More than a 4-letter word

[Quint]

My perspective is that if those in a relationship see an act or experience as "BDSM," then to them it is. There have been several here who have expressed necrophilia not in an abstract, "I want to fuck dead people" sort of way (not BDSM in and of itself, which I think we all agree on) but in a "if my Master told me it was his desire to fuck me after I died" or "if my Master told me it was his desire that I fuck him after he died" context, which to me DOES put it back into the realm of BDSM, albeit on the far end. Orgasm denial isn't BDSM if the partner doing the denying isn't consciously doing it--e.g. they just aren't getting their partner off. It takes intent and context, I believe. (That might be worth its own thread if it hasn't been done.)

I know, it's so dreadfully tacky to quote oneself. Somewhat of a plea for attention, eh?

I've been a big stickler in the past for "BDSM is no more than its component parts; ergo, if it includes tying someone up, power exchange, or pain exchange in a sexual context, then it's somewhere under that big ol' umbrella of BDSM." But I'm not quite sure that I truly believe that. (Which is a far cry from saying I might be wrong, understand!)

Thinking my way out loud through my post to shyslave, I came to the realization that an action in and of itself cannot be BDSM. We've had threads about the difference between good and bad pain, control versus abuse, and the various threads either discussing events in the news or historical landmarks that may mirror, albeit through a looking-glass darkly, the actions and personas we assume in our bedroom. Where is the line?

Right now, I'm thinking it has to do with the fuzzy parameters of context and intent. Above, I qualified my definition of BDSM with "in a sexual context" because the long and short of it is, if you're punishing a child for crayoning obscenities on your wall, chances are you ain't getting a stiffy off it. (And that's a whole nother story if you are!) We do what we do because it makes us hot. But that's already shaky ground...a significant number of people get turned on by actions that most of us would hands-down consider to be absolutely uh-uh. Pedophilia is not BDSM despite involving an inherent possible power exchange and a sexual context.

The other, equally tenuous premise is that BDSM is based on intent. Is the husband's intent to hurt his wife with their lovemaking or is he clumsy? Is the wife intending to deny him orgasms or does she just not want to put up with him tonight? It takes a certain amount of self-awareness and partner-awareness to say, "I'm going to hit you. It's going to hurt you. I'm going to keep hitting you until you're red. Then I'm going to fuck you" and have it firmly planted in the BDSM category. That, I maintain (for the time being) is the intent behind it, the awareness that this is what both partners desire. That's also kind of shaky because you can't measure it and "she wanted it!" isn't going to fly in court if the partner changes her mind. But that's the best I got.

Discuss.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

It takes a certain amount of self-awareness and partner-awareness to say, "I'm going to hit you. It's going to hurt you. I'm going to keep hitting you until you're red. Then I'm going to fuck you" and have it firmly planted in the BDSM category.

Does it count if you smack/rake/bite/twist/pin while fucking as well?

What is the partner's response for it to be fully BDSM?

 

[Quint]

Does it count if you smack/rake/bite/twist/pin while fucking as well?

What is the partner's response for it to be fully BDSM?

That's true, the dominant partner can think "I'm doing this so we both get hot n bothered" all they want; if the other partner isn't into it, is it still BDSM?

Well I just saw "9 1/2 Weeks" last night so here are more thoughts. Elizabeth had probably never heard the term "submissive" before. She certainly didn't seem to enjoy a significant portion of what he did to her. Was it BDSM if she didn't think "I am submitting" or "I am on some level enjoying what is being done to me"? If not, damn me for getting off on abuse.

NICE question, AA! I know I only grazed the tip of the iceburg but it's a start and I don't wanna be the only loudmouth here.

 

[Blushing Bottom]

These thoughts go hand in hand with what I've been saying for months as I've tried to gather imformation about BDSM & D/s.

There needs to be a common language by which all who seek to know its definition or the workings of the life style, if you'll pardon me for calling it that for lack of a better term.

I actually prefer art form but when I use that term there those who become confused. But when you really think about it what is BDSM but an expression...an expression of lust, of control, surrender of committment. Expression takes form in art.

Perhaps one day as people become more tolerant of that which is considered "different" a language will develop making it easier for those concerned to express and understand BDSM & D/s.

IMHO

d

I know, it's so dreadfully tacky to quote oneself. Somewhat of a plea for attention, eh?

I've been a big stickler in the past for "BDSM is no more than its component parts; ergo, if it includes tying someone up, power exchange, or pain exchange in a sexual context, then it's somewhere under that big ol' umbrella of BDSM." But I'm not quite sure that I truly believe that. (Which is a far cry from saying I might be wrong, understand!)

Thinking my way out loud through my post to shyslave, I came to the realization that an action in and of itself cannot be BDSM. We've had threads about the difference between good and bad pain, control versus abuse, and the various threads either discussing events in the news or historical landmarks that may mirror, albeit through a looking-glass darkly, the actions and personas we assume in our bedroom. Where is the line?

Right now, I'm thinking it has to do with the fuzzy parameters of context and intent. Above, I qualified my definition of BDSM with "in a sexual context" because the long and short of it is, if you're punishing a child for crayoning obscenities on your wall, chances are you ain't getting a stiffy off it. (And that's a whole nother story if you are!) We do what we do because it makes us hot. But that's already shaky ground...a significant number of people get turned on by actions that most of us would hands-down consider to be absolutely uh-uh. Pedophilia is not BDSM despite involving an inherent possible power exchange and a sexual context.

The other, equally tenuous premise is that BDSM is based on intent. Is the husband's intent to hurt his wife with their lovemaking or is he clumsy? Is the wife intending to deny him orgasms or does she just not want to put up with him tonight? It takes a certain amount of self-awareness and partner-awareness to say, "I'm going to hit you. It's going to hurt you. I'm going to keep hitting you until you're red. Then I'm going to fuck you" and have it firmly planted in the BDSM category. That, I maintain (for the time being) is the intent behind it, the awareness that this is what both partners desire. That's also kind of shaky because you can't measure it and "she wanted it!" isn't going to fly in court if the partner changes her mind. But that's the best I got.

Discuss.

 

[Quint]

BDSM vs. abuse, ad nauseum.

Scenario #1. A man talks to his girlfriend extensively about her desire to be forced into sex. He acts on this desire, forces her, she has an orgasm. No one here would call that abuse, I daresay.

Scenario #2. A man picks up on non-explicit signals from his girlfriend that she may be into "rough sex." He acts on his intuition, forces her, she has an orgasm. Again, pretty safe to say that nobody's calling the cops.

Scenario #3. A man, without any supposition that his girlfriend may be "into it," forces her. She has an orgasm which is physically possible even if this is not at all desired. We all cry abuse.

I say "intent" is the difference. The man's intent in the first two is the act of fulfilling a desire in his partner; in the last one, it's presumably his own desire which goes against her own desire NOT to be raped (again, presumably). The way the scene ended physically is irrelevant; most of us have consented to a scene that ended poorly, but that doesn't make it abuse any more than an action leading to an orgasm is automatically NOT abuse.

 

[Quint]

Am I more interesting now that I have a hot AV?

 

[catalina_francisco]

LOL, too late for me to get too deep into this for now...and yes, I was going to comment on the new AV earlier...Royo? As to the discussion, not sure it can always be tied to sexual outcomes. For instance, we play with some subs where sex definately does not happen for anyone, but submission and SM do. Also in relation to the previous thread this arose from, my feelings were not based on sexual feelings as much as emotional and spiritual ones...so then the context of what becomes BDSM for me is more in the realms of psychological and emotional first, then perhaps sexual next. I think for many people there are a range of elements which must be present to qualify as BDSM which is why I hate it when people pull up a set example of an activity out of context and declare it can never be part of BDSM. In my thinking, if that is how one judges what qualifies, based on it being in a narrow group of activities not generally practiced outside this lifestyle, then oral and anal are not part of the discussion, along with a lot of other things which may occur in both a vanilla or D/s relationship or setting. Hmmm, it really is too late for my brain to make this sound as I intend so might have to return.

Catalina

 

[Marquis]

Hey everyone.

 

[Quint]

cat, do you think that we tend to look at experiences and ideas through BDSM-colored glasses? When a person posts an ambiguous thread on our forum (e.g. "Strap-on experiences," "Sneak-a-peek - Body play," "Things you wish you could do sexually," "Reading the classics," and "Men who are size queens," for some recent examples), is it our first reaction to answer it from a BDSM perspective even though it could be a kinky-but-vanilla topic? I'm thinking how rarely threads are contested as "not appropriate to the forum" (with the exception of personals), and wondering if we are just assuming "BDSM until proven vanilla" around here.

 

[Quint]

Hey everyone.

Smile for me, daddy.

 

[Marquis]

Hop on yahoo im, I'm on cam.

 

[catalina_francisco]

cat, do you think that we tend to look at experiences and ideas through BDSM-colored glasses? When a person posts an ambiguous thread on our forum (e.g. "Strap-on experiences," "Sneak-a-peek - Body play," "Things you wish you could do sexually," "Reading the classics," and "Men who are size queens," for some recent examples), is it our first reaction to answer it from a BDSM perspective even though it could be a kinky-but-vanilla topic? I'm thinking how rarely threads are contested as "not appropriate to the forum" (with the exception of personals), and wondering if we are just assuming "BDSM until proven vanilla" around here.

To a degree I think we assume it is meant to be from a BDSM perspective, but have to admit I am a lot more sceptical these days as unlike when we first came to the forum, now there are a lot more people here who are vanilla and speak from a vanilla framework with at times a touch of kinklust, and a lot more discussions introduced which have nothing to do with BDSM even remotely.

I learned the lesson long ago not to contest those threads and ideas, as people felt they should be allowed and wanted them. IMO it has lost us quite a few knowledgeable posters (through their own admission) and changed the mood and content of the forum considerably, but if that is what people here in the here and now want, so be it...I find unless there is heavy moderating (which I am not overly in favour of but have seen the pluses of elsewhere), most forums change over time to suit the majority of posters at that given time. I find now for expected more in depth and serious discussions regarding only things associated with D/s and BDSM, I go elsewhere (ironically one of those places is heavily moderated to keep to the subject, and only for people who can prove they have RL experience of a year or more), and come here for fun, familiarity, people I like, and the thought provoking threads like this one that pop up.

I think unless a forum is heavily moderated, it is going to change to suit the times and people frequenting it. Sometimes that can be a good thing, sometimes not. There are often alternatives, but it is a pain finding them and then finding your groove so you reclaim that familiar, friendly, homey feel you felt in the original forum...sometimes it is never recovered or found again sadly, but that is the transience of life I guess.

Catalina

 

[FurryFury]

BDSM vs. abuse, ad nauseum.

Scenario #1. A man talks to his girlfriend extensively about her desire to be forced into sex. He acts on this desire, forces her, she has an orgasm. No one here would call that abuse, I daresay.

Scenario #2. A man picks up on non-explicit signals from his girlfriend that she may be into "rough sex." He acts on his intuition, forces her, she has an orgasm. Again, pretty safe to say that nobody's calling the cops.

Scenario #3. A man, without any supposition that his girlfriend may be "into it," forces her. She has an orgasm which is physically possible even if this is not at all desired. We all cry abuse.

I say "intent" is the difference. The man's intent in the first two is the act of fulfilling a desire in his partner; in the last one, it's presumably his own desire which goes against her own desire NOT to be raped (again, presumably). The way the scene ended physically is irrelevant; most of us have consented to a scene that ended poorly, but that doesn't make it abuse any more than an action leading to an orgasm is automatically NOT abuse.

As one who has orgasmed while being raped, I'll agree it's not about is she wet, did she orgasm but what his intent was is a slippery thing based on talking to males who did abuse or rape. *bitter laugh*

Fury

Am I more interesting now that I have a hot AV?

I like the av, very much. There are avs I enjoy looking at, some that produce no feelings one way or the other, some that leave me cold and some that I can't stand. This av now is lovely to look at.

Fury

 

[Quint]

As one who has orgasmed while being raped, I'll agree it's not about is she wet, did she orgasm but what his intent was is a slippery thing based on talking to males who did abuse or rape. *bitter laugh*

Fury

I'm sorry.

I know it's hard to define anything that isn't empirical and unambiguous, like someone's mindset or intentions. Is there an alternate route that you would take to try to define why it is that what we do isn't abuse?

 

[FurryFury]

I'm sorry.

I know it's hard to define anything that isn't empirical and unambiguous, like someone's mindset or intentions. Is there an alternate route that you would take to try to define why it is that what we do isn't abuse?

Thanks for the rose!

*Gives a bit of a rant.*

Gee, I thought we had this covered all ready and betimes!

What we do isn't abuse because of the consent both parties give.

*shrugs*

Now I know there are some that want to play without the SCC components but even for them they are saying they WANT to do so and consent is still implied is it not?

That is why to me consent is the DEVIDING LINE. Ya know? It's also why I mention it a lot. I had ten years of non consent and it's pretty fucking important to me regardless of how many times I came during those ten years or how wet I was.

*goes back to looking sweet*

Fury

 

[alice_underneath]

I know it's hard to define anything that isn't empirical and unambiguous, like someone's mindset or intentions. Is there an alternate route that you would take to try to define why it is that what we do isn't abuse?

Like Fury, I think consent is critically important. But I don't think it is enough. I agree with Quint that intent is key as well, and I'll give an example from my own experience to explain why.

When my first husband became sick (in the throes of untreated bipolar depression), he began to verbally abuse me. It was a very gradual process, in which his 'real' voice and the voice of his Beast became intertwined to the point where they were no longer distinguishable.

I consented to this for an entire year. I did not kick him out of the room or refuse to listen. I discussed his increasingly harsh, humiliating, and hurtful criticisms with him as if they had an element of merit. I listened to him, and let his words affect my image of myself.

If I consented, why was it abuse? Because his intent was to hurt and humiliate me, and I did not want to be hurt and humiliated. And the harm that he caused was not fleeting. This type of damage lasts for a long, long time.

Speaking of time.....

In addition to consent and intent, I propose adding time to the list of parameters involved in distinguishing between BDSM and abuse.

I have seen many subs write something to the effect of: "My first dom abused me physically for months before I realized that I should leave him."

In that type of scenario, the sub presumably was providing consent for what was going on. In addition, it could be difficult to clearly distinguish between nefarious intent and misguided efforts on the part of the dom.

Why, then, does the sub refer to this as 'abuse' in retrospect? Because, over time, she was becoming physically or emotionally damaged in a significant way. One scene that "ended poorly" might not be enough to disqualify the relationship as legitimate BDSM. But multiple scenes ending poorly and taking place over a period of weeks or months might have a cumulative impact on the sub which renders the relationship abusive.

Alice

 

[catalina_francisco]

I have seen many subs write something to the effect of: "My first dom abused me physically for months before I realized that I should leave him."

In that type of scenario, the sub presumably was providing consent for what was going on. In addition, it could be difficult to clearly distinguish between nefarious intent and misguided efforts on the part of the dom.

Why, then, does the sub refer to this as 'abuse' in retrospect? Because, over time, she was becoming physically or emotionally damaged in a significant way. One scene that "ended poorly" might not be enough to disqualify the relationship as legitimate BDSM. But multiple scenes ending poorly and taking place over a period of weeks or months might have a cumulative impact on the sub which renders the relationship abusive.

Alice

Partly true, though I do think it also needs to be emphasised that consent cannot be considered unimportant in hindsight due to the feelings of the submissive. This is why I get so edgy when people take a light attitude of 'hey, this is cool, I want to try some of it too' and dip their toes in before acknowledging and/or uinderstanding what they are dipping into. I do not believe it is abuse or the fault of the Dominant if a sub finds later that what s/he consented to really was not their cup of tea, or resulted in negative outcomes for them, unless the Dominant continues the behaviour after being told it is no longer OK, or did things which were not consented to. It is unfair to use hindsight to then label a consensual act abuse, especially as that same behaviour with another might be manna in every way.

There are many who 'feel' they want to experience being in the hands of a sadist, or degraded, or humiliated and so consent to submitting to behaviours aimed at providing those wants/needs. It is a reason why many here caution living out your fantasies without first knowing that is a reality you want...finding it isn't, then renaming it abuse is not OK. The sub has as much responsibility for their consent as the Dominant does for believing them.

Catalina

 

[boz]

Am I more interesting now that I have a hot AV?

Quint, I always think you're hot no matter how interesting your AV.


Wait, that wasn't quite what your question was, was it?

 

[boz]

I do not believe it is abuse or the fault of the Dominant if a sub finds later that what s/he consented to really was not their cup of tea, or resulted in negative outcomes for them, unless the Dominant continues the behaviour after being told it is no longer OK, or did things which were not consented to. It is unfair to use hindsight to then label a consensual act abuse, especially as that same behaviour with another might be manna in every way.

I think you can also work into a greyer area, if, in the process of growing, trying new variations the Dominant led into areas that the sub didn't sign on for originally, or, within the variety of activities the Dominant starts to spend more time with less desirable activities and less on the ones the sub really signed on for.

As you say, if it's something new that the Dominant should have checked for consent, that's different, but I can see either the sub or the Dominant or both changing in their desires over time. But then, where's the communication? Like any relationship where both parties are committed to it, whoever's noticing the unhappiness, whether it be their own or their partner's, should be communicating about it.

 

[Quint]

Quint, I always think you're hot no matter how interesting your AV.


Wait, that wasn't quite what your question was, was it?

Damn but I missed you, darlin!

 

[Quint]

I think you can also work into a greyer area, if, in the process of growing, trying new variations the Dominant led into areas that the sub didn't sign on for originally, or, within the variety of activities the Dominant starts to spend more time with less desirable activities and less on the ones the sub really signed on for.

As you say, if it's something new that the Dominant should have checked for consent, that's different, but I can see either the sub or the Dominant or both changing in their desires over time. But then, where's the communication? Like any relationship where both parties are committed to it, whoever's noticing the unhappiness, whether it be their own or their partner's, should be communicating about it.

I'm not sure if this is a direct line of thought or if it's slightly tangential, but it reminds me of something that happened at work today. A person on my team came to me (her manager) stating that she needed to leave because she was in the process of pressing charges against these three kids that beat up her 10-year-old son. Upon returning, she was slightly disgruntled to admit that she had decided to drop the charges because she found out that her son threw the first punch.

First, this makes me think of the line between a violent action and the interpretation of that action as abuse. T does stuff that I hate quite frequently but it doesn't cross my mind to press charges--perhaps because, by consenting to enter this relationship with him, I am in essence throwing the first punch?

But does that mean that abuse cannot occur once blanket consent has been granted? catalina is quite vocal--as she is about everything, actually--about the fact that she doesn't get to call it quits ever. Likewise osg. "Abuse" is a thing for other relationships, as far as I can tell (and please feel free to correct me if I got that wrong).

Also, where's the line between "we aren't communicating well about our dissatisfaction" and "ok, I didn't say anything but you're abusing me"? I took the Sexual Harassment training, which explains that the victim must tell the person that their actions are unwanted in order to be considered harassment legally, but that seems to put a lot of pressure on the victim to verbally admit their discomfort. That can be doubly hard in a relationship where you really care about the other person.

Bah, I'm bored with abuse. Let's take this in a different direction.

 

[boz]

But does that mean that abuse cannot occur once blanket consent has been granted? catalina is quite vocal--as she is about everything, actually--about the fact that she doesn't get to call it quits ever. Likewise osg. "Abuse" is a thing for other relationships, as far as I can tell (and please feel free to correct me if I got that wrong).

Also, where's the line between "we aren't communicating well about our dissatisfaction" and "ok, I didn't say anything but you're abusing me"? I took the Sexual Harassment training, which explains that the victim must tell the person that their actions are unwanted in order to be considered harassment legally, but that seems to put a lot of pressure on the victim to verbally admit their discomfort. That can be doubly hard in a relationship where you really care about the other person.

Bah, I'm bored with abuse. Let's take this in a different direction.

Take it another direction? But you threw the first punch!


Not that I've thought about it much, but I wonder what the legal ramifications are if there is preexisting consent. Can the sub say, Okay, I've had enough. I'm going to start my life over, and I'm gonna claim spousal abuse?


And, whatever happened to the guy in Germany who ate the other guy? He had written consent, as I recall.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think you can also work into a greyer area, if, in the process of growing, trying new variations the Dominant led into areas that the sub didn't sign on for originally, or, within the variety of activities the Dominant starts to spend more time with less desirable activities and less on the ones the sub really signed on for.

As you say, if it's something new that the Dominant should have checked for consent, that's different, but I can see either the sub or the Dominant or both changing in their desires over time. But then, where's the communication? Like any relationship where both parties are committed to it, whoever's noticing the unhappiness, whether it be their own or their partner's, should be communicating about it.

I don't see what you describe as a typically grey area as unless you are a person afraid of your own shadow and wanting to stay within the same stagnant position for life, change happens. As you say, it might be necessary to accompany that change with lots of communication, especially in areas which mean huge leaps and bounds from the original starting point. I would have to say our own relationship has been through many moments when we have moved from a previously of limits area to one where it is OK, but then it is part of the relationship and what we wanted in terms of growing together, and though he does not have to get my consent any longer, he will talk to me about it if he feels it will make for better understanding and more pleasant outcomes all round. If we look at where we started, to where we are now without the in between stages, there is a huge shift. As you say, if one person does not feel comfortable with the changes, it is their responsibility to communicate their feelings, not cry abuse after the fact and in hindsight...but many do.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

And, whatever happened to the guy in Germany who ate the other guy? He had written consent, as I recall.

And is being retried to see if they can increase his punishment!!

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

But does that mean that abuse cannot occur once blanket consent has been granted? catalina is quite vocal--as she is about everything, actually--about the fact that she doesn't get to call it quits ever.

LOL, yes I am vocal when I have something to say...thank goodness because there have been times in my life I haven't been, and still it is far easier for me to defend someone else more so than myself, but a simpering sub I admit I will never be.

Likewise osg. "Abuse" is a thing for other relationships, as far as I can tell (and please feel free to correct me if I got that wrong).

At this point in our relationship, I would have to say abuse would only occur if he used someone close to me to hurt me in some way. I have consented to be his in all ways, and though he will listen to my concerns, he does not have to act on them if he doesn't agree or feel like it.

Also, where's the line between "we aren't communicating well about our dissatisfaction" and "ok, I didn't say anything but you're abusing me"? I took the Sexual Harassment training, which explains that the victim must tell the person that their actions are unwanted in order to be considered harassment legally, but that seems to put a lot of pressure on the victim to verbally admit their discomfort. That can be doubly hard in a relationship where you really care about the other person.

Bah, I'm bored with abuse. Let's take this in a different direction.

I guess my answer to this is, as difficult as it may be, given people have different perceptions of what is OK and what isn't, often depending who they are interracting with, the legal necessity for telling a person how you feel is good otherwise people could get completely blindsided, often without cause. As far as it being someone you care about, part of caring could be seen to be telling them how you feel to prevent them crossing a line they may not be aware they are, protecting them in a way.

Catalina