but the power behind them definately spurred our sexual tensions/releases.
2. Our passion was one of the reasons the abuse got out of hand. I will admit there were times when I provoked him just because I was looking for that sort of response. But in the end, it was that same pattern that made me leave.
3. Not gonna touch that one - that dude deserved to die.

I ended it after 5 years when he beat me while I was pregnant with our second child - as our 3 year old looked on. But I have said to myself many times - if it were not for the kids - I'm not sure how long I would have stayed. Thankfully my mother instincts were stronger than my selfish desires. I broke the chain of abuse in that family.

As for you ... I agree there is a very fine line between D/s and abuse for some people. I figured out how I should deal with it. But I do not have any advice on how you should deal with it. ?

Deal with what?

I'm not abusive!

Other than that I want to thank you for making such an honest and introspective post.

 

[catalina_francisco]

IMHO, abusers are not dominant in any stretch of the imagination, asshole or otherwise. Research and those who have experience with abusers come out with an abuser actually being fuelled by insecurity and self doubt. I cannot confuse that with a dominant personality as for me they are worlds apart. While an abuser seeks to control through force in an affort to improve their self esteem, a Dominant or dominant personality does not need to use force to achieve control and already has a healthy self esteem. The actions may be the same or similar, just as in someone shooting another in cold blood and with malicious intent and someone shooting another in a situation where it is a matter of self defence and something the person would never do under normal circumstances, but they are unrelated in foundation and the reason for doing.

Catalina

 

[Marquis]

hi marquis! (you rang?) (just got back from vacation).

Great to see you Pure. I hope you enjoyed your vacation.

it's a fine thread, and it's perhaps too bad the facts are of such an extreme nature.

Yes, the facts certainly pull heart strings, but I had hoped we could appreciate the severity of this situation without losing our heads.

i don't want to get into the legal side that much, but i remember several cases of abused women killing the spouse, e.g. the woman in the movie 'the burning bed' who set the guy on fire while he slept. it's intriguing whether 'self defense' can be exercized preemptively.

I too think it's an intriguing question, and one which I was happy to debate. As I said initially, there are three seperate reasons why I found this case interesting, but only the second reason had any relevance to a sophisticated conversation on BDSM.

i think the point raised by you was to do with similarities between Norman's behavior and that of the more respected 'doms' and 'masters' and 'sadists.' spectre T and rjm do not agree to this alleged similarity.

i think Hester is correct that the actions, while extreme, could be conceived in a way that might arguably make them moral, if not legal.

as you say, the question of consent is not an easy one, not even the way Spectre wants it, as definite and before the fact. the miewes case fulfills Spectre's conditions, but makes many of us uneasy.

Excellent example. To me, the Miewes case violates the principles of ethical behavior because although safe and consensual, (in so much as the risks were understood and executed as planned) this kind of behavior falls beyond the limits of sanity, in my unprofessional determination.

Because I believe in the necessity of ALL the letters in the SSC code to be observed, not just the C, I think significant changes would have to be made to this situation to keep it from being morally reprehensible.

the legal axiom is 'one cannot consent to serious bodily harm.' as you say, this is what make prosecution of fellows like Norman possible: the wife's testimony is irrelevant; the medical facts will suffice.

as you say, all in not well for bdsm folks under this approach, as the Spanner case in England illustrated. it renders all statements, agreements, etc. even if written and notarized, irrelevant where injury/harm has occurred.

I can't decide if the benefits outweigh the costs here, but I do appreciate being able to be on this side of the debate for once.

Pure: i think this exchange is based on a misunderstanding, and a certain 'bias' in Spectre and a few others.
there is misunderstanding since you [M] clearly are aware of the *line* that ethics dictates, and where it falls.

the 'bias' --or perhaps error-- of Spectre is to think that ethics is the only pov that one may take in understanding the phenomenon.

i find it most peculiar to define a sexual taste or proclivity in terms of ethics. yet this is what bdsm authorities do all the time. as in the quote furnished by Catalina, of the gay activist: 'these are the kinds of SM that we take an interest in and defend.'

it's justifiable as a PR tactic and has 'worked' [in generating acceptance] to a degree. but it avoids all kinds of issues.

along the line of Hester: consider a male overcorming female 'resistance' and with some 'force', taking her. and just suppose there is sexual gratification on the part of both. i call this 'forceful intercourse.' i want to look at it as an entity; it's preferred by some men and some women.

i want to be able to look at it apart from the ethics; i.e., as an anthropologist. (the same way we look at forceful 'takings' in the animal kingdom.)

This is a perfectly articulated argument for what I've been trying to get across.

against Spectre T, i'd argue that what *follows* the event is key in its moral and legal dimensions: first alternative, she says "wow." she accepts what happened. second alternative, she says, 'my body betrayed me, i'm embarrassed and angry about being overcome.' we friends solicitously ask 'but did you consent?' 'did you agree to sex at that time in that manner?' she will say 'no.'

[needless to say, this is a pit into which many have fallen. life is like that. you don't know who after the fact is going to say 'i've been fucked over.' indeed the 'prior consent' to which Spectre is attached does not prevent this. the woman simply says, 'well i was under certain illusions, fostered by the man.' IOW, the aftermath is key.]

these alternatives are far more realistic than the contracts and explicit agreements so beloved of the bdsm officialdom.

This makes me think of the different types of Rape by Fraud. You can actually tell almost any manner of lie in order to get a woman to consent to sex with you with legal impunity. You cannot however deceive her as to the nature of the act.

For example (real examples) a doctor tells a patient the only way to cure her disease is for her to have sex with him. He charges her $3000 for the "procedure" and fucks her on his operating table. No criminal prosecution.

A obgyn says "spread your legs, I'm going to put in a special speculum" and slides in his pecker. This is prosecutable rape.

BY the same token and line of reasoning as in the 'forceful intercourse' case, actions that inflcit pain on or degrade the other are sadistic. the sadistic sexual taste and inclination is to find gratification thereby. i want to be able to describe that, in and of itself.

[ultimately the 'consent' issue may be decided purely 'constructively' as in the Norman case--i.e., it is legal construction irrelevant to anything the woman may have said, e.g., "I'm going back to him."]

MY pov, reiterated as often as yours, is that ethics questions are separate ones. We all pay attention to them to varying degrees. (Of course Spectre, like rj, does this 23 hrs and 59 mins of every day.)

This line really cracked me up. It was funny, but I think the humor was particularly pronounced against the backdrop of the kind of formal prose that those of us with unpopular views are often forced to take.

In the context, and assuming we want to get into ethics and legality, Norman's acts are immoral and illegal. (I leave aside whether they justify homicide, though i'm sympathetic to the wife.)

Yes, so am I. I'm somewhat sympathetic to both of them, but she certainly got the short end of that stick.

In short, there may be a line:

ST: unimaginably thick, perfectly straight and absolutely static.

*in the realm of morals or the law.* It has to do with consent, implied, imputed, 'constructive', etc. I defer argument about that.

BUT in the realm of biology (sociology, anthropology), i don't think that line has much meaning. iow, marquis, the question of similarities is a valid one, imo. i think the basic categories of biology and social science work this way. Consider examples around 'aggression' and 'withdrawal/retreat'. the possible ethical dimensions of either act are not relevant to scientific description and understanding.

relevant to your posting, i don't think pre occupation with ethics alone helps in self understanding: the impulses are there. they are amoral. if you are prudent you'll handle them in certain ways. if you are 'sociopathic', in others.

All this discussion, just to prove that the discussion is worth having.

I will be presenting a rough draft theory I have on some of the similarities after I get some sleep, but at this point I'm very skeptical about receiving any open-minded responses.

Pure, I'm going to say this in the most genuine way a smarmy bastard like myself can possible muster. It means the world to me that there is even one person on this forum I can relate to on matters like this.

RJ mentions the stagnation of my ideas, and I have to partially agree with him on that. However, I don't think it comes from my own excessive confusion, but rather my inability to discuss my thoughts with logical peers. I can handle being disagreed with, but it has become unexpected and exhilirating to have someone engage my argument in any meaningful way.

 

[Marquis]

IMHO, abusers are not dominant in any stretch of the imagination, asshole or otherwise.

I think we're going to have to end up agreeing to disagree here.

Research and those who have experience with abusers come out with an abuser actually being fuelled by insecurity and self doubt. I cannot confuse that with a dominant personality as for me they are worlds apart.

You seem to be describing an ideal dominant, maybe a capital "D" Dominant. I think there are plenty of dominant personalities who are fuelled at least partially by insecurity, myself included.

While an abuser seeks to control through force in an affort to improve their self esteem, a Dominant or dominant personality does not need to use force to achieve control and already has a healthy self esteem.

Again, you are clearly placing value judgments on what a dominant is, instead of taking the term at its simplest meaning.

The actions may be the same or similar, just as in someone shooting another in cold blood and with malicious intent and someone shooting another in a situation where it is a matter of self defence and something the person would never do under normal circumstances, but they are unrelated in foundation and the reason for doing.

They can be, but sometimes they are more related than others. This case is a fine example of that.

However, let's say I wanted to conduct a study on those who had killed another. Would it matter whether that killing was a murder or a necessity? Yes, it would, but not to the point that one could not possibly find similarities. Either type of killing is likely to elicit a loss of innocence, and perhaps a guilt complex.

Also, I'd be willing to bet that someone prepared to kill in self defense is more likely to kill in other situations as well. There are certainly people incapable of killing another, even in self defense, they simply lack the gumption. Again, like all things in life, it is a spectrum. This one might look something like this:

Kill to save yourself from imminent danger of death<------------------- kill to save yourself from possible danger of bodliy harm---------------- kill to save lots of money----------------> kill for pleasure.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I've been quietly following this thread and have found it very interesting. Let me throw this anecdote in for fun.

While working as a hospital nurse I treated 2 guys and a woman who were brought in by police. The woman had been outside a bar, receiving a telling off and a beating from her bf for supposedly "flirting like a bitch in heat." She had a graze on her face but the bruising was mostly from her chest to her thighs (a sign that this man is accustomed to hiding his handiwork). Another man came out of the bar on his way home and saw the situation. He intervened and confronted the bf, putting himself between the bf and gf.

He was told by the bf to fuck off and mind his own business and he turned and asked the gf if she wanted to go with the bf or not. She acted scared and indecisive. Words were exchanged between the heroic bystander and bf and bf threw a punch. Bystander hit back and a fight ensued.

Interestingly, the woman started screaming "Don't you fucking hurt him!" and laid into heroic bystander along with her bf. She kicked and scratched and got genuinely vicious. By this time police had been called from inside the bar and they were all brought in.

So what motivates a woman to leap to the aid of a sadistic, abusive bf and attack a guy who only came into contact with either of them in the interest of protecting her?

Purely fear of the bf? Or maybe her values have actually been manipulated by him to this degree?

By all accounts they looked like honeymooners when they actually went home.

Is she really just responding to his romantic mood through fear? She was offered all the help under the sun out of his earshot and defended his character at every turn.

Stockholm syndrome?

I do feel that the D/s bond as it deepens develops as the sub submits further and the Dom/me gains more power and control over the sub. Even within the bounds of consent there are similarities from a psychological perspective.

 

[catalina_francisco]

So what motivates a woman to leap to the aid of a sadistic, abusive bf and attack a guy who only came into contact with either of them in the interest of protecting her?

Purely fear of the bf? Or maybe her values have actually been manipulated by him to this degree?

By all accounts they looked like honeymooners when they actually went home.

Is she really just responding to his romantic mood through fear? She was offered all the help under the sun out of his earshot and defended his character at every turn.

Stockholm syndrome?

There are correlations with the Stockholm Syndrome, but more simply it is usually because they have no-one else and have been worn down psychologically so far they believe that they will never have anyone if they leave him. The person jumping to the defence is unknown as far as a personal relationship applies, and more risk to side with for at least 2 reasons: 1 is the abused woman has come to see the abuser as super strong, indefeatable, so to side with the (in her mind) inevitable loser is virtual suicide; and 2 even if she believed the stranger could be successful in rescuing her, she believes s/he would not only not want her once they learned the truth, but would be disgusted and look down on her, and she would be alone and with no means of coping. Of course, there is also the not unheard of theme whereby the rescuer is actually another abuser in disguise who sees and opportunity and will also abuse the victim in the long term.

I do feel that the D/s bond as it deepens develops as the sub submits further and the Dom/me gains more power and control over the sub. Even within the bounds of consent there are similarities from a psychological perspective.

I still do not agree with the thought a submissive is possibly like an abuse victim in that they accept what is dealt out. For one an abuse victim accepts usually out of fear and/or feelings of inadequacy, a submissive accepts from a point of trust which has developed and grown...if that trust is broken, it usually ends. I for one committed to F before he ever laid a hand on me, and with full knowledge of what I was asking for and committing to, I didn't fall into it and wake up one day and realise he had been hitting me, whipping me etc and I accepted it out of fear of doing otherwise. Just on this board alone you will see many other submissives looking for the same type relationship, not because they are with someone who is abusing them, but because they seek a consensual relationship with the elements they require.

Does that mean they are an ideal cadidate for an abusive relationship? Possibly, but that is more about the people involved than a desire to be abused. I have dated abusive men, and believe me, I didn't stick around feeling this was wonderful and leading to happy ever after because I have no desire to be abused and I actually pity anyone who tries to abuse me. And yes, as Marquis says, people are going to say that I am abused as I have been branded, do get whipped and caned fairly regularly etc., but the reason it is not abuse is I have given consent to these things, and in fact asked they be part of the relationship before it ever began...someone who is abused does not have consent or the choice about what happens. Having specialised in working with abuse survivors/victims and also abusers, I have gained a lot more insight into what happens and why, and the difference between abuse and D/s. I guess I have a big problem with trying to pass one off as the other because i am passionate about both areas, have a lot of experience in both areas, and it is ot a value judgement to say they are not one in the same unless someone is deluding themselves for their own purposes.

Catalina

 

[RJMasters]

Damn fine answer I will see what I can make of it.

Actually, my sub makes my bed. How I like it.

Point taken and conceeded.

The problem is that the edge of consent is not that clear

Here is where I disagree and consequently is the fulcrum of disagreement. I think it is the responsibility of those involved to make that edge clear. This is why there are discussions of limits and why safewords exist. Surely I understand a simple discussion or even a fancy BDSM list is not gonna cover all aspects of life as it is being lived, but limits are discussed to make clear and to communicate those things which consent are not given to. Anyone with a bit of intelligence should be able to deduce and even fill in many of the blanks because they know the other person's limits.

Here is also where a decision is made in how one will approach their view and attitude towards consent. When consent is not clear...is that a reality that is formed/stems from a person who wishes it to be grey so as to allow wiggle room in responsibility?

I believe that consent can be very clear if one chooses it to be so and will take the necessary steps to ensure as best they can that this line is clear. IMO this is what dictates wheather a person is safe or not safe. I also attach this to a person's level of maturity in their thinking as to whether they are responsible(hence the playboy comment). When you make the claim that, "anyone who knows me, knows I am not an abuser", yet then turns around and clearly states they do not believe consent is a clear matter, I question the wisdom in cutting that any slack.

You have made claims that similarities exists in what happened in this case here and with D/s relationships and have asked to discuss this. What you got in response was basically some saying your wrong there are no similarities that exist. And I think Cat's comment about the difference between cold blooded murder and self defense is probably one of the most outstanding comments to convey why they are completely different.

It is common knowledge that many women here have expressed a desire for unconsenting fantasies such as rape. I bring that up to point out two things. 1) These are fantasies and if many of the same women were asked if they would honestly want to be raped in RL, they would say no. 2) It is not unreasonable to find some erotic responses to some elements in this story because it taps into those same fantasy-based desires. I think it also taps into the some dominant's fantasy-based desire equally. For the submissives, it is enough for them to say I hope this doesn't really happen to me in RL, but for the Dominant, self-control must be exercise in order to not act on unconsenting fantasies.

This particular issue of consent is not a side issue, it is a fundamental one. What one believes and how one approaches consent will have resonating ripples throughout all other aspects. It will affect areas of respect and trust in either a good way or in a negative way. It will shape your views of other fundamental topics such as how you view domiance or submission, and that too will further impact things. If you see consent as a grey area, then chances are that greyness carrys over into many other areas as well. If you see consent as clear because you choose to ensure it is clear, then that clarity is also carried over into the other areas as well.

Greyness causes confusion and doubt, clarity aides confidence. This is true for the submissive and the dominant alike.


Nothing I have said here infers playing it safe or playing light. One can go as dark as they like as long as the one who goes with them willingly goes. Its up to the people involved where they want to set limits, which is another way of saying consent.

So what I purpose for your consideration is you realize that you have a lot of control in establishing the greyness or clearness of the line of consent. You are either a person who will seek to make that line clear as possible, or you are the type of person who won't. It may be wrong of me to say, but IMO those who keep things grey by not making it their goal in making it clear, learn how to use this greyness to manipulate and avoid responsibilty. It is also my opinion that this path does not lead to becoming a more mature Dom or person for that matter.

 

[crazybbwgirl]

Deal with what?
I'm not abusive!
Other than that I want to thank you for making such an honest and introspective post.

I wasn't calling you abusive. But you seem to question where that line should lie for you. It took me 25 years to figure that out how to deal with my need for pain and my fear of attracting another abusive man. It may take you as long? At least you have the internet now and a place to come and ask questions.

While I don't think a submissive is an abuse victim. But I can certainly understand how a sub can fall in to that situation. It happens so quickly. Like I said before, at least there's an easily accessable place to go find information nowadays.

 

[SpectreT]

Without ethics, without self-constraint, you're nothing but a mad dog that needs to be put down. Plain and simple, no room for ambiguity, no room for confusion. The ethics are the be-all, end-all, and any statement to the contrary is absolutely flawed - perhaps to make excuses?

How things shake down is important, sure, but how things get started is every bit as important. Start from the wrong place, be it blackmail, physical force, placing a loved on in danger, any form of coercion, it simply doesn't matter how it ends up. It's absolutely wrong.

It can create some surface similarities - the acts performed, the power imbalance - but that's where it ends. Biology, anthropology, law - none of that means crap, as far as I'm concerned, in this discussion. The fact of the matter is we all have a responsibility to not harm others. This includes not giving in to impulses and urges. And if there's some difficulty understanding that there is an absolute, immovable, straight line, you shouldn't play in the field. Just like I would suggest someone with a really bad Tourettes tic stay the hell away from the edge of the roof. You don't want that twitch to take you over the edge.

And please note this is all discussing the start and origins of a relationship; I don't for a minute assume that things don't evolve or change over time. As I believe Marquis mentioned, "If I'd told her x, y and z was going to happen right at the start, she'd have slammed the door in my face." Yes things change. I get that. I'm talking about the start.

And Pure? The average time of rotation of the planet is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.09 seconds. You gave me and RJM some extra time. Thanks.

Aside to AA: Agreed, though lead is cheap.

And finally: Damn. RJM beat me to it, and said it more clearly and less confrontationally than I did. Maybe I need some coffee.