[QUOTE] BDSM revolves around one of two things: Either a safe, sane and consensual relationship or risk-aware and consensual kink. A relationship formulated on, or affected by, abuse is not safe. And since no one really consents to abuse anyway, then the relationship is also not a consensual one.
QUOTE] all of this is off-topic for this discussion. If you want to discuss the differences between abuse and BDSM, there is a thread for that. If you want to discuss who holds the actual power in the BDSM relationship, then please post your thoughts on that here

TG The tendentiousness of these opinions, suggests to me , a desire to get your pennyworth in and then foreclose discussion on the basis that as moderator you have the power. Since this is a discussion on who has the power in bdsm relationships. I contend that since all participants in this forums bring a bdsm perspective to these discussions, such a desire could be construed as abuse; which I do not consent to.! YOU have just said that abuse is not safe, and nobody consents to abuse, so that an abusive relationship is therefore not consensual . My recent post was attempting to point out , as has ProjectEuropa that matters are not as cut and dried as that. For some in these forums who engage in consensual bdsm at modest levels, the more extreme practices, of say needle play, or toothed clamps, ,or electricity, other than in fantasy, may be thought of as abuse , for others abuse is defined not by the degree of pain , and /or degradation , but by the presence or absense of consent. ( in the UK a case some years ago , the courts decided that any infliction on another, for the purposes of sexual gratification, leaving more than very transient marks , constituted assault , even between consenting adults in private. So body piercings are ok as long as they not intended to for purposes of sexual gratification, and of course boxing , which can kill is exempt!!). My point here is that there are such a wide range of activities within real life bdsm, that continued debate is needed over not just who has the power, but how that power is exercised; and I wonder whether any of existing definitioins of power, or consent actually are adequate to describe the case I propounded.
I agreed with TG that that case would be regarded by most people as abusive even though the sub was actively complicite in that relationship; yet in the presence of active consent , on what grounds can it be declared abusive. Could it be that the sub because of her own needs, fantasies, and desires, has been willing to concede too much of her 'power' to a master who is happy to then take full advantage of the situation. I.e the central problem there is the degree of power imbalance, thus removing most of the checks and balances that keep other relationships, even ones with extreme practices, or bordering on non consent , nevetheless stable. But the supposing the postulated case were stable, what then?
So the discussion IS still about who has the power ( and who hasn't).

finally:-
[QUOTE] if people only committed their emotions conditionally, then the world would probably be a sadder place than it already is.

TG surely if relationships are considered to be of a CONTRACTUAL nature
then it is only natural that every aspect of the commitiments involved, would subject to defined conditions, and the consequences are beside the point.
( which is my point , although I will concede that this is not relevent to this thread; mia culpa!)