@75(Matkoff), who said:

You sound like an abuser. If not, you certainly have a lot of sympathy for those poor abusers, because really, its not your fault if you hit someone if someone else hit you first, right?

Indeed, I could have been an abuser (I escaped at the last moment, for banal reasons). So could you; so could anybody else in this thread. We all could have been abusers.

You sound like someone who thinks abusers are possessed by the devil, or come from some evil dimension. Just as the greatest shock of the Nazi holocaust (as Hannah Arendt put it) was the 'banality of evil' -- the fact that people very much like you and me participated in the Jewish holocaust, made it possible, kept it running --, the worst thing about abusers is that they are people like us, not evil, mustache-twirling villains from some bizarro dimension. People like you and me. Understanding how they think, feel, or suffer, is not "giving a rationale", but actually one of the key parts of the solution -- you don't win battles without knowing your enemy.

Also, one of the greatest paradoxes of victimhood is that it is itself often a cause of abuse. Past victims are sadly much more likely to become abusers than non-victims. Unfortunately, the 'don't-blame-the-victim' mindset helps this happen, by often making it hard (for the victim him/herself) to analyze and understand his/her situation and plight in terms that go beyond "I have been wronged! I have been hurt! The world has evil people in it!" (which, if not done carefully, can lead to the spiral of hate and frustration that ends up in further abuse).

I understand where the "don't-blame-the-victim!" people are coming from. All too often, all too many people will say hurtful things of the kind "if s/he weren't stupid/insolent/sassy/prone to taking risks/dressed like that/so blinded by love, this wouldn't have happened to her. If people aren't careful they deserve what happens to them!" Indeed this is wrong, and hurtful, and simply unfair. But please allow me to point out that it is also possible to exaggerate in the opposite direction, and to violate the victim's humanity in a different way: by assuming that they, unlike other humans, can't do anything wrong.

@86, that you should come to the conclusion that I am defending abusers or the practice of abuse is on a par with believing that Pasteur was trying to protect Satan (whose influence is the real cause of disease) when he proposed that germs cause illnesses.

It's a pity you think that abusers can only be narcissistic assholes. Many are, some aren't. And of those who are, many weren't born like that. I again cite the sadly known cycle of abuse-victim-becomes-abuser as evidence. (Besides, if you think there aren't any narcissistic assholes among victims, then you haven't had that much experience with human beings.)

It is a sad day for social progress when any attempt at understanding a problem in any terms deeper than evil vs. good, us vs. them, etc. is seen as defending perpetrators. Does reality really seem that black-and-white to you? If so, please elaborate. Make your case.

@89(Crinoline), who wrote:

Years ago I was one of those feminists who thought that asking why a victim stayed so long with her abuser was taboo. Now I'm realizing that neglecting to do so gives more even more power to the abuser. Not asking is saying that her motivations and emotions don't matter, that they don't deserve examination. It makes her even more at the mercy of the abuser. Helping her get to that place where she can wonder about her own actions and inactions is empowering. It can help her get past her fears, help her see that there is a great deal she can do to be in control of her own life.

Crinoline, I couldn't possibly agree more. As a victim myself, and as a helper of other victims (my sisters), this has been one of the most deeply felt experiences in my life. As I said in a previous comment, I understand where the don't-ever-blame-the-victim crowd is coming from: too many people still are unfair to victims. Still, the don't-ever-blame-the-victim message so often has the undesired effect of removing the last remnants of control and agency from the victim (who now becomes only that: an essential victim, for life) that I so much wish these people would think twice about what they're doing, so as not to subtly victimize the very victims they're trying to help back to full humanity!...

Some people need the mustache-twirling-villain plus damsel-in-distress model to make sense of the fact that abuse even exists. Assuming a manichaeistic opposition between evil abusers and angelic victims (with perhaps us, the sympathetic bystanders, as a third category) is a necessity for them to accept the reality of abuse. If only reality were like that!...

@102(Just Blue), who wrote:

I resent the implication that all abusers are evil masterminds, brilliant and purposeful deceivers who trap their helpless victims with magnificently-planned schemes. Christ, how much power do you want to give abusers? Are you willing to grant any power or choice to those who were abused? [...] But I refuse to consider [my abuser] some sort of diabolical genius when she was no more than a fucked up asshole. And I absolutely refuse to be painted as a swooning victim, stripped of all choice and independent thought.

Very well put, JustBlue. I couldn't have said it any better. This has also been my experience, both as a victim and as a helper of other victims. I will only add my hope that good samaritans everywhere will ponder your words before jumping to conclusions about what abusers and victims 'truly' are. Let us hope that they will learn the difference between blaming the victim and empowering the victim. Or else, they may end up, ironically, turning into a mild version of the kind of idiotic abuser your ex-girlfriend was.

@101, 99(93), like EricaP above, I don't read Dan's comments with the same interpretation you wrote down here. What I see Dan writing is something more commonsensical, namely, that your spouse may be telling the truth now, and that the past lie may not have been the death blow of your relationship. Just 'may.' And this, in a context in which so many other sources of information immediately jump to the conclusion that the cheater is always bad.

I am sorry to hear of your situation, and please accept my sympathy. It hurts to know that one was lied to, and that is what your husband's affair means at this point. As EricaP said, it's a process, one I'm sad to hear you have to go through. But I hope I can say that many people have gone through this process and survived, and even become better, more self-aware people than they were, at the other end. Regardless of whether or not their relationship could be salvaged.

All I wanted to say in my comment is that there are other forms of lying to a spouse that, to me, should count as much, and be as devastating, as what you're going through now, yet are often not considered as such. The reason why our society gives more importance to sexual cheating than to other forms of lying is not logical, and I wished that would change.

Let me hope that, whatever you and your husband decide to do, it will turn out to be for the better. Especially for you. That you'll come out of this knowing more about yourself, who you are, what your prorities are, and where you should look for your happiness. Whatever choice you eventually make.

@89, & @106: You both make excellent points.

Ms Cheated@101 - I think your concern is valid. I would say, though, that most of the people here who advocate strongly for the consideration of certain choices realize occasionally that their support for the validity of other choices might appear to be lip service, and adjust accordingly.

@Ankylosaur, thank you, and I agree, the Cult of Victimhood can subtly strip survivors of their power, echoing the very abuse its adherents rail against.

I also agree with your comments regarding the illusory divide between abusers and the rest of humanity. That oversimplified, black & white view allows no room for change, either in the victim or the abuser. Yes, I imagine that dogmatic perspective arises from the need to combat victim blaming. I also believe it's intended as a counterargument to the common assertion (among abusers)that they can change and their victims need to stay in order to help them through their transformation.

But allowing for the fact a person can change doesn't in any way require a victim to remain in an abusive relationship. And, at least in my experience, those abusers who do change rarely do so while they're in the middle of an already abusive relationship. There's no need to portray them as constitutionally evil in order to acknowledge these facts.

So while I see people such as Matkoff as having valid concerns and good intentions, ultimately any form of zealotry backfires. Would-be survivors become enshrined in victimhood, permanent testimonies to the boundless power of their abusers.

Also, that overzealous perspective makes abuse essentially an act of god, an event that can never be stopped or even partially prevented...except by the abuser. The abuser becomes omnipotent. The abused have no power or strength before such gods; we can only bemoan our fates and curse the evil whims of those who act upon us.

I have felt similarly to LACA. I became very uncomfortable eventually with my desire for physical violence in bed. Not in a guilt and shaming way but in a "this is strange, physical pain and restraint should not cause me to orgasm, it should cause me to fear for my safety and remove myself from the situation" way. I never felt the huge guilt he does tho.

I don't think Dan's comparison is entirely accurate but it is good. The reason I don't think it's accurate is because spanking/bed violence is never supposed to feel good. Even done consensually, it's hot because it has a pain element. It may make one happy to have that pain element, but it's a pain element. I've come to the conclusion over years that FOR ME (not you, you, or you) finding pain erotic is a psychological hardwiring fuck up.

I became very uncomfortable with the idea that if my partner and I decided physical discipline for not lining up his shoes correctly was okay, the cops would say "fuck you buddy" and throw his ass in jail but it's hunky dory if it was in bed. That just seemed very warped to me and I took a long time essentially reprogramming myself. I shied away from violent images and spent a lot of time re-examining my philosopical stance on sex and relationships and life and violence. Eventually, the desire to be hit or tied up in sex abated and now I find such a desire bizarre.

I know this sounds to some like anti-gay programming but IMHO it's not remotely alike. I see what sex we're attracted to as biological whereas the specific acts are psychological.

I feel a lot happier with myself not needing violence in my sex life. I realize everyone varies but I don't think the answer to "I am uncomfortable enjoying this" should automatically be "oh you're fine, love it as you are!" But there's also no need for the guilt LACA has either.

Also... re: aging and beauty.

I have a theory about this. Baby boomers have had an inordinate amount of dominance over the focus of the media for decades. And now they're aging. The media is chock full of advertising about anti-aging creams, hair dye that covers greys, etc etc etc. Hell, teeth whitener doesn't make your teeth look x number of shades whiter - it makes your teeth look x years YOUNGER for fucks sake.

I'm in my early twenties and terrified of aging. It really, really upsets me. I blame baby boomers. :p

@113 - for me, some of the sensations delivered by crop or flogger or bare hand actually do feel delicious. Light strokes can be annoying to me, and the right kind of hard blows or squeezes can feel like wonderful, relaxing pleasure. Most people understand that a very hard massage can be a kind of deep pain that feels oh so good.

I do also like submitting to pain that just hurts like a motherfucker -- I get a feeling of accomplishment, like when I used to push myself through sprints on the high school track. It clears the mind.

For me, pain (whether 'good' or 'ow') rarely leads towards orgasm. The whole BDSM thing, for me, is less like sex and more like finding friends who will do sports & massage with me. In tight leather/latex outfits :-)

@114 aging sucks, but the alternative is worse. The older you get, the more that hits home.

@113(wendykh), there is in principle nothing wrong with deciding to get rid of one's fetish, and even succeeding in doing so. If that is what you wanted -- if this kind of parallelism between the world of consensual sex and the non-sexual world of non-consensual violence is important to you, then by all means do it. Happiness is a scarce commodity, and if you found some of it, by all means keep it.

Yet... it is often so difficult to accept who one is, to let go of the feeling of frustration caused by not being 'just like everybody else', for not corresponding to a certain view of the 'real man' or the 'real woman'. The idea you had -- that somehow our sexual desires compromise the purity of our humanistic ideals -- is so easy to have, and so easy to feel guilty about (I assume that this is what you felt, too -- guilt), to feel actually humiliated by... Yes, it feels humiliating to crave humiliation, and not in a sexy way; more similar to the way it feels humiliating to be gay to all those gay teenagers who committed suicide.

Your solution was to get rid of the offending desire. Regardless of whether or not this is always possible (the claim with gays is that it isn't; maybe it also isn't for at least some submissives [myself included -- I've tried, too]), I hope you won't mind if I say there is something sad about it. For several reasons:

(a) Deliberately or not, it pathologizes something that is very deeply intimate in a person, as something that it would be better to get rid of, since it is, after all, violence; and if sometimes one can't do that, one is flooded by feelings of insufficiency, humiliation (bad humiliation), and self-hatred.

(b) By stressing the formal parallelism -- "it is violence, no matter how planned, consensual, safe, and pleasurable it might feel" -- it removes the underlying divergence; it makes the word 'consensual' seem unimporant ("it still is violence") when in fact 'consensual' is all the difference there is between rape and sex.

(c) Also, by stressing the parallelism, you downplay the pleasure, the good side, the personal discovery and the growth that can go together with exploring one's kinks. It's like cutting off a rose from the garden of life, a garden that already has too many weeds and too few roses.

(d) Finally, by stressing the appearance -- "it looks violent = bad" -- it takes away the possibility of using this not only as an expression of sex and lust ("orgasms! yummy!"), but also as an expression of love, as a bridge that helps build intimacy between partners who were capable of trusting each other with their 'shameful' secrets, the ones that make them feel really vulnerable. Punishment from your loving boyfriend is about love, not about punishment. Punishment for not lining up his shoes correctly does not come from a deep desire to see his shoes lined up correctly, but from a deep desire to give you pleasure, the sexual pleasure and release that both he and you know you enjoy; in a sane, non-addictive, growth-inducing way. An act of love, just as a kiss, or cunnilingus, might be, if you happen to be into these things, because they are done for the same reason: to give you pleasure, to show you that he loves you.

And that is perhaps the main difference between real violence and BDSM. With the physical punishment, your partner is giving you something. The same punishment from an abuser would be taking something away from you. As any person who has been in both situations can tell you, these are very different things -- just as a loving, passionate kiss is the exact opposite of a Judas' kiss, even though both are kisses.

So, in sum: I'm glad that your solution worked for you, wendykh. But I think your solution doesn't work for everybody; and I can see people getting all kinds of wrong messages, people who are already troubled by their BDSM desires -- just as a real case of a gay guy who succeeded in re-programming himself as straight would also make conflicted gay teenagers feel even more conflicted.

I'm delighted with the direction the abuse discussion is taking. Usually I point out the ridiculousness of the 1:4 argument and get treated to a bunch of people accusing me of minimizing the awfulness of abuse. They go on to tell me how horrible it is, how real the effects. (The 1:4 statistic gets applied all over, to domestic abuse, to sexual abuse of minors, to date rape. I think it might be the new urban legend for breast cancer chances by now.) It's a nice change to have someone imagining me as a tall dark male with a twisty mustache. (That would be my boyfriend except the mustache is more of a scraggly beard, and he's getting a pot belly.)

I think it matters who is asking the "why doesn't she/you leave" question and what the implication is. If the question is asked directly to the victim after she's gotten out of the bad situation, it has the potential to be empowering. If the question is asked by the society at large to the general victim, it does sound like shelters and prosecution aren't necessary because an easy solution was at hand.

I don't like the answer that she was manipulated into loving him (though that may be the case in some instances). The scarier answer is that a bad relationship with an abuser is often better than no relationship with anyone. When put in those terms, the society has to acknowledge that for a great many a safe life with no sex in it isn't the better choice for a lot of women. It's not like she had a choice between a terrific perfect man who makes a great living and who's great in bed on the one hand, but she chooses the evil abuser who knocks out her teeth for some unfathomable (but you're not allowed to ask her) reason. More likely, her real choice was between the horror with a chance at the good life and the long slow lonely death of having no one.

@120, I write for my own joy, because putting my opinions and experiences into words is fun. If my perspective is entertaining or interesting to others, that's gravy.

Crinoline, you make an interesting point @119 (and it's a courageous one, too, because the reaction is bound to be intense). I appreciated your comments.

And ankylosaur, I also like what you had to say @118, in response to wendykh. You articulated my thoughts very well.

@118:

I watched my father bully my mother mercilessly for years. Why did she stay with him? Not because she was afraid of the "long slow lonely death of having no one" (and jeez, way to make us single people feel inadequate!), but because she didn't feel she had the financial resources to raise two kids on her own. Of course, one can debate the wisdom of remaining in an abusive marriage simply so one's children will grow up attending first-rate schools and receiving first-rate medical care,* but this is the decision my mother made. Women remain in abusive relationships for a huge variety of reasons, many of which have little or nothing to do with fear of being single.

*Note that I'm not looking to debate this point with regards to my own personal experience; I simply don't have the emotional fortitude. Suffice it to say that I am convinced that my mother acted with me and my sister's best interests at heart, and while there's no way to know if she made the right decision, at the very least she made a rational decision.

Mr Ank - I interpreted the shoes differently, taking that passage to read basically: "It's acceptable if he does X to me in bed, but, if he did X to me because I didn't line up his shoes properly, even if I accepted X as a just punishment, he could be carted off to jail." You seem to have taken it differently and perhaps it makes a difference.

I strongly incline to respond to more of your post, and in particular refute your conclusion, but I recognize that I have probably been triggered (not your fault) and therefore I shall take a VERY high road here and just stop right now.

@118 again:

If the question is asked directly to the victim after she's gotten out of the bad situation, it has the potential to be empowering. If the question is asked by the society at large to the general victim, it does sound like shelters and prosecution aren't necessary because an easy solution was at hand.

I agree with this, with the proviso that it probably shouldn't be the first thing friends/family/therapists ask the victim. If the question "why didn't you leave" arises midway through the conversation, it's an opportunity for serious introspection. If "why didn't you leave" is the first thing out of the other person's mouth, the victim is probably going to decide that s/he doesn't want to have this conversation after all.

Ooops, I got my numbers all mixed up.
And Mr. Vennominon makes a good point regarding ankylosaur's shoe/punishment interpretation. But I think when he said, "You seem to have taken it differently and perhaps it makes a difference," he really was onto something, which was what I took away from ankylosaur's response to wendykh, namely that it is the intent behind the action that determines whether the action is an example of abuse or sexual play and expression..

Wendykh wonders why the same action is not tolerated if it is removed from a sexual context and celebrated if mixed with sex, and concluded that for her, the line is too blurred and she is uncomfortable keeping pain, punishment, and humiliation in her sex life when she finds it so unacceptable in the rest of life and has re-trained herself to no longer want or enjoy it; ankylosaur decides that the intent decides whether the action is supportable or not. Both sides are interesting and make valid points. And if one, like Wendykh, comes to the conclusion that all violence is always unacceptable and one either has no BDSM interest or is able to re-train oneself, that is great. But if one has the desires and can't retrain to exercise them, then you're left with guilt and shame and a sense of self-loathing, and that's certainly no good.

@123 "Women remain in abusive relationships for a huge variety of reasons"

@125 "it...shouldn't be the first thing friends/family/therapists ask the victim"

@126 "if one has the desires and can't retrain to exorcise them, then you're left with guilt and shame and a sense of self-loathing, and that's certainly no good."

Agreed, all, and well said. I'm off on vacation tomorrow... Have a happy holiday season everyone!

@121: You go, girl!!!!!

@127: Happy holidays, Erica! Have a safe trip & God bless!

Mr.V@124, your posts don't feel antagonistic to me even when you fundamentally disagree with what I said. If you really think I am wrong and can say so in an insightful way, then I would benefit from your analysis, even if I ultimately don't agree with it, because I am sure it would contain ideas worth thinking about that I probably haven't thought about. You are the kind of opponent I wished all opponents were: the one from which one learns new things. So please feel free to elaborate at length.

Your interpretation of wendykh seems incorrect to me, because it implies that she was OK with said punishment if it was done in a sexual context ('in bed'), whereas the entire post seemed to be saying that this was not so, that she was troubled by it. But maybe I did misinterpret her (or maybe I did misinterpret your interpretation of her?); it certainly wouldn't be the first time in my life. I ask wendykh herself (if she's still reading this) to tell me if I did or not -- with apologies in advance in case I did.

@nocutename, who wrote:

And if one, like Wendykh, comes to the conclusion that all violence is always unacceptable and one either has no BDSM interest or is able to re-train oneself, that is great. But if one has the desires and can't retrain to exercise them, then you're left with guilt and shame and a sense of self-loathing, and that's certainly no good.

That is indeed what I think, and very succinctly put.

Let me make an analogy with traditional vanilla sex. It used to be the case (maybe it still is to some) that sex was considered bad, a reflex of our animal side that keeps us from growing towards light and god, one of Satan's wiles to deviate us from the path of salvation. It is better to marry than to burn; but it is even better if you can 'abide as Paul did,' i.e. be totally independent of sexual desire.

Inspired by the beauty and morality of this view, I can imagine people sincerely trying to extinguish sexual desire in themselves. It is extremely difficult to do if you are not asexual, but let us assume for the sake of the argument that some of the many who tried this path towards godliness -- priests, nuns, hermits, bodhisattvas and other individuals in their own spiritual journeys -- actually succeeded.

I see these people as having taken wendykh's road. If they -- like her -- succeeded in freeing themselves from sexual desire and are happy with their life, if they feel good because the deep respect they feel for the principles that led them to this decision (as wendykh's principles led her to hers) are now being fully respected, without contradictions or excuses, then I am also happy for them. Happiness is not easy to find.

But I do 'grok a goodness' in sex (as I do in BDSM), and, no matter how happy the successful, happy celibate is in his/her life, I cannot but feel a little sad. At least in my opinion, there is one path to good, one part of 'goodliness', one noumenous, spiritual element of this totality we call humanity that is now totally inaccessible to them. And it didn't have to be, since it is based on (in my opinion) a misunderstanding about the nature of good and evil.

But again, happiness is happiness is happiness, and someone who found it deserves admiration and support. We all know how difficult happiness is to find. So: happy successfull celibates, and those who successfully reprogrammed themselves like wendykh, by all means enjoy your lives. You have certainly earned it.

@118(Crinoline), I have also often heard variants of the 1:4 argument, and have also been accused of 'not caring' (perhaps an effect of having myself been a victim, some speculate?). I believe that some people's need for the mustache-twirling-villain-cum-damsel-in-distress model for understanding why there is abuse -- those who fear the dark side in people -- often base themselves on the same model for their own activism, and believe that people are simply good or bad, part of the problem or part of the solution.

And that, in and by itself, helps the problem be perpetuated, since it implies not paying attention to attempts at understanding where it really comes from and how it can be changed. These people, like the hunter in little red riding hood's tale, just want to kill the wolf, free the grandmother from the wolf's belly, and liberate little red riding hood from her abuse. If they admitted the situation between these three characters might be a little more complicated, their tasks would also become more difficult; in some cases they might no longer know what to do, which would be hell for any activist.

@123(echizen kurage), as someone who also watched his father bully his mother for years, I can certainly appreciate your perspective. And it is true that calculations about what would happen to us, the three kids, played an important role in explaining why my mother didn't leave.

But so did other things. It was the early 70's in Brazil, and in a quite conservative part of the country, where people were supposed to fight for their marriages, not escape from them. And my mother had already been previously married to an abusive guy, even more abusive than my father, so there was a net gain not to be ignored. And what Crinoline mentioned -- the fear to be alone, not simply a single mother (horrors! in a Catholic country!), but to not have someone nearby who at least sometimes was good and nice, who at least sometimes did seem (or honestly did) love her.

This is not the same as saying single people are 'bad' or 'wrong' or 'condemned to unhappiness,' or claiming that there is only one answer to the 'why did s/he stay?' question (I insist on the s/he, despite gender stereotypes and statistics). Of course there are many answers, many situations, many factors; or else the question itself would be unnecessary.

In sum, echizen: you're right, but so is Crinoline. What you say and what she says aren't mutually exclusive.

@128: My heart goes out to you. All too often on this thread and in Savage Love Land we toss around acronyms like DTMFA and blithely brush off people's feelings of loss and betrayal when we earnestly advocate opening up a marriage or make it seem as though infidelity is a small blip, easily enough forgiven and gotten over if one has the right, enlightened attitude. And that isn't always, maybe even often, the case.

You will do what is right for you. Your children come into it, certainly, and if you think that there is enough you still love in your husband to want to try and repair your marriage, I hope you find a way to do so. People have forged stronger bonds after crisis and infidelity, but some marriages that stay together are held in place only by a thin layer of glue, with all the cracks perpetually straining. It's not a good way to live. And some people find that there is life, and good, rich, happy life, with happy, secure, well-adjusted children, after divorce.

ankylosaur, did I offend you last week when I tried to explain a Jew's reasons for rejecting Jesus? If so, I apologize.

123-Echizen-- Whoops, I wasn't out to make anyone feel inadequate. Being single can be the ticket to the good life. I'm the last one to suggest that everyone has to be paired up.

All of us are faced with the choices we have, not some fairy version of what we might have, and there's no firm line between what's abuse and what's not. Look at any relationship, even with a roommate, a sibling, a friend, or a lover. He leaves the lights and t.v. on all over the house. She's terrible about cleaning the kitchen. He complains that she should get a job. She complains that he spends all his time with his siser. They nag each other. They put each other down. There's ridicule, jealousy. From a legal perspective, it's abuse when there's physical injury, but the evidence all points to a lot of mental harm leading up to the first punch.

When there is that first punch, it's easy to be amazed that she doesn't realize she'd be better off without him. It's harder to realize that it's the same question every step of the way. I often think of leaving my boyfriend because of all the junk (valuable computer parts) stored in the basement. I dream of living clutter-free. Then I realize I'm better off with him than without him. A woman who's getting beat up faces the same decision. Some of us are great at being by ourselves and would rather be by ourselves than even put up with the slightest household annoyance. I admire those people. Some of us find it reasonable to put up with quite a bit more. We all draw those lines for ourselves.

Mr Ank - I assure you, you don't want to see me in fire-breathing dragon mode. And, just in case that assertion awakens your St George mode, I am just going to say I don't want to go into that mode at this time of my life.

Why universalize your own experience? I think there is room to feel sorry that someone's experience of a particular path to good differed so vastly from one's own without saying the closing off didn't have to be. For you, it wouldn't have had to be. I'll accept that. But your penultimate paragraph could be reworded and sent back as a boomerang quite easily

(Aside: I suspect you might be tempted to have a go about why it was wrong of me to retire from romance but have restrained yourself. If you are inclined to go there, I can engage you in that area without being in any danger of entering fire-breathing dragon mode.)

It's tricky because this is fairly abstract, but it strikes me that it would at least be useful to know how to determine for oneself if one so wished whether a particular kink could or could not be diminished, and possibly how to enact such a reduction besides (setting aside eradication for the moment). One might not ever require such a course, but at least at first the alternative to its existence would seem to be enslavement.

(Analogies not used in this post ranged from Veruca Salt to Animal Farm.)

@131: Have you read my post @43? Maybe you should.

@128, I am terriby sorry for the situation you find yourself in. The suffering you and your children are going through is quite real, quite deep, and quite unfair. Please do not interpret any of what I (or, I bet, Dan) wrote as implying that this is not the case.

My entire point is this: part, perhaps most, of the suffering you feel comes not from sexual cheating itself, but from our society's attitudes towards cheating. If our society thought -- and taught -- differently, your suffering might have been much less. Because there is nothing inherent to cheating that should cause so much suffering -- as opposed to what would have been caused had your husband squandered your joint savings account, for instance.

But pain is pain, and hypotheticals about different societies do not lessen what you are going through. Again, I offer my sympathy.

@137(nocutename), no, not at all! What happened was simply that I went to Lyon for three days (to participate in a friend's dissertation defense) where I had little access to the internet (and, given the desire linguists have to socialize, drink, and sing till the ungodliest hours whenever they have a chance, the little access I had was definitely underused), which means that I completely missed your (and venomlash's) answer. Thanks for mentioning it -- if you hadn't, I wouldn't have gone back to that thread to find it, and I would have missed a very interesting read.

I feel like asking further questions, though this may not be the thread to do it... I will anyway (I suppose the gods of comment thread continuity and consistency may someday send me to hell for the heinous crime of highjacking, but I cannot avoid my true nature). What is the difference between the Jewish and the Christian concepts of "sin" and "hell"? And does your claim that Judaism is very clan-based -- "all about the community" -- imply that Jews today would believe the Pharisees and Sadducees were correct in their criticism of Jesus, and that Jesus' answers to them are considered wrong?

Another question (this one of detail): the four gospels mention several times the extent to which Jesus corresponds to Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah. Do Jews then assume that this correspondence (if indeed true) is concidential -- mentioning perhaps the ways in which Jesus failed to correspond to OT prophecies (the world didn't end, Jesus did not wield political power, etc.)?

I wonder if I might compare the perspective Jews have on Jesus to the perspective non-Mormon Christians would have on Joseph Smith (complete with the New Testament playing the role of the Book of Mormon).

My favorite depictions of Jesus, by the way, is not in the gospels, but in Mikahil Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita, a book you probably know. If the real Jesus was anywhere near the one who had the conversation with Pontius Pilate that Bulgakov describes, he certainly is someone I would love to meet.

Anyway... the fact that I am making myself guilty of the sin of threadjacking does not mean you have to, as well. I would feel bad if I brought you down to hell with me. Feel free not to answer my questions (I am sure there will be other opportunities)! :-)

@Crinoline, who wrote:

Some of us are great at being by ourselves and would rather be by ourselves than even put up with the slightest household annoyance. I admire those people. Some of us find it reasonable to put up with quite a bit more. We all draw those lines for ourselves.

Indeed.

In more ways than I can say, I think I understand exactly what you are talking about, Crinoline. I may be wrong, but I think I do, from my own personal life.

I hope the choices you've made have led to more happiness than unhappiness. That, at least now, whatever you have to put up with is clearly less than what you gain. That, as Dan might put it, the price of admission is not too high and the show is really worth it.

Mr.V(@139), you have thus far so successfully stayed away from fire-breathing dragon mode while engaging with various people on points on which you disagreed, I suspect I would not need to fear said mode -- unless I somehow made some faux pas which triggered it. I hope not to do it in this comment in which -- you guessed it -- I do intend to defend that offending penultimate paragraph you mentioned in your last comment. If I do trigger that mode, I will accept your chastisement with due humility and contrition, and will submit as my only meager defense that this was not, in any way, my intention.

I hope to explain here why I think the closing off of a path to good didn't have to be; but first I believe I need to address the concern, which I (perhaps mistakenly?) read in your comment, that I am saying the choice to close off this path is less legitimate that the choice not to do so. This is not at all what I want to imply. The decision to close off a path that brings us upward, be it the path of spirituality, or the path of art, or the path of knowledge, or the path of sex (which is ultimately the path of the Other), and any of their myriad subpaths, if made consciously and with sufficient knowledge of the consequences, is a perfectly legitimate way of being human; and it in no way precludes one's growth via other paths and subpaths. In fact, I will go as far as claiming that, at our current level of development, we simply cannot follow all paths; there is always something about being human that we do not develop, that we give up, that other aspects of our humanity might further grow. Further yet, I will grant that, for a given individual, giving up a certain path might be, in an objective way (given said individual's personality, life history, other interests, etc.), the best available choice to this individual. (To mention my own personal case, I gave up music, a path I might have, but never did, and never will, follow.)

Having said all that... yes, I still think it is sad, and in an important sense not really necessary, to give up a path (although you may later on chastise me for making this claim at a rather abstract level, which is indeed true). Yes, I think it is valid to universalize this point; I am not a strong relativist.

Most of our self-imposed limitations -- the reasons why we exclude certain paths -- have to do with choices we have tacitly made, connections between facts or ideas that we have tacitly established, that do not necessarily obtain. They may be the result of life experiences ('traumas', culture, the people we were exposed to, the books we read or didn't read, etc.), or biological bias (if indeed the brain is not a 'blank slate'), or unexpected consequences of the interactions of different aspects of our personality. They may be consciously or unconsciously felt, they may be perceivable to others, or not. But upon further examination, they do not have to hold true ab aeterno, in all circumstances.

I again note that I am not calling said choices and connections illegitimate, 'bad', or even irrational. I am simply saying they are not intrinsically true.

In wendykh's case, I think I see such a choice in the parallelism between violence and BDSM, which considers the surface level of the BDSM relationship more important than the deeper level (in that the surface level by itself is sufficient to make the whole experience deeply troubling, so much that abandoning it appears as the best legitimate course of action, despite the deeper level and despite the issue of consent).

It may very well be that, given who wendykh is -- her personality, her life experiences -- this is indeed the best choice for her. (It may also not be the case -- she may be misjudging / misevaluating the situatino -- but this would be an easier criticism, important since potentially true but less interesting for first principles. For the purposes of my argument, let us assume this was indeed the best choice for her.)

But this is so because of the way her life unfolded up to that moment. Now -- and we may differ legitimately on this topic, Mr V -- I tend to believe there is more to us that simply "layer upon layer of acquired behavior." Call it a "soul," if you will; something about us that is not simply the sum of our experiences up to the present point in life. Or, if you prefer, call it the common properties of all members of the set of all alternates of an individual in all possible realities in which this individual could exist.

Wendykh could be wendykh in this sense -- having the same soul, or belonging to the wendykh set of alternates -- even if her life and personality had been different enough, so that the option to give up that particular path did not have to be the best legitimate choice open to her.

In that sense, it is indeed sad that the wendykh-that-is, the one in our reality, was such (had such layers of experience added to her essence by her life) that giving up this path of sexual fulfilment was indeed her best legitimate choice.

Before you accuse me of chasing what-ifs with a pation worthy of Don Quixote, let me say that this is simply the highest level at which I can make the point. It is much more probably true that the more trivial criticism -- namely, that wendykh's choice was not the only, or the best, legitimate choice she had -- holds. But since I have no way of showing that this is the case (how does one compute 'best legitimate choices' in practice anyway?), I had to climb to such stratospheric heights.

To give you a real-life example, clearly exaggerated -- I hasten to admit -- since it involves damaged people, but this exaggeration is exactly what makes, by contrast, the point I'm trying to make more visible; so that you can more easily attack it, if you will... I once read an account given by Jill Brenneman, the famous defender of sex workers' rights (from Sex Workers Without Borders), of the circumstances of her life: the abuse she suffered at the hands of the monstrous man who forced her to work as a prostitute and abused her physically, verbally and psychologically in so many ways, and for so many years (starting when she was 14), that, as she freely admitted, it seems now impossible for her to have any meaningful relationship with a man.

From the perspective of Ms-Brenneman-that-is, the actually existing individual of flesh and blood who did live through this outrageous ordeal, giving up the path of meaningful relationships (not simply romance, or sex, but much more than that; she claimed she couldn't even be a mother, no matter how imperfectly, to a male child) with half of the human race may indeed be the best legitimate choice available to her: anything else may indeed be unbearable to the point of being impossible.

And here, I would say -- perhaps with a little more chance of eliciting agreement from you -- that indeed there is a sense in which Ms Brenneman's situation is sad, and unnecessary: that bath didn't have to be closed to her (most of the members of Ms Brenneman's set of alternates probably did manage to travel this path successfully at least to some extent), it became closed only by virtue of her life experience. In an important sense, it is sad that she closed off the path of relationships with men, and it didn't have to be like that -- even though this fact means nothing for the choices available to Ms-Brenneman-that-is in our reality.

Likewise with wendykh. I know, I know: it's an exaggeration to compare wendykh to an individual so severely badly damaged. But I hope you'll see the ways in which this comparison may be useful, rather than only the ways in which it is not.

@142 (ankylosaur):
I don't have anything against trying my best to answer all your questions/discuss this issue (so long as you are aware that I don't represent myself as a spokesperson for all Jews historic and contemporary in my opinions and I have a limited knowledge on the subject), but I don't want to hijack this thread with this topic. If you like, I'd be happy to continue this discussion on private email. Let me know.

@145(nocutename), I am sufficiently interested in the issue of religion and religious belief (even though I myself am not religious) that I think I will accept your invitation. Speaking to someone, even if s/he is not the spokesperson of the whole group and doesn't know everything, has many advantages over simply reading about the stuff, especially in things like religion. You know much more about this than I do, which is enough; and I respect your opinion even if it is not shared by all Jews.

The e-mail account I use for such discussions is ankylosauri@gmail.com. (I'm probably going to sleep now -- it's about 3am here -- but if you send me something I will answer tomorrow after 12pm.)

@37:
|1) cbt and dbt--worth it.
|2) all other forms of psychotherapy--waste of time and money.

ellarosa, CBT has done next to nothing for me, but talk therapy and meds have changed my life greatly, for the better. I have the run of the DSM (+ fibromyalgia and hepatitis C). I respect what works FOR YOU, and for some people I know, but we all differ, so please respect me, as well. Your "waste of time and money" may well be a lifesaver for someone else.

@131/148: How about my post @54? "for me, it helped to realize that I'd been hurting him for much longer"

or @39, or @82, who both talk about abuse as things that reasonable people fall into.

I don't think most people here would send all abusers immediately to the bowels of Hell. I also don't think people are adhering to any kind of script in talking about what they experienced. If you want to speak from your own experience of abuse, please do so.

@128 "if there were no children there would be no second chance"

If there is no longer any love / affection in your marriage, I would not recommend that you stay just for the sake of the children. Like nocutename @136, I think most children do fine after divorce.

@148 observer3, re post @43: I stated that while I was at one time a victim, I'm not so anymore. I've moved on to bigger and better things.

Re @131: "You know what I love (sarcasm) about the comments on Savage Love? All the commentators are victims."
I'm clearly not a victim here; only a reader and regular poster sharing what experiences I've had.
I'm glad you've learned to do better.

EricaP re@54: All things considered, it sounds like you've still got a pretty healthy relationship. Kudos!

@128: I'm sorry that happened to you. I hope it works out.

Re@131: if you think we all are victims, you clearly haven't been reading. I, at least, am an ex-victim; and others here will say likewise.

Maybe you've been lucky and never been a victim -- though, if you're also @148, that doesn't seem the case.

(In fact, if you are @148, this means you also were an abuser, and managed to move on. Good for you -- I know others who did the same. It indeed is possible, precisely for the reasons you mention: you're no 'evil monster,' but a person in your own journey. In fact, neither are (most) pedophiles or child molesters, or even serial killers, despite popular belief. Which of course doesn't change the status of their victims, or of the victim you abused emotionally, 148: they were all harmed (in your case, harmed by you). Your history of as an abuse victim is also -- alas! -- quite common, and may have something to do with why you emotionally abused your victim. The 'problem of evil' and our attitudes toward it are indeed a complicated question).

@147

As someone who lacked the capacity for CBT, and is trying talk instead: thank you for sharing.

@156, curiously, I do think that's part of it, yes.

Ankylosaur--just sent you a long, somewhat rambling, hopefully coherent email.

Mr Ank - Actually, it seems as if we have somehow by accident arrived on different parts of the same page, which is good enough for me. It was very good of you to write at such length. I had a thought about ice cream flavours prepared, but it seems unnecessary.

@156: Hunter78: Boy, ain't THAT the !@*?ing truth?

Erica, "marriage is about accepting each other's apologies and sharing orgasms" - love that. Definately a quote that should be saved in an all time Savage quote book....

@162 bagel: I agree, except that can't the word "love" be substituted for "marriage" and work just as well?
I'm just saying, for the benefit of all of us who are happily unhitched.

@162 bagel: I agree, except that can't the word "love" be substituted for "marriage" and work just as well?
I'm just saying, for the benefit of all of us who are happily unhitched.

Sorry about the double post!

Erica

Sort of off topic but I notice that in the previous week you mentioned something along the lines of my list not falling under the catagory of affecting future life options? (Or something like that)

I'd suggest discouraging a daughter from going as far as I did, if you can. I came out on the other end of it with virtually no negative effects but there's a few reasons for that.

1. Dedication to condom use.
2. Rainman-level ability to judge whether a person will be a danger to me.
3. Drug tolerance (imagine the surprise one has when they try to roofie a petite teenage girl and it doesn't make a dent!)
4. Pure. Dumb. Luck.

Anyone can have #1 if you educate them (and I'm sure you do!), number #3 is also acheivable by most (but is it a good idea?)... #2 and #4 though, you can't bet on those.

If I have a daughter one day I would hope that she'd be more careful than I was - even if she does inherit my spidey senses.

166 Mydriasis-- Most can achieve drug tolerance to roofies? More detail, please.

Absolutely.
Roofies was a generic slang term. I didn't have a mass spec on me at the time but I recognized the feeling.
Traditionally it's used to mean rohypnol which is the famous date-rape drug of choice (just kidding! That's alcohol). Rohypnol is a member of the benzodiazepine family which also includes lorazepam (ativan), diazepam (valium), and alprazolam (xanax) (if I'm remembering those names right from memory) as well as a number of similar drugs used to treat anxiety, panic attacks and insomnia. Tolerance to benzodiazepines is not at all uncommon and is one of the reasons they're considered to have an 'abuse potential' and typically not prescribed for long term, daily use. If one had a tolerance to a member of the benzodiazepine family (say they liked to take ativans to get high) then if someone slips them a typical dose of say, rohypnol, it will have a MUCH smaller effect than the would-be date-rapist would expect.
Kind of like that alcoholic that can pack away shots without showing the slightest bit of intoxication.

Erm... let me be clear. I'm not suggesting this as a protective method to anyone.

LACA: I commend you for your empathy towards your GF. I have been in several situations slightly similar to this one when my vulnerability was taken advantage of to the fullest. During the time that I was trying to "adapt to my partners' needs" (yes, plural), it seems that it has slowly taken a piece away from the real me. Now the downfall to this is that I no longer realize who I am...just always "adapting" at a cost.

Please continue to respect your GF's feelings. And if she is ever willing to "adapt" to your kinks, make sure she is emotionally ready for such a drastic change in her life.

@170: It certainly feels like it.

@171 - You have all my sympathy. I was used as an unwitting accessory to adultery when I was a child.

Sad in Chicago, my husband's parents split up after one cheated on the other, and it was a terrible situation. However, all three of the kids are doing fine and now have their own successful, happy marriages and kids. The parent who was cheated on was miserable for a while, but eventually recovered, remarried, and is happier than ever. So although you're in the middle of the storm right now, I wanted to let you know that people do survive it and do go on to be very happy later.

@168 mydriasis: Lorazepam?? That's used to treat Parkinson's!

LOVE Tim Minchin! Everyone should listen to him, he's so funny. Good call Dan.

@5 EricaP: Yes!

@6 (echizen_kurage) etc: Please read response #10 very carefully. In particular, the fact that you confuse "could benefit from therapy" with "should be punished" grievously harms people who need therapy but who are kept away by idiots who confuse therapy with punishment.

And in all fairness, if X stays in an abusive relationship, X DOES deserve some blame. Blame is reasonable when one makes a mistake (unless one is American, apparently). Are you saying that people who stay in abusive relationships are not making a mistake? Are you saying that just because they are being hurt they cannot possibly bear any responsibility? Do they deserve punishment? NO! But calling "X needs help" victim-blaming is not just moronic, but also counterproductive.

Spank me Daddy! mysexlifewithlola.com