Savage Love Jan 3, 2018 at 4:00 am



@99. Ayn. I agree with what you say in @100, but thinking of him as malicious is crediting him with a level of viciousness I wouldn't think he has. He would have to be much more intelligent than the LW, intelligently or deliberately manipulative in a way she hasn't seen after years of marriage with him. So I don't think he's like that. And his life since their break-up hasn't exactly been successful or trouble-free--not the mark of someone capable of acting with a degree of cold foresight...
@92 -- The BDSM community sets high standards around consent, but that's really no guarantee of anything. I've sure seen whole social groups screw up together. Examples:…

Sometimes high standards seem to make things worse. You get "consent is so important, how can you even suggest..." fragility.
@95 CMDwannabe: Thank you for sharing the links on the Lubowski study on heterosexual-bisexual relationships. I think I'd fit somewhere in the middle.
Happy 2018 and all the best--please let me know when you'll have another poetry reading in my neck of the woods.
@102: “but thinking of him as malicious is crediting him with a level of viciousness I wouldn't think he has.”

All I know is his actions past and present here, I don’t know any more decency that she’s described.

“He would have to be much more intelligent than the LW, intelligently or deliberately manipulative in a way she hasn't seen after years of marriage with him.”

Her posts belie this? I don’t think she’s necessarily stupid, but she’s glossing over how little respect he has for her, his kids’ stability, and her current partner.

“And his life since their break-up hasn't exactly been successful or trouble-free--not the mark of someone capable of acting with a degree of cold foresight...”

His life can be a pile of rubble and he claims that it has been since they left, thus he must not be malicious?

His words intended to manipulate the LW are a direct sign of his desire to manipulate her situation. I don’t know why he deserves any easier rationalization than the LW. She’s basking in his meddlings, but they’re not well-intended. Stupidity with cunning and a disregard for empathy is still malicious, and apparently effective from the results.

Why do you think the LW is aware of this on any surface level? Her accepting his manipulation doesn’t make it not manipulation. It just makes it successful. If she was interested in rebuffing him and was smarter about all of this, it’d still be manipulation and malicious, just unsuccessful.

She’s not cutting this off, because it makes her feel self-destructively good. She implies that she’d not ever pursue him if he respected boundaries.

I don’t know why there’s any need to defend that douchenozzle, even considering her unhealthy part in any of this.
Mx(?) Harriet/Ms Rand - I have it. This is very close to being a flip-side parallel to Emma's wanting Mr Weston to marry Miss Taylor. X1 will take credit if LW1's relationship breaks up - "she was always still in love with me" - the way Emma boasts after the Westons' wedding that she made the match - but isn't executing a master campaign with the serious purpose of causing a breakup. He's probably somewhere between Mr Knightley's assertion that Emma just had a stray thought one day that Mr Weston ought to marry Miss Taylor and repeated it to herself every so often, and Emma's assertion that, without the extra invitations to Hartfield and her little efforts to jog them along, it might all have come to nothing.

This isn't anywhere near, to switch over to Dame Iris, Julius King using their old letters (written to himself and Hilda) to convince Rupert Morgan's in love with him while simultaneously convincing Morgan Rupert's in love with her.

X1's knowingly acting in a manner that will not bring good to her relationship seems to meet Ms Rand's standard for malice, while his genuinely (if selfishly) thinking it would be good for LW1 to split from CP seems to meet Mx Harriet's standard for non-malice. X1 is just slightly less magnanimous than Emma, who was at least willing to sacrifice the comfort of having Miss Taylor always at Hartfield.
Philo @101: Which post are you referring to? I'm lost. Anyway, I don't think it's all that important; I think we broadly agree that the most important part is the effect, not the intent, of one's actions. But I do feel that people who believe themselves to be good people like to think that whatever harm they may have caused others was due to benign or at least neutral motivations like thoughtlessness or neglect (or "I thought you'd like it," as one non-consensual face slapper from a recent SLLOTD justified himself), and that this makes them better people than those who go around maliciously hurting people for the sake of it. I think most of us would like to envision a world where we can pursue whatever we want and *not* hurt others, and would at least think twice about pursuing a course of action if we knew it would harm someone else. As we saw in the same SLLOTD I referred to, even people who had themselves (ourselves) engaged in the same wrong behaviour distanced ourselves from the letter's villain by claiming that our motives were pure, or at least that we would have given a sincere apology and changed our ways rather than "deflecting blame" the way that guy did.

As for why so many are eager to embrace their own benign intentions while believing the worst about others' motives, recent politics shows that humans really enjoy demonising each other. As for "did they mean to cause harm," my judgment is based on their reaction when called out. Someone whose intentions were no more than selfish, I would expect to see owning up to their mistakes and changing their behaviour, instead of getting defensive and carrying on. However, so few people seem capable of admitting to mistakes, let alone apologising for them. And if one can't admit one was wrong, one will continue doing the same bad things one has now had pointed out to one DO cause harm to others, which makes one dangerous -- like the Dom in L3. Is this "evil" or just wilful negligence? Again, it doesn't make one bit of difference when you're on the receiving end.
@106. Vennominon. I see her ex's comments as wanting a reaction in the context of his, the ex's, relationship, with her, not as any sort of intentional plotting. I imagine he's saying something like, 'your ass still looks so hot in those tight jeans', and expects a comeback like 'fuck you, you're getting nowhere near my ass'. This would say to him that she has (to an extent) forgiven him--and isn't so far above him, now, in her stable and happy marriage that she despises the schmuck and will cut him loose as soon as is practicable when their child together is an adult.
@105. Ayn. I can't see that his words are 'intended to manipulate the LW'. You italicize this so you strongly think it or (possibly) could even consider it willful or wrong-headed to deny that the words are said in this spirit. But I'm not sure he's doing any more than making half-hearted passes. In her words, they are 'low-key flirts', 'sexual remarks'. 'That top does wonders for your figure'. 'After all these years you're a very attractive woman. Isn't that crazy after all we've been through that I still have a hard-on for you?'. I'd think they're something like that. There's no indication in the letter I can see the he wouldn't back off if she really rebuffed him: 'I don't know whether it's crazy or not but it's gross. I deal with you as the father of our child, in the present. Do you want to jeopardize your relationship as a father with him? Because that's what you're putting on the line'. If she said this, inferring from her tone in the letter, I think he'd put his hands up, apologize and back the fuck off.

This isn't a defense of him btw; I see his 'flirts' as pretty low-grade or abject.

Maybe I see blue-collar America as a barnyard but you seem to see it like the set of Les Liaisons Dangereuses.
You did nothing wrong. You are new to BDSM and could not have known your hard limits. The dom should have required a list of your hard limits, or been willing to find and respect them. It can be great to have a BDSM relationship grow organically, without lengthy negotiation and other discussion, but that requires a dom who is caring and intuitive, and it takes a good deal of time.

A small point. You said, ". . . the bottom should always set the limits." The bottom should always be able to set limits, but a dom can have limits that are more restrictive than the sub's.

Negotiating within a scene is bad form. It's a red flag. It should be as simple as issuing the Stop safe word. Then, before the next scene, discuss whether whatever might be possible.

Unscrupulous doms prey on newbies. The NCSF has lots of data on how much consent violation happens in the straight BDSM community. Unfortunately, you need to leave this guy. Chalk it up to a learning experience and find an ethical dom. Do connect with others in your local community and let them know about your problems—without pointing fingers so much as sharing.
@109: “But I'm not sure he's doing any more than making half-hearted passes”

From the article-

“My ex frequently makes sexual remarks to me, low-key flirts. I feel an animal attraction in the moment. Whatever. I don't want to be with him, my relationship with CP is solid AF, and I get amazing fucking at home from a man far more skilled. CP knows about ex-husband's remarks and one actual physical advance”

The latter is where things get really risky and diverge from fantasy into we fucked before, we should fuck again, now.
@111. UndeadAyn. Agreed--a physical approach is more than a low-grade flirt. I would also think their interaction would lead to sex if she entertained his flirts e.g. if her response to 'your ass looks really hot in those jeans' was 'nice to know I still have it'.

The physical approach was the point at which she should have gotten him to back up. She could have said that e.g. grabbing her was not the same as passing a compliment. But she didn't; and the flirtation has reverted to banter. This would suggest to me that, in her ex's mind, there's not much difference between his physical pass--like, squeezing in for a kiss--and the idle words. If she made it a condition of his having an ongoing relationship with his growing teen that he desist, then I'm pretty sure it would stop.
Undead @111: And he promised to not make any more physical passes at her. FWIW, my impression of the "flirting" was similar to Harriet's, and I interpreted the "actual physical advance" as something like a butt-grab. A butt-grab is not "we should fuck again, now." It's taking liberties, yes, but he's acknowledged it crossed a line. I also see the ex as entitled and immature, but not malicious.
Thank you so much BDF. You gave me a lot to chew on. About forgiveness, demonizing, and stunted growth/wilful ignorance/inability to learn. I'm not sure why I don't share this sense that maliciousness=evil and instead I'm scared as shit of irresponsibility and stupidity. Also. I think the breakdown of a sense of community is causing people to tend to band together in witch hunts, against things, even more than coming together to cooperate. Maybe. Anyway thank you.
@114: A pattern of MRA-style or antifeminist rants getting called out is hardly a witch hunt, though. I don’t see that as anything of a trend beyond issues with certain unempathetic personalities (Hunter, Eudamonic, etc.)
That said, I do think that public metadiscussions aren’t helpful here as I’d prefer to just respond to specific posts than maintain a list of cites that compose any trend.

A theoretical PM feature would probably help greatly to blow off steam and help with communication of the finer points of misunderstanding between any of us.
@113. BiDan. Maybe we share a similar because we're long-time Europe denizens and also sadly long in the tooth...? ;) Catherine Deneuve has just come out with her misconstruction of #metoo as impugning men's freedom to make a clumsy pass. Oh dear, best board the Mayflower Deux....
Ayn, I'm starting to think calling out right and wrong is witch hunting. Whereas discussing harm is cooperating.

I'm starting to link applying your own morals to others, demonizing, and for profit prisons. I'm getting too spacy to continue probably.
@119: Responding to shitty posts that believe gender equality is a zero sum game where rights for women necessarily take rights away from men is morally equivalent to supporting private prisons?

I don’t understand the analogy, especially the use of a moral argument (private prisons are evil thus...) to decry any rhetorical stances. Feel free to elaborate if you wish.
I mean I'm starting to think that we need people to punish in prisons and profit off of for our economy to keep stable.. Maybe it is adaptive. But not ideal to be dependent on slavery.
I didn't even see your response. If I want to take the time to debate with someone, I try to explain my beliefs that they don't seem to share, instead of scold theirs. I share your belief in gender equality, but I approach conflict differently I think.
@121: I can see a near-infinite amount of people who don't want to engage or debate literally anywhere else on the internet. You're free to engage any of those posts on a sincere level and will receive the same response that lead us all to give up and get annoyed. When someone tells me in no uncertain terms to kill myself, I tend to have a more negative opinion of them.
Philo, I am with you 100% that I think the vast majority of hurt done by humans is through ignorance, selfishness, obliviousness and thoughtlessness, and not so much active malice. Rare is the person who actively delights in inflicting harm and distress. And that matters, if one is the recipient of said harm. It shouldn’t, as all hurts are objectively only as big as the harm they cause, but it does. Convincing yourself that this hurt was done to you on purpose, maliciously, is like introducing an infection into a wound, and prevents it from healing properly or at all. So I think people’s motivations do matter, and I think convincing yourself in any given case that people are acting maliciously not only does them a disservice, but also limits your own ability to forgive or understand or heal—or, if it’s a regular habit, to be a fully decent person yourself.
Welcome back, LateBloomer!
You make a very good point about the effect on the victim of choosing to believe the person who wronged them didn't mean to. Even if they did, it certainly does the victim no good to carry around a grudge.
Ayn, I just don't want to convince people to drop their armor or weaponry. It's sad when they need to walk around brandishing steel every day. But some people have been hurt worse than I have. I might pity offensive people, but I try to learn from their example, what offends and what delights. And I think most people want to be able to lay down the steel and rest anyway.. Poking at them just delays the process. So I try not to. You can try to save or correct anyone you wish!

A long time ago a guy beat me up for leaving. That was enough to convince me he was dangerously insane and completely cut contact. I didn't think he was malicious. He was intelligent, passionate, lonely, and hurt. And I was not the most compassionate person. When someone insists on being around those they despise, like Dahmer, I call that intentional harm.

Latebloomer yay! Love reading you. Hugs!
Also I would think that every dom who does not switch is a "person who actively delights in inflicting harm", but maliciousness with consent doesn't ring the alarm bells. Still. That question about how inflicting harm in bdsm can be loving deserved better treatment the other week.
So I disagree maliciousness is rare. Real dangerous maliciousness does seem rare though.
@ all the delusionals who think they can tell me my real life experiences are "inaccurate" and that I'll believe a stranger on the internet over my own senses: lol

Anyone who thinks that maliciousness in BDSM is rare is delusional, an idiot, or both.…

Testimonials from self-identified kinksters (since you morons like to characterize any objection to abusive relationships as prudish and bigoted):……

Since most of you BDSM practitioners actively hate and deride women, here's an account from a man (complaining about a woman, so I know you'll take HIM seriously)…

Of course, I imagine since I just have the truth on my side and you lot have years of lying to yourselves as well as your own orgasms to tend to -- not to mention, your deep seated misogyny to work through, all of my words will fall on deaf ears. Or blind eyes if you prefer.

But I will maintain, now and forever, that actively counseling a vulnerable woman in an abusive relationship to seek out more of the same is wrong, it is foolhardy, it is hateful, it is dangerous. It's NEITHER safe NOR sane. Hmm, it's almost like your mantra is just an excuse aimed at silencing valid criticism. Hmm.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.