Young Sub Castrations To Please CBT Masters

[magusuk89 (imported)]

So how do you propose making them less reliant on "those types of people" be done? Well-networked can be a VERY scary thing for introverted people, which submissives often are. The solution isn't to make introverts more extroverted. That will exhaust them and turn them into zombies.

My answer to that is incredibly banal, but the hard-work obvious stuff is the way. It is all down to reducing the vulnerabilities people have that narrow their options (or their perception of their options) and that deny them networks of protective power to look out for them if they are being reeled-in by someone who doesn't value their wellbeing.

What are our problems? Poverty. Income precarity. Housing precarity. Homelessness. Alienation from communities. Subjection to the trauma of stigmatisation and marginalisation. The list goes on.

This isn't the right chat for economic-political theory, but suffice to say, abuse is about power, and power is about whole social and physical environments. If you can't guarantee someone better options in their contexts, going after the individuals with autoplastic adaptive advice to try to change their outcomes is bringing celery to a sabre fight.

You can try to legislate bad doms and domestic abusers generally out of existence -- and communities do blacklist abusers to try to do that (BDSM club bouncers are often well-loved for being hot on this kind of thing), but then society only chases after people after they have been seen breaking the rules.

You are 100% right that trying to make every person into an extrovert battleaxe is wrongheaded. It is the same thing as blaming victims of assault for not being martial arts experts.

Whilst it is true that context does not diminish an abuser's culpability, that doesn't mean prevention and societal development doesn't help.

What I mean by well-networked is more along the lines of removing barriers from people when they can seek protection and counsel from a range of people rather than being held in the laser-beam hypnotic hold of one person or a narrow set of people. This is a sort of changing of the landscape that makes it easier not to be overwhelmed. Introverts might be less likely to reach out, but that is not the same as having nowhere to reach out to. The doing of the reaching out requires a certain level of freedom in society, and often financial freedom. Going out and meeting people, accessing the kinds of places where you can hear a balanced view on things takes liquidity. It also takes time. Being time-poor can be a huge vulnerability which someone can exploit if they position themselves as an emotional whole-service-provider. Having limited energy works in the exact same way. Being emotionally distracted can also impair a broadness of view on things, increasing vulnerability.

In short, it is about options perhaps more than actions -- and options are expensive and live in the world of structures. I don't like to judge survivors and victims of abuse, but I sure as hell judge the societies and social contracts that let them down.

... On which note -- if an individual wants to watch another person burn, there are probably contexts leading to that which we would want to fix. I earnestly believe that sorting out people's problems can prevent their becoming abusers; but their wellbeing ceases to be the primary focus as soon as they move to strike against someone in that way.

Whilst I had anti-DVA training in a prior career I'm no criminologist, and I have no clear idea of why someone would want to dramatically erode someone they professed to be close to... but at a guess I would say the exercise of destructive power probably makes them feel like they have regained agency and perhaps honour or identity after a perceived (and likely real) attack on that. It's an opinion that leads me to hold the firm view we need to strongly uphold children's rights and rights of bodily autonomy, and also social welfare and safeguarding generally. What aggravates different people or doesn't does not seem to have much rhyme or reason to me, so I think the best thing to do is strive for the maximum shared prosperity and harmony as we can.

What that means in practice is taking conversations like this thread out of the BDSM dungeon, bedroom and fetish club and into the rest of life. Are people's neighbourhoods okay? Is everything okay at home? Is there a home? How is work? Is there work? How is health? Is there healthcare? etc etc. Although BDSM is an "escape", it is still very much within the context of absolutely everything else, and connected to everything else.

[magusuk89 (imported)]

Having just typed the above, I recalled reading a submission to a fetish zine some time ago, and dug about in my library to get it out. No breach of copyright is intended, and I'll cite it as found, but I've also seen it republished on various BDSM/fetish platforms. NB, 'boy' here is used to mean a submissive [male] adult.

Labourslost, 'The Boys' Bill of Rights', Crooked: fagazine, 4, ed. Jordan Coulcombe, p. 28.

1. Every boy has the right to have his body, intellect, and emotions protected by his Dom.

2. Every boy has the right to choose the man whom he serves and to discontinue that service and take his leave without being subjected to physical, mental, or emotional abuse.

3. Every boy has the right to be cared for, disciplined appropriately, and allowed to feel pride in his submission.

4. Every boy has the right to protected sex if he so wishes.

5. Every boy has the right to privacy if he so wishes. No boy can be blackmailed, publicly humiliated, or physically coerced into service without his expressed desire to be so.

6. Every boy has the right to defend himself from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.

7. Every boy has the right to consent or not to consent to sexual activities.

8. Every boy has the right to seek refuge, counsel, and advice from other subs and Doms without the expectation of sex, money, or any other services in return.

9. Every boy has the right to a physically and emotionally available circle of friends.

10. Every boy has the right to protect his own possessions and finances against intercession, theft, and non-consensual acquisition.

[Losethem (imported)]

I think the difference in what you're describing vs. what I experience for the most part is voluntarily engaging in an activity vs. exploitation/coercion. The latter must be investigated and remedied when possible, the voluntary activity not so.

I only engage in consensual activities. However, body autonomy exists regardless of what a Dominant wants. No means no, and a male should not consent to castration unless it is what he wants.

Everything else is simply over analysis on the subject.

[magusuk89 (imported)]

I think the difference in what you're describing vs. what I experience for the most part is voluntarily engaging in an activity vs. exploitation/coercion. The latter must be investigated and remedied when possible, the voluntary activity not so.

I only engage in consensual activities. However, body autonomy exists regardless of what a Dominant wants. No means no, and a male should not consent to castration unless it is what he wants.

Everything else is simply over analysis on the subject.

Well... of all the places to over-analyse the issue, a thread about it does seem like a good place.

I like your clarity on it, but sometimes 'yes' means 'no' as well as 'no' meaning 'no'. It's for this reason people talk about 'enthusiastic consent' being the consent standard... and to return to an earlier issue, fixing structural problems that predispose people to make decisions they later regret is not trivial work.