Cruelty--yay, nay, maybe, sometimes

[Pure]

This topic has arisen in several threads and most recently the one on the alleged 'domination' carried out by mr. norman.

NOTES:

The poll is set up to be anonymous, so only your posted comments--if you make them--give your position as belonging to your screenname.

We are talking about the spectrum of behaviors that fall within "bdsm" [or kinky] relationships, [and in particular SM-based relationships]**--that is, legal sexual interactions which partners treat as ongoing. Which statement best describes your view. Erotic cruelty [EC]---etc. [see poll items]

DEFINITIONS:

"Erotic" means for sexual arousal or gratification.

"Cruelty" I define as the infliction of pain, physical or mental distress where there is no 'rational,' means-end justification as regards punishment, retribution, deterrence, etc, or as regards improvement of [[the bottom's] health***. [[ADDED: If the top/inflictor were asked for a reason, she or he would likely say things such as, "no reason is needed," or "i felt like it," or "i get off on it; it excites me," or "i like to see the subject squirm."]]

Needless to say, for purposes of this discussion, ILLEGAL cruelties, e.g. those of Mr. Dahmer, are NOT the topic, i.e. we are NOT talking murder, confinement, mayhem, infliction of serious bodily harm.
=======
ADDED clarifications

**better wording would be

"one example being SM relationships", so as not to limit the discussion to interactions labeled 'sadistic', and thought of that way, which would tend to make inflicting pain as an 'essential part' true by definition.

*** this last clause is to exclude cases where the apparent 'cruelty' is undertaken as an appropriate means to preserve health, e.g., the actions of a competent surgeon acting properly.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

[see poll items]

Never mind, i see it now. Voted although it was a toss-up between two.

 

[blue kat]

I hit no position because that's the closest option to mine. Possibly the third option might have applied, except tht I read this as an "all or nothing" sort of poll, and I don't feel that way.

It totally depends on who I'm tormenting at the time. I have two subs, amber (my full timer, and gf) and bronntanas, more of a part-time (and sometimes part part-time ) sub.

Amber can't handle erotic cruelty; it brings her to an emotionally bad place and she doesn't react well. So in her case, no EC. Bronn's made of different stuff. I haven't gotten really ugly on him, but I've treated him to some EC. He does well with it. He doesn't really enjoy it, but he doesn't get into that ugly space that Amber that does, so I can go there to satisfy my urges. And yeah, I do it responsibly. If I'm going to take someone apart, I'm damn sure I'm going to put them back together.

 

[Marquis]

There seem to be two elements to most of the options you've given; one relating to the importance of EC in a relationship and one relating to the limitations.

I chose option 4 because I do believe EC has a main place in an SM relationship, but I'm not quite comfortable with the corresponding limitations as they are defined above. As far as limitations go, I'm somewhere in between option 3 and 4.

I also wonder how you define an SM relationship. Is a romantic relationship with occasional SM play an SM relationship, or are you talking more specifically about relationships that exist for the purpose of mutual SM satisfaction?

 

[Chicklet]

A lot of things that would be cruel directed towards me are my "nearly hard limits" - I can stand a little bit of it, but too much puts me in a place that I really don't want to be. And in my personal opinion, those emotions don't have a place in my relationship.

For instance: I hate name calling. I don't like to be humiliated, or insulted, while I'm submitting to someone. It just doesn't sit well with me, and puts me in a headspace that instead of reaching any sort of erotic point, just makes me want to crawl away and disapear. These things could throw me into a huge depression, and without meds it's hard for me to climb out of those holes.

There are some things that might be "Cruel" that I find arousing. But not very many, and not very frequently. It's a tough thing to discuss though 'cause I don't know what other people would define as normal that I'd consider cruel, and vice versa. My coworkers would think it's cruel of my guy to beat me with the whip that causes the most pain, for instance

 

[CutieMouse]

*****

 

[s_red830]

Sure

I do things that some would consider cruel, I suppose, like screwing with people mentally and emotionally. But this is always (or almost always) done to heighten the sub's level of pleasure and sensation experience. So is it erotic? Quite. Cruelty? I'm not sure.

But I figure, if it's done solely for the Dom/me's pleasure, that's cruelty to me.

It's not a big factor in my relationships, but if it's consensual, then hey... harm none and do what you will.

~Red.

 

[Kajira Callista]

It was a toss up between 3 and 4. My thoughts are closer to 4 so thats what i voted.

 

[kiten69]

#3 for me

 

[Pure]

notes,

hi marquis,

MThere seem to be two elements to most of the options you've given; one relating to the importance of EC in a relationship and one relating to the limitations.

i see your point. there are always inaquancies to poll questions. in the present case, i figured that those who thought 'cruelty' had very little place--see Satin, in the Norman/abuse thread-- would want it hedged in with the most restrictions.

that linkage may break down, as you suggest. however your finding yourself at 4. in one way, and 3.5 in the other does support the general intuition (and oversimplification) i worked on.

i can conceive perhaps of someone saying 'a main place' but wanting lots of conditions and restrictions. HOWEVER, you must admit that such a position begins to be implausible: supposing someone said "I believe sex should be a main part of the marital relationship. But sex should not be overindulged, or simply turn into mutual masturbation. When one is unsure about the other's full enthusiasm, s/he is obliged not to proceed with anything. Further, sex during a 'period' is not proper, and sex in the several days before a period is likely inadvisable because of the possible tensions and irritability of the premenstrual span of time. And sex must never be a substitute for good conversation and active outdoor activity." I think you see the point.

 

[catalina_francisco]

It was a toss up between 3 and 4. My thoughts are closer to 4 so thats what i voted.

Ditto...nothing fitted perfectly, but that is life.

Catalina

 

[babiesmiles]

Number 3 for me although with some reservation about the definition of "cruelty".

But I guess it is semantics due to the fact to be lost in translation !

 

[chris9]

Number 3 for me although with some reservation about the definition of "cruelty".

But I guess it is semantics due to the fact to be lost in translation !

Ditto on all parts.

 

[SpectreT]

Ditto...nothing fitted perfectly, but that is life.

Catalina

"If the world was perfect - it wouldn't be."
-Yogi Berra



#3 was closest; my issue was with "substantial". Personally, I'm between what I think of as "small place" and "substantial". Sometimes, I just wanna play. Of course, I'd prefer making those times perfectly clear if I'm the Dominant of the relationship, and naturally, would prefer to have it made absolutely clear to me if I'm the submissive in a pairing.

And strike the "or as regards furtherance of health or safety" line. Health and safety are high concerns, always.

Besides, the final disclaimer sentence, in green below, should negate the "health or safety" clause, anyway - at least as far as I was able to decipher the definition of "Cruelty" for the purposes of this poll and discussion.

This topic has arisen in several threads and most recently the one on the alleged 'domination' carried out by mr. norman.

NOTES:

The poll is set up to be anonymous, so only your posted comments--if you make them--give your position as belonging to your screenname.

We are talking about the spectrum of behaviors that fall within "bdsm" relationships, and in particular SM-based relationships--that is, legal sexual interactions which partners treat as ongoing. Which statement best describes your view. Erotic cruelty [EC]---etc. [see poll items]

DEFINITIONS:
"Erotic" means for sexual arousal or gratification.
"Cruelty" I define as the infliction of pain, physical or mental distress where there is no 'rational,' means-end justification as regards punishment, retribution, deterrence, etc, or as regards furtherance of health or safety.

Needless to say, for purposes of this discussion, ILLEGAL cruelties, e.g. those of Mr. Dahmer, are NOT the topic, i.e. murder, confinement, mayhem, infliction of serious bodily harm.

 

[RJMasters]

Make my home at #3 but vaccation at #4

 

[Pure]

hi spectre,

thanks for responding. sorry things were not clearer, but when time and words are limited...

as to your statement

Besides, the final disclaimer sentence [about Dahmer], in green below, should negate the "health or safety" clause, anyway - at least as far as I was able to decipher the definition of "Cruelty" for the purposes of this poll and discussion.

This isn't why i added the phrase: it was to exclude the dentist and the surgeon. to cut an abdomen to remove an appendix is not cruel or sadistic.

The essential point is that the 'cruel' acts should be somewhat arbitrary, if not capricious. While they may instill fear, that instillation is gratuitous. it's not cruel/sadistic to touch a child's hand very lightly to a hot object, *so that he learns* and even become a little afraid [of heaters]. So I want to exclude all cases where pain infliction has a rational relation--i.e., is a means-- to good end that is desired.

 

[Netzach]

I believe in arbitrary and capricious cruelty among people who know they are getting into it in the global sense, so 3. I also find a lot of perfectly legal things morally disgusting.

 

[Netzach]

I also don't see accept the dark heavy angry overtone we're always laying on this facet of being as being critical to my play. Cruelty is a kind of jouissance, cruelty is the game, I particularly appreciate the lightly weilded devastating blow.

 

[SpectreT]

I also don't see accept the dark heavy angry overtone we're always laying on this facet of being as being critical to my play. Cruelty is a kind of jouissance, cruelty is the game, I particularly appreciate the lightly weilded devastating blow.

Like I said, sometimes, I just wanna play.

We're agreed on finding some legal things perfectly disgusting, too.

 

[SpectreT]

So I want to exclude all cases where pain infliction has a rational relation--i.e., is a means-- to good end that is desired.

I dunno, I'd consider having kinky fun a "good end that is desired".

But then again, humans are the most rationally irrational critters on the planet.

 

[Pure]

Netzach said,

N: I also don't see accept the dark heavy angry overtone we're always laying on this facet of being as being critical to my play. Cruelty is a kind of jouissance, cruelty is the game, I particularly appreciate the lightly weilded devastating blow.

excellent point. the issue of cruelty is not the issue of anger. cruelty may be excercized in calm or frenzy (good)-- i link it to Dionysos.