Abusive Submissives

[tessa]

Yes, but as we well know, Doms can also abuse subs by not telling the truth.

That's a much more widely recognized train of thought- the "big bad" taking advantage of and abusing the "poor little". We've got loads of stuff on that topic. jeanne brings this alternate view up as a way of highlighting the not-so-discussed idea of the truth to be found in the idea of the "poor little" abusing the "big bad". Maybe not in the "traditional" sense of the defining, but abuse just as damaging nonetheless.

It's intimated too many times that a Dominant should be able to "handle" a submissive, no matter what the submissive throws their Dom-ly way. Not only should Doms be able to do such handling, but they should be able to accomplish it without being presented a clear picture of what's coming their way. So unfair. As unrealistic as it is to expect god-like-ness from mere mortals (yes, Doms are mere mortals), Dominants are sometimes held to such impossibly lofty standards. Too many submissives, with all the hidden flaws and damages therein, and despite the unrevealing of the not-so-pretty, demand perfect omniscience from their Dominants. Yet those same submissives don't hold themselves to the same standards. Why is that?

No one likes to be labeled with a negative, much less with a negative like 'abusive'. While it may seem that the telling of a lie or omitting information...just that one time...doesn't classify as abusive behavior and isn't so big a deal, the potential is there for it to indeed become a big deal. And if the negative potential is there, the threat of abuse is very real.

Even if it is just one time, to knowingly give false and/or misleading information is an abuse of power (yes, submissives indeed have power). And from that one time, when the damage occurs- as it most certainly will to all involved- said submissives will be first to nail the Dominant to the wall and accuse them of "not taking care of me".

Yes, that's abusive.


Now, to go off on a tangent presented within this topic...

I'm not attacking this post, just commenting based on what experience tells me.

that's like saying that a parent that hit their kid one time in a heated situation, despite being a totally good and devoted parent the rest of the time, was physically "abusive".

Stating this is akin to saying, "well, he's a really good guy...he only committed that one rape", or "she's always been a class act...just that one armed robbery".

If one doesn't want to be labeled a rapist, then one shouldn't sexually assault an unconsenting person. If one doesn't want the label "armed burglar", then don't take property while pointing a gun at someone. And if someone doesn't want to be called an abusive parent, then one should control one's damned self in those heated moments when one's own child is involved.

Whether it's wanted or not, the behavior demonstrated in that one time earns the appropriate label.

Okay, it was one time, but in that one time, damage has been done, damage one can't undo. Discounting the damage incurred in that one time is a lame attempt to assuage the guilt of the offending party. While every soul will deal with the damage in differing ways and to differing degrees, the effects will last a lifetime.

Whether the one time occurs between strangers or family members, the criminal aspect is still there. The law should look at the purposeful striking of one's own child in a heated moment in the same light as it does the purposeful striking of a complete stranger in a heated moment. Being a parent in the situation shouldn't give one the liberty to act in such a threatening and cruel way. And it shouldn't count for less because it's a child who's been harmed. If anything, it should be counted for much more.