Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: foolishguy
This is a very interesting topic, cruelty. The joy of cruelty. Just cruelty, no kindness, no compassion.
It works for some, apparently, though I haven't met any; I don't know if I'd like it. Could go either way.
Others can make it work by alternating; that I've done, and enjoyed.
Most seem to require a balance; that I've also done, and enjoyed.
quote:
Is it sick? It is if there are no limits or the receiving party is not consenting.
Define sick.
Quite apart from that, I'd say it's unethical on a nonconsenting party.
Given informed consent to an adequate standard, I would say limits are not required for it to be ethical.
Where would you draw the limits, anyway?
quote:
The Nazi death camps were sick. Serial killers are sick. Rapist are sick.
Missing a bit of context here.
The death camps are complicated to analyze, and at least one member of the forum has indicated that if she had her way, her life would be like that; with her on the receiving end of it. A seemingly healthy, coherent and intelligent member, at that.
Serial killers are generally driven in a fairly composited way, again hard to analyze.
Rapists show great variability in motive and mental makeup, meaning it's hard to generalize.
I'm not saying I approve of any of them, just that I don't see what they bring to the table without qualifiers.
quote:
I think the definition of unhealthy cruelty is if it diminishes the humanity of the other party.
Some people get off on diminishing the humanity of the other party, some on having their humanity diminished. Quite many, in fact, depending on where you draw the line as to sufficient diminishment (?) of humanity. It does not neccessarily have to be unhealthy.
Consider that objectification, degradation and pet-play all do this.
quote:
It seems to me that (the generic) you can be as cruel as you want to be and know, absolutely know, that you would not enjoy causing the person you are being cruel to permanent injury or loss, and in fact, no matter how assertively you act, no matter how much fear you incite, no matter how much pain you inflict, at the end of the day your “victim” is going to get up and go home and be more or less okay, at least after a recovery period.
Some do not have a problem with going further than that.
Whether that's reasonable or not, depends on the people involved, I'd say.
quote:
The fact that you are not going to dismember your play partner does not mean that you are kind, or interested in being kind to him.
Conversely, dismembering the play partner does not neccessarily have to imply lack of compassion, kindness or empathy.
quote:
One of the basic features of cruelty is that it is cruel, and that means the receiver must not like it. It could be incredibly painful or humiliating, but if the receiver wants and likes it, it’s not cruel.
Obviously. That's a bit of a dividing line among sadists, it seems. Some get off only if the recipient likes it. Some only if the recipient doesn't like it. Some, like me, can get off either way, but may have a preference in one direction or the other (mine is for cruelty).
I've found that a good determinant as to nature in this regard is whether one finds anything erotic about the figure of Erzsébet Báthory. If one does, one is most likely on the cruelty side, and would most likely appreciate unreciprocated cruelty, even if one's morals do not permit one to indulge in it, or even admit it. If one does not, one is most likely on the other side, and probably requires reciprocation.
The female editor of a BDSM magazine around these parts commented that "there is something undeniably erotic and arousing about the 'Blood Countess', although her actions are, of course, neither acceptable, nor in line with the values of BDSM."
Another I've asked, who does enjoy flogging, cutting, fireplay, etc., commented that he could find nothing erotic about it at all.
I'm with the editor on this one. To me, undeniably erotic, but not a viable or ethical practice.
quote:
Why would a FemDom or anyone want to be cruel to another person?
Most don't, in my experience. As for those who do: it might be nature, as you said, or it might be intrinsic to the alpha/beta biology, as some have suggested, or it might be the wolf/sheepdog/sheep distinction made by Lt. Col. Grossman, or any other number of reasons or combinations thereof.
What does it matter, really? If the Dom derives satisfaction, and the other party agrees, it's all roses and thorns.
quote:
I think it is a basic part of human nature. It’s asexual.
There's an asexual side to it, and there's a definitely sexual side to it. I don't know if everyone has both. In the animal kingdom, one sometimes sees cruelty coupled to the biology of dominance, and this appears coupled with mating habits and thus sexuality. This, one must assume, would carry over into humans.
One can also ponder whether there is an element of proxying in the equation for some.
quote:
People take pleasure not in other peoples sufferings, but in being the one inflicting the suffering upon them.
In my experience, most people do not take pleasure in inflicting suffering unless they "hate" the person in question, and I believe that "hate" may be tied to a desire to dominate the person in question, biologically speaking. Particularly when considering how people express their cruelty in terms of "taking someone down a notch" and things like that. Rarely does it seem to be a desire to be cruel in itself.
In some, it can appear quite independently, however, and the desire to be cruel can exist without antagonism toward the recipient of the cruelty. I find this is the case for me. I have no problem being cruel with my beloved. I enjoy it, in fact. She doesn't, which adds to the enjoyment. Yet I have the utmost respect for her, love her with my full being, and feel complete empathy, benevolence and compassion for her.
One could use the recent Paris Hilton threads as an example. Some who would normally decry rape, assault and so forth as being the ultimate expression of hate for women and the worst thing one can do, have asserted that they want that to happen where Hilton is concerned.
A prevailing theme of the thread is the desire to bring her "down", which is a form of dominance. I, personally, couldn't care less if anyone were to "bring her down", but I don't want that visited upon her. But I wouldn't mind being the one to do it, if it were ethical, just as I wouldn't mind the same for just about anyone else.
That's not related to her person, or a desire to dominate that specific person, but a simple enjoyment of cruelty in itself and for its own sake.
I'm also fairly confident that I'd enjoy it under unethical circumstances, but like any responsible BDSM'er, I have ethical standards that I adhere by, and I would not be indulging myself if the opportunity presented itself. I can't be sure that I'd enjoy it, of course, since I haven't tried it, and will not do so, but that's my self-analysis.
In my experience, the reactions of most people to cruelty (for those who are not of a persuasion that embraces this cruelty or otherwise are wired differently) around them is divided into three categories:
The revulsion response is often a matter of scale, or thresholds; for some, it is evoked always, for others, it is evoked when the suffering is "too great". Most experience the revulsion response at natural disasters, mass murders, and so forth. It appears to be triggered when empathy overcomes other impulses. When it is always evoked, there are no impulses that conflict with empathy. Like most other responses, however, it can usually be desensitized by repeat exposure, which is how people can worry a whole lot about kids killed at a highschool shooting, while several orders of magnitude greater suffering in third world countries is does not occupy the mind in the same way.
I experience the revulsion response, and chalk that up to empathy.
The dominance response is the typical vicarious thrill at seeing an arrogant person stumble and fall, or other such things. It is, in my view, an expression of what Nietzsche called "slave morality", which one can ascribe to the typical biological "beta" pattern of asserting dominance over individuals, rather than being dominant in general. Again, I think that distaste for the victim manifests itself via the instinctive concepts of dominance as evidenced by the appreciation for the victim being "brought down".
I cannot remember having experienced the dominance response; when I harbor these feelings, it's about threats and combat. Someone once mentioned in a conversation- I don't recall the exact context- that they'd stop kicking a person when they're down. I asked why, and the baffled response was that there was no point, as the objective had already been achieved: the person had been humiliated. Kind of like a dog rolling over and whimpering with its tail between its legs.
For me, I cannot remember having desired such a response from someone, and I certainly would not employ violence to obtain it; it simply isn't due cause. If I engage in violence, it is to neutralize a threat by any means neccessary, and I wouldn't stop until there was no more threat, regardless of whether that entailed making them back off, killing them, or anything in between those two extremes.
(Someone made an apt comment on that in one of the threads about the Look.)
I don't do it for pride. And I can't fathom crossing the line into using violence without making the commitment to go the distance if neccessary: as I said, if I don't have due cause to go the distance, I don't have due cause to act violently without consent.
And I certainly don't enjoy that, regardless of where it stops.
The proxy response is what is evidenced when there are accidents and such. People are curious, perhaps a biological response related to the resolution of a threat, I dunno. Sometimes people seek it out, by surfing sites such as Ogrish and Rotten to see real life violence perpetrated; as one of those sites put it "the white, bloated underbelly of life exposed for all to see". The usual explanation for the impulse is likened to picking at a scab. It could quite possibly be analyzed as a form of masochism by proxy, which is how I see it at the moment.
I have not experienced that response, either, as far as I know.
When there is an accident, I don't stand around watching; I run over there and do what I can to help.
quote:
I think everyone has the capacity to be cruel, and to enjoy it, especially if we know our cruelty is not going to permenantly harm the victim.
I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case, unless the other person enjoys it, or there is some antagonism involved. Sadism is a different matter, and not a general trait except as outlined above, in my opinion. I'm open to others, though.
quote:
The reason we are not always cruel to each other, I believe, is that we are also driven by a greater human consciousness.
A lot of behavioural analysts indicate it is social mores that prevents "harmful" behaviour.
In effect, conditioned responses that are mistaken for "morality".
quote:
We are kind to other people because we prefer to be kind, especially if our lives are going at least moderately well.
Most social animals prefer to be kind to each other, everything else being equal.
quote:
Oddly, I feel this only applies to females dominating males. I do not understand the fun of a man being cruel to a woman. That just makes me mad.
That's not the least bit odd at all.
Males are usually conditioned to discriminate based on gender in their relations to people. One of the ways they are taught to discriminate is that it's worse to be cruel to women than men. This, in my experience, reinforces the stereotype of women as weak, fragile beings who cannot stand on their own. A stereotype I emphatically reject.
Of course, not having been conditioned in that way myself, I treat men and women the same in this regard.
To treat a woman differently because she is a woman is discriminating, no matter which way one turns it.
Some have ascribed positive connotations to this form of discrimination, mainly proceeding from the idea that it has merit as a tradition or that it has merit in that women are more essential to reproduction than men. I reject the former as an argument, as the argument would invalidate women's suffrage, for instance, which runs contrary to my views. I cede that the latter is a valid argument, but I reject its merit, as there is significant overpopulation already in most parts of the world, and the bulk of modern societies reject polygamy, making it useless anyway.
Either way, I do not find that empathy is oriented about the gender axis, but rather the weak-strong axis.
My inferrence about the subconscious perceptions of those who have different empathy by gender is apparent from that.
quote:
The difference between joyful cruelty and creepy cruelty is the mutual consent of the players, and the consequences.
I'm not sure the term "creepy cruelty" has merit, nor that the argument holds.
As an experiment, based on something I've seen, two Doms who trust each other can take turns over it. Basically, one abandoning concern for the sub and focusing entirely on their own joyfully cruel amusement, while the other assumes that responsibility and provides support to carry the sub through the experience and telling the first one when they need to hold back to avoid permanent harm; afterwards, the Doms switch roles.
It would be interesting to see if other people's observations align with mine.
As for permanent harm, a brand is a third degree burn that depends on permanent harm.
Many people still do it.
quote:
But if I was told that those photos came from a party scene, and all of the participants consented, and left the party in good health, I would find those photos sexy.
This is what I stated earlier about the Blood Countess and responses to her escapades, and I'm pretty sure your response to the Abu Gahib scandal is aversion, not lack of desire / enjoyment at a subconscious level.
Considering that the Countess tortured and killed about 600 nonconsenting girls is ethically revolting. But playing through the scenes that don't exceed my tastes, before my mind's eye, is sexy, playing the sadism cord. And the scope / audacity of what she did makes me all tingly, playing the dominance cord.
It doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't do it myself, however, nor the fact that I'd rather she hadn't.
In short, sadism as an orientation can go to any length, if the self-control is in place.
That's the difference between the wolf and the sheepdog, and how they relate to the sheep.
P.S.: That analogy is not meant in an insulting manner, just taken from a good text on the topic.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: Why are Bitch Goddesses so erotic? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread