Fun and games in South Carolina
Don't worry if you beat up your significant other... you'll be outta jail in 30 days (that's assuming, ha, you get the maximum sentence).
But for pity's sake, don't whip out your gamecock and set it on another gamecock if you live in South Carolina ( Read more... )
But for pity's sake, don't whip out your gamecock and set it on another gamecock if you live in South Carolina ( Read more... )
I'm going to try to address several things here, but I have to say, your statement of:
Sexual abuse is a completely different category. Sexual abuse may even be consensual between the participants. It may feel good. It may seem natural and right. Sexual activity between, say, a teenager and a step parent, (which seems to be an extremely common situation), isn't right, according to our current social norms. It's abusive. Even if they both want it, even if they aren't blood related, it's still abusive.
Just set my back up.
I'm not talking about social mores here. I'm not talking about whether society views a particular relationship as right or wrong, since by society's standards, BDSM-related relationships are going to be wrong.
Sexual abuse is never consensual. Period. If it's abusive, it's not consensual. If it's nonconsensual, it's abusive. Am I making sense here? ABUSE=NONCONSENSUAL. I just said that above, but I'm repeating it here. That's the foundation of everything I'm saying here. I don't know what your foundation is, but it doesn't seem to be the same as mine.
Physical abuse is the tip of the iceberg. It's the form of abuse that gets the most press, the most attention. It's also not the most damaging part of abuse. Physical abuse is, in most cases, the end result. The culmination. I'm not trying to single out different forms of abuse here, but there's a progression. Physical abuse, or sexual abuse, doesn't just arise from a void. It comes AFTER the emotional, the mental.
If someone up and hits someone else, SOMETHING has happened before this. And by the time the physical abuse comes into the picture, the victim may be so convinced of his or her own worthlessness, they may think nothing of the bruises, the black eyes, the broken bones. They may feel they deserve what's happened to them physically... because the abuser has stripped away their self-worth.
This is why I'm saying the community (whatever community that may be) often doesn't SEE the abuse. The community will often see the physical evidence. What they don't see is what happens every day, every hour.
For the record: the ignorance and isolation of the victim are not a side effect... they're a tactic. This may seem like a semantical argument to you, and I'm not trying to nitpick... but the isolation of the victim is a prime tactic of control assumption.
The problem is, it's not usually a quick isolation. It's by degrees, and it's done in such a way that the victim feels a bond to the abuser, an "us against the world" sort of feeling.
Thank you, again, for sharing your experiences within the community. I HAVE read the threads in male_dom from submissives asking about their situations, and I've seen a good deal of sense in the advice given. That's encouraging, and better than most groups are able to give.
I think I finally understand what you were expressing in your original comment, but I still think that the way you expressed it could have been taken the way *I* took it, by many people. And I still think you don't quite understand the dynamics of abuse. Me? I live with the dynamics, every day. They're ingrained by now. And I've done more than my share of education about the difference between BDSM and abuse.
Reply
So then, if I'm talking to a woman who has had sex with her father since she was 14 and claims the relationship is consensual, (she's now past the age of consent), in your mind, this is not and never was abuse? Even though it's illegal, actionable, and considered abusive by the bulk of the western psychological community?
Or are you going to claim that the woman had no ability or right to consent and that magically in the precise moment between her legal status as a minor and her legal status as an adult it somehow magically transformed from being abusive to being nonabusive?
How do you view sex between children? Is it abusive?
Or how about the boss/secretary scenario? If she consents, are you saying that it's not abuse? Or are you going to try to argue that she's incapable of consent in this situation?
How about the psychologist and client? Or priest/minister/clergy and (adult) client? How about hypnotist and client? Or even dentist and client? If the client in all of these cases claims to have consented, which ones constitute abuse in your mind? Does it matter which ones are socially acceptable and which ones are illegal, considered unethical, considered grounds for revoking a license to practice, or otherwise?
Reply
Children and parents have, by definition, a completely imbalanced relationship. That's the way it's supposed to be. Parents have power over children (and hopefully exercise that with caution, care, and love). A parent who takes advantage of that power is abusing his or her child. Period. I don't see any wiggle room there at all. (and, by the way, this applies to a stepparent, too)
I've lost track of how many former child victims have claimed consensuality in order to protect their abusers... because they've been led to believe they consented. Grooming. It's a wonderful thing.
2) define "between children."
Sexual experimentation is normal and healthy. Sex between minors, while often regrettable, is normal. Sex between a 16-year-old and an 8-year-old is abusive. Balance. Of. Power. Inability. To. Consent.
3) it's not illegal (or abusive) for the secretary to be screwing her boss, or for the boss to be porking his secretary. It's stupid, yes, and will more than likely lead to problems, but it does not become illegal (or abusive) until or unless there are threats or sanctions stated or implied. "you fuck me or you lose your job," stated or implied. THEN it becomes abusive. And illegal. (unless you're in the military, and the military is literally a law unto itself)
If the sex between them is the result of those sorts of threats, then, yes, it's abusive. Her ability to consent implies an equality. If he reminds her that she's not anywhere near equal to him, and she feels coerced, then it's not consensual.
I think you and I are not only defining the big terms differently, but also the supporting terms.
4) Once again, we hit up against... are we discussing/arguing the terms based on moral/social views, or legality?
Legally, yes, all that is abusive, grounds for suspension, et cetera.
Is it abusive by the definitions of "nonconsensual" and "power imbalance?" Maybe. Maybe not. I'm quite sure there are, somewhere, former doctor/patient, priest/lay person, dentist/patient pairs who have gone on to happy, healthy, fulfilled relationships.
Cool. I'm all for healthy relationships.
This is one place where, morally, the waters are a little muddy. Was there any coercion at the beginning? If not, then I would personally (and this is entirely my own opinion) say that sex between these two people wasn't abusive. If there WAS coercion, I'm going to slap that label on.
Because coercion lessens the ability to consent.
Consent. Balance of power.
Put this back in the context where we began... BDSM.
Dominant.
Submissive.
Would you argue that there is an inherent imbalance of power upon labelling people as one or the other? I submit that (hahah, unintended pun) until the submissive party has consented to the exchange of power, he or she has an equal amount. And I would furthermore submit that the balance of power doesn't necessarily truly shift.
This is getting too far into personal credo, though. My point here is this: The submissive party needs to give consent to the dominant party before the power EXCHANGE takes place.
There's no exchange in abuse. Power is taken, not given.
Reply
2) So you're saying that an 8yo can consent to another 8yo, but not to a 16yo? That gets into a beard argument then, doesn't it? Surely one hair is not a beard, but are two? Or three? If 8&16 is not ok, then what about 8 & 15? 8 & 14? 9 & 16? etc. How do you draw the line? How would you go about deciding whether to intervene, assuming you happen across a pair of children in the act and you know neither of them personally nor their parents?
3) From the outside, it's not so clear. It's the same case as the child, in many ways. If power imbalance a priori prevents consent, then it should a priori prevent consent in both the case of the secretary as well as the child.
Let's make this more personal.
In first person - I take action. I decline action. Whether something is judged by society to be abusive or illegal enters into my choices, but it doesn't necessarily define them. I will take actions that are considered abusive by others but not necessarily by me. If someone has a problem with me, I prefer that they take it up with me first, but I understand that in some situations, that can be difficult for someone to do.
In second person - I interact with others. If I don't like an exchange, I decline it. If I can't decline it, then I look for support. Are there other people around who can help me out of the situation? If so, I call for help in whatever means works. If the situation is abusive, I expect that society - perhaps total strangers, will step in to help. If the situation is not clearly abusive, then I expect to do a lot more explaining or a lot more looking to find someone willing to help me out.
In third person - we have societal standards for behavior and for abuse. Consent is not prohibited. Abuse can occur even when the parties consent to the behavior. There are situations in which I will step in to intervene, even though neither of the parties has asked.
Yes, we may be having a semantic argument. To me, "abuse" is defined in part by consent, but primarily by societal norms and that's the definition I use. It's ok to punish your child, even though it's nonconsensual, because that's within our society's norms.
If you work it the other way, and define abuse in terms of a lack of consent, then you are forced to define away consent on your own terms, while ignoring the claims of the people involved. I prefer to respect and acknowledge those claims, though I won't necessarily agree to take action solely on that basis.
If a child complains that it's not right that his parent punishes him, (perhaps a claim of abuse), I can acknowledge that it's not fair and that the relationship is imbalanced.
Whether the words submissive and dominant come with an a priori power imbalance depends on the context. In many contexts, they do. Power dynamics exist even outside of consensual d/s. Inside consensual d/s, there are entire communities where those words do come with a priori power imbalances - the tpe folks, the gor folks, and many folks who practice m/s.
My personal preference is to view d/s exchanges as though the participants were effectively at power parity. I find the results of that assumption to be more interesting and useful than the reverse. It's an arbitrary belief, though, and I'm well aware that it's an arbitrary belief. A world view without this can still be a self consistent world view and can still yield insight. I just don't usually find it quite as constructive.
I think your perspective on these issues is more rigid, more black and white than is either necessary or useful. I hear that they have strong emotional charge for you. They have had for me as well.
Reply
Leave a comment