Abuse: is there such a thing in the 'lifestyle'?

[MasterPhoenix]

I'm not sure it is as simple as people not thinking you know things will change, but more so that sometimes it seems you have an idea of what you will and will not accept and expect and nothing outside that vision is going to fly with you though you say you expect to be 'no limits'. It is normal at this point, but what some of us are saying is he might find there are things he does develop a taste for, or which he buried deep because he felt it was wrong or shameful but over time might feel able to be open with you about if you make it possible for him to feel it is OK to do that....and there are things you just find absolutely on the 'never' list which might also change....these changes cannot take place if rigidity to ideas and ideals remain in place, and that can be when friction starts, or one lives the way they know the other expects, not the way which makes for happiness.

You acknowledge change is normal, but only within the guidlelines of what you will accept, not open to the consideration of anything he might find he wants/needs/desires which are not on that list. At least that is what I am reading at times. Don't be afraid to be open to evolving freely when you know he has both your best interests at heart. Perhaps also for my part, I feel your history of abuse is influencing a lot of how you see this and are approaching it...and once again it is normal but may need to be discussed with him more and often to make sure you do not limit and guide his (and your own) journey due to events in your past.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/376615023_c81f9c8c7c_t.jpg Catalina

I know a hell of a lot about the events in her past, including things that very few others know. And I know these landmines, and work around them.I also have begun to, and will work with her at defusing them.

I don't know that she came across too clearly above, but I don't feel limited by her statement that she will not be abused, as I have no desire to abuse her.

As to her limits, the ultimate limits are ones that I am in complete agreement to. Intentional Permanent Injury up to and including death, Scat (I am as disgusted by the idea as she), Involving minors, and I vowed to her in our collaring ceremony that I would always love, guide, and nurture her. Other than the above, at some point in time everything else is pretty much in play.

 

[Etoile]

...you are not being abused ... says she's being abused and i just don't understand how you consent to abuse ... abuse is usually not about 'consenting' or loving,valuing, respecting, or cherishing the partner, it's about something much more dark inside the abuser ... if she feels loved, cherished, valued, and respected, then how she is being abused? maybe that's my issue with the whole thing......she used the word abused and in my eyes, if she truly is happy in the way he treats her and it makes her feel valued, loved, etc..then it's not abuse

!!!!

I keep trying to say that!!

 

[Netzach]

I don't think anyone is questioning the soup & sandwiches etc....

I don't think that anyone is questioning the scat play....

rose was concerned from where you said that you were ***abused*** And she was NOT attacking, but concerned for your well being.

I think when someone's posted as often about how her well-being is being seen to, albeit a bit outside the mainstream in the way that's being done, as osg has, that the repeated concern starts to sound a little patronizing. I've got some misgivings, it's not what I'd do BUT I do believe that she has made a choice of kinds and that she does, sadly, know the difference between being used with no regard and no thought being used by someone who will move out into extremes but does love her all said and done.

I also find it patronizing that everyone's hammering home that things change, maybe a TPE in this sense isn't in your cards and I say this in the sense of "so what?"

I can't explain why for some people the only acceptable reality is "do with me as you will, whatever that might be" knowing well enough that the person they are dealing with is maybe a bit dark in their needs but not full blown psychotic. I can't explain why for some people "no kids" needs to be stated and for others it's just a GIVEN that you're not the kind of person who would go there, implicit in my wilingness to do as you say is the knowledge that you're not screwing cub scouts.

But the need to live under a belief system where your Dominant is capable of anything, full stop, is a valid need.

 

[Etoile]

now the difference between "rape" as it's defined, and "abuse," is that lack of consent is specifically mentioned as a requirement for rape, whereas there is no such requirement for abuse. my Master cannot rape me because i have given him consent to do whatever he wills with me, for the rest of my life. however he can abuse me, despite my consent, because he can still (intentionally) cause me harm, injury, damage, of a physical, emotional, or psychological nature.

Again...that is where I think the word misuse is valuable. I think what you are describing is misuse, not abuse. I thought I said this before but nobody seems to have felt my point was worth noting...but in my head it makes such perfect sense!

 

[Netzach]

Again...that is where I think the word misuse is valuable. I think what you are describing is misuse, not abuse. I thought I said this before but nobody seems to have felt my point was worth noting...but in my head it makes such perfect sense!

I do think that intentionally using your human property in a way that WILL send it for medical treatment on a regular basis is pushing the boundaries of proper use.

(most slaveholding cultures have always had some legalities and rules around owning slaves, the antebellum south was one of the few that really didn't have any standards except the logic of money - people are expensive, kill them only when you MUST. Of course in Rome and in the ancient mid-east a lot of people never complied with these standards and they were never enforced, but they did express some cultural values of wanting to *seem* humane)

I think that using your human property in a way that *MAY* result in it having to have outside medical treatment in isolated incidents is, well, it's just what any of us are doing if we're not using bunny fur.

 

[Etoile]

I do think that intentionally using your human property in a way that WILL send it for medical treatment on a regular basis is pushing the boundaries of proper use. I think that using your human property in a way that *MAY* result in it having to have outside medical treatment in isolated incidents is, well, it's just what any of us are doing if we're not using bunny fur.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Abuse has nothing to do with needing medical treatment on a regular basis. Abuse has to do with doing things without permission. It's misuse that is what sends someone to the hospital repeatedly - misuse meaning that the property is treated improperly, that its well-being is not being looked after. And I agree with you, isolated incidents are pretty much par for the course with people like us.

Let's take the example of emotional abuse. We keep talking about medical treatment, but emotional abuse doesn't lead to medical treatment, just psychiatric at a later time. So emotional abuse is a systematic damaging of someone's emotional well-being that they have not consented to. If they have consented to it, then it's a mindfuck. A mindfuck may be misuse, but it's not abuse.

JMHO. http://www.amanita.net/images/smilies/2cents.gif

 

[lil_slave_rose]

Again...that is where I think the word misuse is valuable. I think what you are describing is misuse, not abuse. I thought I said this before but nobody seems to have felt my point was worth noting...but in my head it makes such perfect sense!

Etoile, sorry for not posting earlier, that i agree with you. i fouind myself nodding along with you when you first posted it, but i've been so caught up in it all that i haven't posted to every single post, sorry i just nodded along *smiles* forgive me?? please???

 

[Etoile]

Etoile, sorry for not posting earlier, that i agree with you. i fouind myself nodding along with you when you first posted it, but i've been so caught up in it all that i haven't posted to every single post, sorry i just nodded along *smiles* forgive me?? please???

It's okay - I just felt like I had said it several times and nobody had seemed to agree before, so I was surprised when you were actually saying the same thing I was!

As for the misuse part...well, I guess it got overlooked by pretty much everybody really.

 

[ownedsubgal]

It's okay - I just felt like I had said it several times and nobody had seemed to agree before, so I was surprised when you were actually saying the same thing I was!

As for the misuse part...well, I guess it got overlooked by pretty much everybody really.

Etoile, i understood what you meant. however, misuse is technically another definition of abuse. also what i described earlier (and you quoted) i actually paraphrased from an old webster's definition of abuse. that's really i think where the major differences in our perspectives on abuse lie....Daddy and i define abuse literally, or textbook if you will, and most here seem to be defining abuse by its connotations...like lack of consent, or lack of love or respect, etc.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think the whole discussion is more about semantics than anything, and trying to understand another's reality which differs from one's own. Much discussion has taken place, much of it informative, but some will never be possible to convey without the lived experience to match it and relate to what is really being said. I actually think after this I will leave it as it is just going around in circles and lots of misunderstandings because peoples heads are not in the same place.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

I know a hell of a lot about the events in her past, including things that very few others know. And I know these landmines, and work around them.I also have begun to, and will work with her at defusing them.

I don't know that she came across too clearly above, but I don't feel limited by her statement that she will not be abused, as I have no desire to abuse her.

As to her limits, the ultimate limits are ones that I am in complete agreement to. Intentional Permanent Injury up to and including death, Scat (I am as disgusted by the idea as she), Involving minors, and I vowed to her in our collaring ceremony that I would always love, guide, and nurture her. Other than the above, at some point in time everything else is pretty much in play.

Once again, words have gotten in the way of looking at the bigger picture of what I was talking about, and thus limited understanding of what was said by what is in your mind. I have said before I do not feel I am adequately conveying what I am thinking, though a few people have actually understood it, so I will leave it at this and wish you both well as I always have.

Catalina

 

[ownedsubgal]

I think the whole discussion is more about semantics than anything, and trying to understand another's reality which differs from one's own. Much discussion has taken place, much of it informative, but some will never be possible to convey without the lived experience to match it and relate to what is really being said. I actually think after this I will leave it as it is just going around in circles and lots of misunderstandings because peoples heads are not in the same place.

Catalina

pretty much.

 

[Marquis]

But the need to live under a belief system where your Dominant is capable of anything, full stop, is a valid need.

I suppose this is a good way of looking at it.

I'll have to ponder this statement some more before I can endorse it though.

 

[JMohegan]

I think thats true of everyone. When we don't get our needs met, and some of our wants, we aren't at our best. Although, some people will never have the quailites you list, content or not.

I suppose you're right.

The reason I described this as a paradox in my case, though, is that what I want sometimes seems to be so unreasonable (on the surface, at least).

For example.... I'm the guy whose behavior you were referring to when you wrote this post.

 

[JMohegan]

Just wanted to comment on the bolded part of your post. I was in a marriage for 23 years which involved no physical violence, but was abusive in the way he treated me emotionally with putdowns and criticism. This affected my self esteem and self confidence very badly and I also still have "triggers" like angry voices and occasional nightmares, and problems in communicating my feelings even to Master who I know would never treat me badly.

We have been together for 3 years now and still having to work on these things daily. Our D/s has evolved from bedroom only to service outside it as His full time carer. I have hard limits on things like giving Him financial control over me (which He does not want anyway, but will never happen in any subsequent relationship I ever find myself in).

Emotional damage can be just as bad as physical.....except no one sees the bruises

Ohh, Bandit.... Yes. Sometimes emotional damage can be just as painful and long-lasting as physical damage, and sometimes even more so.

Thank you for writing this post, which I consider to be one of the most important on this thread. Quite a few people seem so caught up in the shock value of imagining a woman being punched in the face or kicked in the ribs that they are missing the key point entirely.

It is the effect on the subject that matters. And yes, sometimes the effect is buried deep.

 

[Etoile]

Etoile, i understood what you meant. however, misuse is technically another definition of abuse. also what i described earlier (and you quoted) i actually paraphrased from an old webster's definition of abuse. that's really i think where the major differences in our perspectives on abuse lie....Daddy and i define abuse literally, or textbook if you will, and most here seem to be defining abuse by its connotations...like lack of consent, or lack of love or respect, etc.

You're absolutely right...I think the popular definition (and perhaps the dictionary definition) of abuse is as you defined it earlier. Heck, that's how I use it too most of the time. But this thread got me thinking about the nature of abuse, what it really is...so that's how I came up with the consent theory. I think that is what truly defines abuse, but most people don't use it that way, and I'm fine with using it in the popular lexicon way...I just wanted to make another point for the sake of discussion in this thread.

 

[h_i_s]

ATTENTION: JMohegan

.......... the world of BDSM is not limited to Castlerealm-style D/s.

That's a thought i've held myself, and which has come to mind often, while reading posts on BDSM forums...
Like many others, my first glimpse of BDSM and PYL/pyl relationships started at that site.

JMohegan: i've borrowed your words for my sig,.... & am giving you virtual credit in the form of a quote acknowledgement (non-refundable/non-transferable .. not good toward payment for cyber service of any kind),
.........and i am notifying you in huge bold red letters to make it seem important or something. Thanks!

 

[JMohegan]

What she does know is where I do expect it to go, which is something we have discussed at length before we decided to make the jump of My moving across country. We have similar expectations and desires, and she knows damn well that she is not in the driver's seat.



Nor do I. I love the control aspect, and I do identify as a sadist, but I am not into extreme sadistic actions that would cause any long term harm. (unless you call cutting or marking extreme long term harm)



I do things to punish her, but I don't really like to. But there are times when it has to be done.

For the most part I like to engage in our play because I enjoy it. Shit, I don't want or need an excuse to flog her ass or tits into some nice shades of red. I haven't gotten into deeper shades of purple or blue YET. Although I will, and she damn well knows it.

I see punishment and most of our SM activities as mutually exclusive. I have an instrument that is set aside for just punishment, and when she is being punished it is not about pleasure. It is approached differently from beginning to end, and I can vouch that even at this stage her mind and body know the difference.



IMO, the difference between a domineering asshammer and a Dominant is self control. IMO, anyone can be a domineering asshammer, while a Dominant must first be someone who is in control of himself before he can control another.

Good god, Phoenix. Please refrain from insulting my intelligence.

No one ever "has to" crop a woman's ass.

You construct a dynamic in which you are the authority figure and corporal punishment is acceptable and you expect me to believe that you don't get some measure of satisfaction or personal fulfillment from the entire experience? C'mon, man.

As for the distinction you make between domineering asshammer and Dominant, again I say: It's a spectrum.

Show me a guy who claims to be always in perfect control of himself and I'll show you a liar.

Self-control leads to success as a Dominant, because without this your partner will leave in disgust or be damaged beyond repair or call the cops. But self-control is not the defining factor of Dominance itself.

 

[JMohegan]

That's a thought i've held myself, and which has come to mind often, while reading posts on BDSM forums...
Like many others, my first glimpse of BDSM and PYL/pyl relationships started at that site.

JMohegan: i've borrowed your words for my sig,.... & am giving you virtual credit in the form of a quote acknowledgement (non-refundable/non-transferable .. not good toward payment for cyber service of any kind),
.........and i am notifying you in huge bold red letters to make it seem important or something. Thanks!

Credit entirely unnecessary, but you are quite welcome.

 

[Etoile]

I liked that quote too.

 

[Netzach]

No one ever "has to" crop a woman's ass.

You construct a dynamic in which you are the authority figure and corporal punishment is acceptable and you expect me to believe that you don't get some measure of satisfaction or personal fulfillment from the entire experience? C'mon, man.

Heheheh. See this?

Gild it, frame it, keep it close to your hearts. I've been rolling my eyes at Castlerealm for eons, but THIS cuts through a stack of BS so high we don't even know when we're buying it.

And it's very widespread.

My self control is less than perfect. I'm probably not a particularly great Dominant if you are looking to train a human like a show dog.

However I have the desire, the interest, the intelligence and the creativity to do what I set out to do. I also gravitate toward bottoms/subs who have enough of the same to keep up with the flow and not get hung up on the lack of predictable consistency or feel owed X because it was agreed to X months ago - they see that I change and they feel their job is to change accordingly without lengthy explanation.

I'm not in it for them. They know it. It often sucks for them, but I am not a rose garden.

 

[h_i_s]

...........However I have the desire, the interest, the intelligence and the creativity to do what I set out to do. I also gravitate toward bottoms/subs who have enough of the same to keep up with the flow and not get hung up on the lack of predictable consistency or feel owed X because it was agreed to X months ago - they see that I change and they feel their job is to change accordingly without lengthy explanation.

I'm not in it for them. They know it. It often sucks for them, but I am not a rose garden.

If i were not living these** examples already, i would say that i would need more than just one frame. i am a walking piece of wall art and didn't realize.

Netzach: Your words here are an accurate description of InsideYourMind's and my reality.


**[your words, plus the words of JMohegans, in post #193, that you quote in this post]

 

[callinectes]

Sheesh, I feel like I should have my card revoked or something. I read tons of stuff at CastleRealm when I first starting exploring my submissive side and learning about these types of relationships. When the internet is one's *only* source of information (oftentimes due to circumstances beyond one's control) you are eventually going to end up there. Most google searches on BDSM and D/s subject matter are going to come back with Castlerealm within the top 10 hits.

I'm so happy for everyone that was born with an internal BDSM BS detector. Some us weren't that fortunate.

 

[lil_slave_rose]

Sheesh, I feel like I should have my card revoked or something. I read tons of stuff at CastleRealm when I first starting exploring my submissive side and learning about these types of relationships. When the internet is one's *only* source of information (oftentimes due to circumstances one's control) you are eventually going to end up there. Most google searches on BDSM and D/s subject matter are going to come back with Castlerealm within the top 10 hits.

I'm so happy for everyone that was born with an internal BDSM BS detector. Some us weren't that fortunate.

i don't think there is anything wrong with Castlerealm callinectes, and i'm not sure why so many on here tend to the think it doesn't portray the BDSM in a good light. i think everyone knows that the BDSM lifestyle is not ALWAYS happy go lucky. i, personally, learned a great deal from the castlerealm website and have no shame in saying so. but i also learned alot from other sites, and from a very dear friend of Master and i's that's been in the lifestyle for many years, she is also who 'taught' Master a lot about being a Dominant, and yes, she is a submissive. people seem to think there is only one to look at this lifestyle, and that just isn't true, everyone is different. so what if one couple lives the 'castlerealm' lifestyle (though i'm not exactly sure what that means) maybe that's what works for them....

 

[catalina_francisco]

For me, Castlerealm portrays the ideal, not the reality. If you follow even just their list of what a Dominant MUST be, it describes a super being who is perfect, not a human who has their own set of realities, feelings, and imperfections. It is a myth and as much as I think F is my own personal demigod of the D/s SM variety, he is not perfect, but he is perfect for me. I can live with that quite nicely. The problem I find with such sites is they give and promote one person/couples/relationships perspective as if it is law, not a range of ideas and realities.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/103/311516209_daa8a55cdc_t.jpg Catalina