Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

BDSM vs abuse

Page: (1)2

Less searchable M0rd4nt

11:16 / 01.05.02

Arising from issues raised in the Conversation. Very breifly:

How do we define consensual BDSM? How do we define abuse? Most importantly, how do we distinguish between them?

Useful rsources:

SM101, by Jay Wiseman (can't reccomend this book highly enough.)

This page has a good essay on the subject of abuse in general, and some useful links.
Paracelsus BDSM Portal :: HEALTH & SAFETY :: Abuse More useful stuff here.
soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm FAQ General FAQ; pretty comprehensive.

11:34 / 01.05.02

I'm guessing we all agree that abuse is a bad thing, consent is essential and communication with your partner(s) is key.

errrrm, end of discussion?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

12:19 / 01.05.02

I liked big daddy mikebro's comment from the thread in the Conversation:

...if it turns you on, and it really does and that means both of you, in a way that's really great. I'd say that if you're both fully consenting, and you know deep down that you don't mean a damn thing by it, except that it made you hot, then great. (Italics mine.)

As a very general definition of what consensual BDSM is basically about, you could do a lot worse.

Problems tend to arise when people are stepping over those limits, when they're not talking it thru, and not taking care of their partner or themselves.

One problem is that risky patterns of behaviour don't always result in immediate "deal-breakers." It's much more likely that isolated incidents will occur at first, and having gone unacknowledged will escalate over time into a cycle of harmful behaviour- hence the need for good quality negotiations between those concerned.

12:24 / 01.05.02

It is never so clear, as Black and white. If you look closer, you'll find the greys. Sometimes accord between couples is not so clear. Sometimes one of the couple will yield to the desires of the other for love, or for dependence.
And even if the couple agrees consciously on the issue, there's the fact of implicit psychological abuse (which is, by the way, the source of BDSM as a sexual behavior) Is it ethically right to subyugate, to humilliate a person, even if this person wants? Whaqt are the implications to the human dignity of a person who is a masochist? What are the psycholoogical implications? Is there a damage to the self-esteem?

Just thinking... Norbert Schwartz

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:32 / 01.05.02

(which is, by the way, the source of BDSM as a sexual behavior)

Whoa there Skippy, care to unpack that a little for us slow studies?

12:34 / 01.05.02

I really really like Haus sometimes. I just wanted to mention that. I may try and post something intelligent later on...

12:40 / 01.05.02

Yeah, I think it all depends on communication between partners and the use of safewords. If the "torturer" doesn't stop after the safeword's been said, then it's a real abuse, and not about stretching your partner's pain endurance limits.

However, argh, I hope this is not thread rotting, psychological torture can easily fall into abuse because it often can't be identified by the opressed partner. Ops, no time now. More on this later.

12:47 / 01.05.02

...there's the fact of implicit psychological abuse (which is, by the way, the source of BDSM as a sexual behavior) – ciraconn

Haus beat me to the punch (no pun intended)...but I seriously think you need to give links to studies that show this to be the case. That's an extremely judgemental, stereotypical statement – bordering on caricature, in fact.

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:16 / 01.05.02

Pacha - I think there's a reasonably simple (albeit by no means waterproof) distinctor on the psychological torture front - does it end with the scene?

Which need not fall into the parameters of the bedroomy act: a scene could build up over hours, or days, or longer, and that could involve publicly or privately humiliating or harming somebody. But the key is that the scene *is* a scene, and can be ended, either prematurely or maturely, and once it is ended both partners will provide each other with the support and consideration they need to get back on terms.

Then again, this is one reason why I have problems with the idea of "full-time slavery"...

Hooom. Anyone?

15:17 / 01.05.02

I'm actually very offended by people who say that being involved in BDSM is a sign of past psychological abuse. I have never been psychologically abused, yet I identify myself as a masochist. When "sadism" and "masochism" were first defined, they were considered by psychologists to be mental illnesses, that is true. They were then later removed from that definition, since there was no support for that belief. I'm going to get crap for this next statement, but I think MOST people ARE sadists or masochists. We can identify with one or the other, even on a very small scale. I once read an example in a book where the author talked about how the bodybuilder that keeps going until his muscles tear is just as much a masochist as someone who likes being slapped around during sex. If you believe that, and you believe BDSM is a sign of psychological abuse, then there are a Hell of a lot of people walking around with psychological abuse in their past.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

15:59 / 01.05.02

I think (I hope) that wasn't the idea. That comment seemed to me more about a subtext of abuse, and a desire to be humliated, than a suggestion of an actual history.

Maybe wrong.

Goodness Gracious Meme

21:22 / 01.05.02

what Ierne and Haus said, re those studies. That's a very judgemental position, and I want to see it backed up.

While the definitions (eg of bdsm vs. abuse) are easy to compose - some good ones here already - whenever you're dealing with humans it's never going to be that black and white.

I have got very angry in the past between the link that many people continually make between BDSM and abuse. And still do.

BDSM is all about the consent, the communication and the consent. If you and your partner(s) all consent to something. that's bdsm, if not, that's abuse.

Buuuut... any (sexual) interrelationship can throw up potentials for abuse, not *only* one with elements of BDSM, there are always power balances to be negotiated...

There can be and are times when one's own motivations aren't neccessarily clear (the assumption that with BDSM practice comes perfect self-awareness, which I've encountered and probably espoused when very inexperienced, or that BDSMers are somehow more evolved and so won't end up in abusive situations, is absolute crap), when you have sex with someone as a 'making up' tool between arguing partners, when you may have sex while angry, or when you feel you 'owe' someone sex... there are all sorts of situations in which the reasons for consent might bear examinations.

Question: is what makes consensual BDSM distinct from abuse any different from what makes consensual sex different from abuse/rape? If we're talking about practices that all partners are happy with, checking this out before starting anything and taking care of ourselves and each other, this is the model for sexual encounters of all kinds?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

23:20 / 01.05.02

what makes consensual BDSM distinct from abuse any different from what makes consensual sex different from abuse/rape?

Opportunity for fuckedupness, really. BDSM is generally (please note the 'generally') more emotionally delicate that "vanilla" practices, for any and all possible roles.

00:45 / 02.05.02

consent. I think people made very good points on consent.

The Mantra of the mainstream BDSM community is "safe, sane, and consentual", if its not consentual, its abuse. Theres all kinds of fuzzy lines, and ways to define BDSM relationships. My personal idea is that WIITWD (what it is that we do) is not Safe nor Sane, especially not to a casual observer, and I like RACK (risk-aware consentual kink) as an acronym to good SM.

TO the person who asked if it ended with the scene, in many D/s relationships that include SM, they may be in a 24/7 dynamic, which means the scene does not end.

For lots of cool resources on this, try Sexuality.org

-Trish (who's doing a Violet Wand workshop this saturday at WHIP in West Virginia, this Sat. (May 4th)

I'm too tired to go on about this, which is usually where I can discuss for hours and hours, so excuse the disjointedness.

-Trish the part-time SM educator and full-time network admin

Disco is My Class War

01:17 / 02.05.02

ciarconn wrote: "What are the implications to the human dignity of a person who is a masochist? What are the psycholoogical implications? Is there a damage to the self-esteem?"

I'll just deal with this question personally, if that's okay. I am a submissive. Submitting makes me feel *more* like myself, prouder of being me, and far happier as a person than when I didn't let myself submit.

03:11 / 02.05.02

Erm, I wouldn't go implying being a submissive and a masochist are the same thing. They aren't. Although extremely similar, masochists achieve sexual gratification through pain, either mentally or physically. Submissives achieve sexual gratification through being dominated. Just think that a distinction should be made.
I personally don't feel that I lose any dignity through being a masochist, but then part of masochism is to want to be shamed. It's sort of hard to explain. I think your question is maybe better directed at submissives. True masochists, by definition, WANT to be shamed and have their self esteem beaten into the ground. It's what they get off on. That said, we then want to have it built back up again afterwards, which is why, engaging in masochistic activity, it is so important to do it with someone who cares about you and who you trust. In my day to day life, I seldom feel like my human dignity has been compromised, and I certainly don't feel like my self esteem is affected. Mostly because my actions are of my own free will. Understand though, this is all personal speculation, and I'm quite sure it varies from person to person.

06:14 / 02.05.02

Look, we're not getting any younger. Sooner or later, in some form or another, we're going to be real bona fide adults. By now, we know, in some form or another what abuse feels like.
It's abuse if someone is being abused.

14:27 / 02.05.02

Just for the record, I am not trying to assault anyone, or to say that something's right and something's wrong (As a matter of fact, from what I have seen from MCs ficsuit, I like her). I was trying to extend the theme of the debate. And make sopme serious questions.
As for sources, I am refferencig bassically the Art of Love, by Erich Fromm (I know it might be outdated, and that it deals with sadism and masochism as deviations), If someone has more actualizaed bibliography, the reference would be gratefully appreciated.
Also, the generalization between masochism and submission is implicit in Fromm's book, as is the idea that both sadists and masochists derive their psychological pleasure from the demonstration of domination or submission. I hope I am not disgressing from the central theme too much.

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:34 / 02.05.02

As for sources, I am refferencig bassically the Art of Love, by Erich Fromm (I know it might be outdated, and that it deals with sadism and masochism as deviations)

Nah, attitudes to sex and sexuality really haven't changed much since 1956. You're all right.

Good point, though; what would a comparative modern text be, and what would it have to say?

14:49 / 02.05.02

The epistemological implications of these questions for psychology are: How and who defines which behaviors anr deviated and which are standard? I see that many behaviors that were considered deviations 40 years ago are starting to be socially accepted, probably by the influence of internet (and the easier access to "hardcore" pornography).
But going back to topic... Can there be a sexual relations with sadism/masochism or domiantion/submission without having psychological abuse? or is the psychological abuse an esential part of the process?

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:58 / 02.05.02

Ok, Skippy. Do you mean:

a) That BDSM cannot occur without previous incidences of psychologcal abuse in the lives of the participants.

b) That BDSM cannot occur without the people involved being in a psychologically abusive relationship.

c) That specific incidences of BDSM cannot occur without the players being psychologically abusive (ie inflicting psychological damage upon each other).

d) That specific instances of BDSM cannot occur without the people involved behaving, consensually, in a manner that might be seen as psychologically abusive to a casual observer, and will be treated as if psychologically abusive for the length of the encounter, but are in fact, if consent and consideration exist, only "theatrically" abusive.

or

e) None of the above.

Aillecat - As I mentioned, 24-7 BDSM squicks me. And I think it squicks me precisely *because* the scene does not have an end. It seems, to the untrained eye, so very *humourless*. But that's probably terribly unfair.

15:06 / 02.05.02

My question was specifically aimed to:

b) (if) BDSM cannot occur without the people involved being in a psychologically abusive relationship.

(and/or)

c) (if) specific incidences of BDSM cannot occur without the players being psychologically abusive (ie inflicting psychological damage upon each other).

Basicaly I was aiming to point if inflicting psychological abuse is what really gives pleasure to a sadist (or dominator) and receiving it is what really gives pleasure to a masochist (or submissive)

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:08 / 02.05.02

By "point" do you mean "ask", ciarconn?

15:18 / 02.05.02

Uhh, yeah. Sorry, English is not my first language

I found something interesting in MissLenore comments:

"I'm going to get crap for this next statement, but I think MOST people ARE sadists or masochists. We can identify with one or the other, even on a very small scale."

I do not know if most people, but I do detect in myself sadist tendencies. I work as a teacher, and sometimes it scares me how much I like to "demonstrate" my control over my students. (One of them said once that all teachers are sadits. NO theoric back up there, but there might be some truth there)

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:25 / 02.05.02

I think possibly that all teachers may be Dominants....it's a question of terminoogy...

Thanks for the clarification, Ciarconn. Will come back to this after a little think.

15:33 / 02.05.02

ciarconn...you can't use Fromm in isolation like that. He had an agenda, and he was working towards it. You need to look at his work in context with the Frankfurt School. There's a lot of politics in his work, and power - and its abuse - is the filter through which he sees a lot of things.

MissLenore - good point about sub vs. masochist.

All the same - ciarconn's concern, restated, is interesting: is the desire for pain, humiliation, control, whatever, so unrelated to the darker aspects of human interaction? It would be nice to draw a dividing line between the desire for consensual violent sex, and non-consensual. But I'm not entirely convinced it's so clear cut. The violent sexual fantasies of sexual killers are akin to those my friends have acted out consensually. Perhaps the difference lies not in the text, but in the ethos of mutual creation. Or perhaps it's just a sliding scale, the more unpleasant reaches of which are unavailable to non-violent people, much as (non-sexual) assault does not appeal to them when they are angry.

16:12 / 02.05.02

Dao Jones said:
"you can't use Fromm in isolation like that. He had an agenda, and he was working towards it. You need to look at his work in context with the Frankfurt School. There's a lot of politics in his work, and power - and its abuse - is the filter through which he sees a lot of things. "

Oh, no. I do not absolutize his view point. That's why I wrote that his studies might be out dated. I still can't get over some of his ideas on Psychoanalisis of the mexican farmer (I am mexican). As a matter of fact, I felt that he lacked the explanation on the psychoanalitic/historical origin of sadism and masochism.
Again, if someone has sources on this, I would like to know about them.

20:41 / 02.05.02

Hey guys. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on this sort of thing, but a college run BDSM group (that is, coincidentally, on wonderful terms with the rape and abuse response organization of the school) fell into my lap- er- leadership about a year ago. I've been learning alot since. What I do know for sure, and I've seen this outlined many times, is that in good, functional and I would agrue actual BDSM relationships the dominant respects the submissive. And the respect, along with guidelines about pain and safewords keep BDSM practice from becoming abuse.

I highly recommend checking out the
National Coalition for Sexual Freedom site.
Books that have been recommended to me are:
Jay Wiseman book "SM 101"
Vi Johnson "To Love, To Serve, To obey"
Molly Devon "Screw the Roses, Send me the Thorns"
Jay Wiseman "Learning the Ropes"

11:56 / 03.05.02

Yeah, there is some argument on whether 24/7 relationships actually work. Patrick Califia-Rice wrote something very recently on this sort of thing, and I'm inclined to agree with with him (I'm in a 24/7 relationship where we understand that you *can* say "no" and our roles can switch temporarily, I think me and subkityn have for the most part found a "middle ground" to 24/7).

Anyway, back to Patrick's article, Scene Role Play Vs. 24/7 Lifestyle

Enjoy!

-Trish

15:07 / 03.05.02

My 2¢ re: 24/7 BDSM relationships: I've known about three couples who were involved in 24/7 relationships, and all of them ended very, very badly. That isn't to say that they can never work out, but in these cases it didn't.

In each case the Domina extended her sexual Top persona into other aspects of her life (work, family, friends) and basically treated everyone like a slave. None of the three tops were able to "turn off" the Domina persona – even if her slave wasn't around. (I actually worked for one of these women, and it was quite difficult, let me tell you!!!) In two cases the Bottom just disappeared one day – one of them leaving all her belongings behind and just taking the clothes on her back. My ex-boss fell in love with another woman – who wasn't into BDSM at all – and kicked out her slave, changing the locks and leaving the woman's stuff in the street, along with all the BDSM gear she wasn't going to need anymore.

If two people are going to attempt a 24/7, they need to have strong heads, extra common sense and a good deal of humility on both sides.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

15:20 / 03.05.02

Yes...I think this kind of situation is not a substitute for a more conventional set of needs and desires in a relationship, but an extra set which can be used alongside. In other words, if your relationship is strong, this can work. If this is the strength of your relationship, you may have a problem.

12:30 / 05.05.02

You know, I have been thinking, the whole source of the behavior of sadism is the marquis de Sade.
On his books, physical ans psychological abuse go together, and in some of them (like "philosophy inside the bedroom", or "Justine...") they obtain more pleasure of the psychological abuse (and the perversion) than of the physical one. I would understand then that the separation between sadism and domination, and between sadism and pure psychological abuse, is something that has developed "recently".

14:55 / 05.05.02

Well, yeah. That's where they coined the term "sadism" from. Similarly, "masochism" is drived from Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, who wrote about getting pleasure from having shame, pain and all that fun stuff inflicted upon him. I think it was with his aunt, but I can't remember for certain.

14:57 / 05.05.02

I wouldn't say the whole "source" of sadism is de Sade though. I'm quite sure it existed before him, he was just the first person to bring that kind of activity into the public eye, and to provide it a basis for a name.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

17:37 / 05.05.02

It's true to say that the term sadism is derived from De Sade, but not the behaviour. De Sade's books deal with inflicting pain for sexual gratification, but he works from a very clear right-wing libetarian viewpoint: power without responsibility, freedom to do whatever one wishes but absolutely no protection for those who cannot defend themselves.

Despite the derivation of the term "sadism", it could be misleading to look to De Sade for insight into consensual BDSM. De Sade's work is not about consent.

Page: (1)2