RE: Harm

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Harm

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Harm

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 8:51:49 AM

CuteIrishM4F

Posts: 104
Joined: 7/19/2004
Status: offline

Do no harm

(in reply to Homestead)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 8:57:46 AM

mistoferin

Posts: 8284
Joined: 10/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead
I don't do high risk things "off the cuff".

It's stupid.

I agree...but there again it's all a matter of perspective. What I consider to be high risk may not be for the next. Personally, I consider allowing myself to be bound and playing with someone on a first meet to be extremely high risk...not something that I would personally consent to. However, there seem to be many others out there who think that this falls in the "acceptable risk" category.

Someone else may consider anything in play that goes beyond spanking/flogging to be high risk and may consider the activities that I engage in to be in the "insanity" level. It really is all perspective.

_____________________________

Peace and light,
~erin~

There are no victims here...only volunteers.

When you make a habit of playing on the tracks, you thereby forfeit the right to bitch when you get hit by a train.

"I did it! I admit it and I'm gonna do it again!"

(in reply to Homestead)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 8:58:30 AM

onestandingstill

Posts: 1335
Joined: 8/3/2006
Status: offline

Hi There,
Harm = Damage to me. Any action intentional or un-intentional that physically, psychologically, or emotionally causes someone pain or bad feelings is harm to me.
I too prefer not to harm others, but sometimes to save yourself from the harm someone's causing you you have to harm them too.
I think all of us have been the initiator & victim of harm.
Suzanne

(in reply to kyraofMists)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 9:08:16 AM

caitlyn

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

Besides the obvious ... anything someone does that causes you to want to harm yourself, is the worst harm of all.

(in reply to kyraofMists)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 9:19:51 AM

mistoferin

Posts: 8284
Joined: 10/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
Besides the obvious ... anything someone does that causes you to want to harm yourself, is the worst harm of all.

caitlyn....normally I "get" your posts and usually find I agree with your words....but this one...I just don't "get". I don't get how anyone could make another want to do this....could you elaborate a bit more on your thought?

_____________________________

Peace and light,
~erin~

There are no victims here...only volunteers.

When you make a habit of playing on the tracks, you thereby forfeit the right to bitch when you get hit by a train.

"I did it! I admit it and I'm gonna do it again!"

(in reply to caitlyn)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 9:43:22 AM

amayos

Posts: 1553
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: New England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kyraofMists

Often there are statements made that essentially say, I will do what I want as long as I am not harming anyone. Even my Lord’s code is “Do my will; harm none”.

What is harm? What do you consider to be harmful, physically, mentally and emotionally?

I am assuming nothing except the things that are against TOS to mention anyway, so those can go without saying.

Knight's kyra

Harm is a relatively relative term, akin in this sense to abuse. Then of course there are other words just as wide: morality and safety, to name a few.

(in reply to kyraofMists)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 10:49:07 AM

velvetears

Posts: 2933
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
Besides the obvious ... anything someone does that causes you to want to harm yourself, is the worst harm of all.

caitlyn....normally I "get" your posts and usually find I agree with your words....but this one...I just don't "get". I don't get how anyone could make another want to do this....could you elaborate a bit more on your thought?

i would understand her to mean emotional harm - ie - driving a person to suicide (an extreme example). Carelessness and disregard about the emotional well being of ones partner.

_____________________________

Religion is for people who are scared of hell, Spirituality is for people who have been there

(in reply to mistoferin)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 11:14:41 AM

mistoferin

Posts: 8284
Joined: 10/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: velvetears
i would understand her to mean emotional harm - ie - driving a person to suicide (an extreme example). Carelessness and disregard about the emotional well being of ones partner.

Well, I contemplated that as the possible meaning of the post. However, when one takes responsibility for themselves and their own level of happiness, I do not understand how another could make them wish to harm themself. There is not one person on this planet that has power over me greater than I have of myself...and no one could possibly ever cause me to wish to harm myself. If I were in a relationship with someone who was causing me that type or level of pain...I would recognize it as toxic and end the relationship...but *I* would live on.

_____________________________

Peace and light,
~erin~

There are no victims here...only volunteers.

When you make a habit of playing on the tracks, you thereby forfeit the right to bitch when you get hit by a train.

"I did it! I admit it and I'm gonna do it again!"

(in reply to velvetears)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 11:47:17 AM

Padriag

Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kyraofMists

Often there are statements made that essentially say, I will do what I want as long as I am not harming anyone. Even my Lord’s code is “Do my will; harm none”.

What is harm? What do you consider to be harmful, physically, mentally and emotionally?

I am assuming nothing except the things that are against TOS to mention anyway, so those can go without saying.

Knight's kyra

To harm is to destroy. Thus to harm another is to do something to that person which is destructive. But destructive to what, cutting hair is destructive, you're destroying hair... but is that harmful? No. What about cutting someone, you're certainly causing damage, but is it harm? Well it could be, but then some forms of cutting are part of play for some, so what's the difference? When does it become destructive or harmful? The dividing line is when that becomes a threat to their life, to their nature, to their identity... to the essence of what they are.

And harm has nothing to do with being consensual or non-consensual. You discipline a child, and from the child's point of view that's certainly not consensual... no child wants to be spanked... so is it harmful because its non-consensual? Is it okay if a dominant pushes a submissive into self destructive behavior, as long as the submissive agrees? Harmful remains harmful regardless of consent. Just because a submissive doesn't necessarily agree to something doesn't automatically make it harmful. Neither does a submissive's consent automatically make something okay. For example, regardless of whether a submissive consents or not, allowing or requiring a submissive to go on a drinking binge to the point of being physically ill is harmful. Its harmful because it has put the submissive's health in danger... consent has no bearing on that at all.

So to recap, harm is to cause, allow, or require something that is destructive to the the submissives, life, health, or identity. It destroys the essense of who and what they are in a way that cannot be repaired, redeemed or restored.

That's harm.

Now here's the kicker... harm can be subjective. Something can be harmful to one person, and not to another. Just like I can eat all the sweets I like. But those same sweets could be deadly to a diabetic. Sweets aren't harmful to me, but they are to some diabetics. Some submissives thrive on humiliation, others are devestated by it, its subjective.

_____________________________

Padriag

A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer

(in reply to kyraofMists)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 12:05:20 PM

caitlyn

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

I was just about to answer mistoferin's question, when I read the last paragraph of this post, which explains my meaning perfectly.

Thank you Patrick.

(in reply to Padriag)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 12:21:52 PM

raiken

Posts: 868
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

I believe that the line of "harm" gets crossed when one person is doing anything non consensually to another that causes that person negative and lasting consequence. The pivotal deciding point is the agreement between the two parties. If that agreement is breached in an intentional and deliberate manner and consequences to the other party are suffered as a result...in my opinion that is harm.

Nicely put, along my line of thinking, and i would add to this, anything that has an undesireable/destructive result, whether consenual or not. As aside abstract: Harm can be consentual, but still considered harmful, for the person consenting may not have all of their faculty working at the time of consent.

< Message edited by raiken -- 8/9/2006 12:22:48 PM >

(in reply to mistoferin)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 12:48:15 PM

CreativeDominant

Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

So to recap, harm is to cause, allow, or require something that is destructive to the the submissives, life, health, or identity. It destroys the essense of who and what they are in a way that cannot be repaired, redeemed or restored.

That's harm.

Now here's the kicker... harm can be subjective. Something can be harmful to one person, and not to another. Just like I can eat all the sweets I like. But those same sweets could be deadly to a diabetic. Sweets aren't harmful to me, but they are to some diabetics. Some submissives thrive on humiliation, others are devestated by it, its subjective.

Exactly what I was getting at with my post...harm is subjective. This is why I stated that I try to conduct myself such that no submissive walks away from any sort of encounter with me feeling "less" than what they were before the encounter...no matter what type of encounter it is.

Something that hasn't been said...perhaps because it is understood...this is where knowing the person you are dealing with through communication is so very, very important.

(in reply to Padriag)

Profile

Post #: 32

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 12:57:08 PM

windchymes

Posts: 9410
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline

This is where my line of thinking started heading as I read this thread. Like the tree in the woods making a sound if no one hears it.....if a person does not consider himself "harmed", is he?

When I worked in physical therapy, we would tell patients, "this exercise may hurt, but it won't 'harm' you". Hurt meaning causing some pain, but the good kind of pain that tells you you're healing and mending (and all of us in here know about the good kind of pain), and there's harm, which is something that causes damage of some kind, whether it be temporary or permanent.

< Message edited by windchymes -- 8/9/2006 1:00:09 PM >

_____________________________

You know it's going to be a GOOD blow job when she puts a Breathe Right strip on first.

Pick-up artists and garbage men should trade names.

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

Profile

Post #: 33

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 12:58:22 PM

Vancouver_cinful

Posts: 1911
Joined: 2/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists

does it have to be Non-consensual.... Can Harm not be a consensual effect to cause negative and lasting consequences?

This is what I was thinking too, as I read the replies. I refuse to harm someone even if they say "I want you to..."

People are often willing to consent to harm. My personal creed is to try to move out of the way of train wreck, and not enable it, if at all possible.

Harm can be consensual in my opinion.

_____________________________

Cin

quote:

My Karma Account is huge, but I just can't seem to make a withdrawal!!

http://cinful.wordpress.com

(in reply to KnightofMists)

Profile

Post #: 34

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 1:07:09 PM

Vancouver_cinful

Posts: 1911
Joined: 2/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

This is why I stated that I try to conduct myself such that no submissive walks away from any sort of encounter with me feeling "less" than what they were before the encounter...no matter what type of encounter it is.

For me, this is a personal code of ethics that I strive for. I don't wish for any human being to ever come away from an interaction with me feeling less than what they were before...and, if I am behaving at my best, my hope is that they come away feeling "more".

(Learned this by mother's example...)

_____________________________

Cin

quote:

My Karma Account is huge, but I just can't seem to make a withdrawal!!

http://cinful.wordpress.com

(in reply to CreativeDominant)

Profile

Post #: 35

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 5:03:31 PM

CreativeDominant

Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: windchymes

This is where my line of thinking started heading as I read this thread. Like the tree in the woods making a sound if no one hears it.....if a person does not consider himself "harmed", is he?

When I worked in physical therapy, we would tell patients, "this exercise may hurt, but it won't 'harm' you". Hurt meaning causing some pain, but the good kind of pain that tells you you're healing and mending (and all of us in here know about the good kind of pain), and there's harm, which is something that causes damage of some kind, whether it be temporary or permanent.

Exactly!!! A lot of times when I get through all the therapy and adjustment of the patient, I'll come out front with them and show them new exercise I want them to do or give them some new added stimulus to the routine I already have them in. So many times, I hear "But that'll hurt". My reply is usually "It might...but it won't harm you. And that is the difference." The human body and mind and spirit will thrive on thr proper hurt. Harm will only diminish them. I think this is why in almost any healthcare field...be it chiropractic, medicine, physical therapy, psychiatry, etc....the primary caveat is "Do No Harm". Tis not a bad caveat to carry through life.

(in reply to windchymes)

Profile

Post #: 36

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 6:54:36 PM

Noah

Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mavis
Harm is essentially...Leaving someone in a state that is less than they were before you got there.

Emotionally, financially, spiritually, physically (unless you gave them the flu by mistake, and the obvious positive vs negative results of WIITWD.)

Hey Mavis,

I don't think your "lesser state" definition is particularly helpful. That is, if "harm" is taken to have a negative connotation and to be used as a label for activities to avoid.

This makes me wonder if you see "harm" as value neutral rather than negative.

If I buy my friend some lovely flowers, take her to dinner and give her the gem-encrusted bracelet I got for her yesterday, well, I'm left in a lesser financial state. By your definition I would be seen to be doing myself harm, no? Or if I let her buy me a plane ticket to visit her I'm harming her? But do you really think these cases of being left in a lesser financial condition (and not trivially so) are instances of harm?

On the emotional side, one day I might have occasional to tell a friend some very bad news. The time to tell them might fall when the news will interrupt a lovely, happy time. By telling the news I would leave my friend in a lesser emotional state but I shouldn't hink most people would say I am harming my friend.

Physically, well if I take my friend our for a day of cross-country skiing we will surely return physically depleted, in a clearly lesser state than when we started, yet again I don't see any harm being done.

Am I missing something implicit in your lesser state definition, or do you think it might bear some tweaking to account for examples like these?

Thanks

(in reply to Mavis)

Profile

Post #: 37

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 8:15:20 PM

Noah

Posts: 1660
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightofMists

does it have to be Non-consensual.... Can Harm not be a consensual effect to cause negative and lasting consequences?

For example.... what if you agree to branding. We understand the risks... which are many. and we do the branding. Welll things don't go so well. The branding is done so poorly that not only are you scarred.. but the brand damaged the muscles it was done so poorly and now you have loss of some use of the leg. You may not wanted this to happen... but it is a risk of branding if done improperly. You consented not just to the desired effect wanted... but the risks of something going wrong. The end you are harmed... permanantly so.

I would state that harm to me is anything that causes negative long-lasting or permanant consequences.

The intentions of causing harm however is the mitigating circumstances to the actions that cause harm. Meaning that one that has intent is much more responsible for the occurance of harm than one that causes such without intent. In the case of consentual situations that cause harm, there is a joint responsibility that exists. Thou I would say that in every case there is sole responsiblity when harm is caused with intent, it would lmost likely be the case.

I'm afraid that this kind of approach might just move the question back a step. "causes negative long-lasting or permanant consequences" is an expression which needs to be understood just as the word "harm" does.

Is it harm when someone takes an inky needle and pokes someone else zillions of times leaving irrevocable marks upon their skin? Is there joint responsibility when a tattooist and customer consumate a transaction? Well yes I suppose so. But the question remains as to whether harm was done. Whether someone has "caused negative long-lasting or permanant consequences," in such a case, or in a single, given case. Given my strong distaste for tattoos I would say that there were long-lasting permanent negative consequences for anyone who has been tattoed. But harm? Well it isn't difficult to differentiate between the subbie who forks over for the standard issue butterfly on the one hand, and the numbered concentration camp survivor at the other end of the spectrum.

The prisoner was harmed in a sense we can mostly agree on, and the subbie wasn't.

But back to the OP's question which I take to ask: how would one characterize in a general that which will be seen as harm as opposed to that which will not?

It is a tough question.

It was well for you to bring up the issue of subjectivity, KOM, which obviously applies in the tattoo case--in fact in that case I think it pretty musch settles the matter.

I think a number of the issues named in your post and others here are indeed issues which impinge. I'm not certain that a categorical answer can be given, though. Some sorts of questions can't be productively addressed in a categorical way.

What should you do when your car breaks down? Well there are just too many variables for a definitive answer to be given which would apply in all cases.

I suspect that the odds of a useful response might rise in proportion to the specificity with which the question is put.

"What do you (or you and you partner) rule out as 'harmful', as opposed to things you might rule out from simple preference, in WIITWD behavior?"

Now maybe that would be a question which would admit of more useful responses, even if the best of them would fall short of being definitive.

I'm not sure though and I do think it well that people are putting their mind to this question of harm. Even if we can't arrive at a general understanding this thread might lead to conversations between partners (or eventual partners) in which some important undestandings will be shared.

(in reply to KnightofMists)

Profile

Post #: 38

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 8:18:37 PM

Padriag

Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

I was just about to answer mistoferin's question, when I read the last paragraph of this post, which explains my meaning perfectly.

Thank you Patrick.

You're welcome, an how many times do I gotta tell ya... call me Sir...er I mean, Sean

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Exactly what I was getting at with my post...harm is subjective.

Well yes and no. Harm is sometimes subjective. There are cases that we can say are always harmful under any conditions. For example, if I pick up a gun and blow your brains out... pretty much any way you look at it, that's harming you (not that I would, you seem like a nice fellow an all

). Sometimes things are harmful only in a certain context. For example, keeping a slave nude generally is not harmful... keeping a slave nude in a snow storm would be, that's conditional on the situation or context. Harm can also be subjective to the individual, one slave might think being shared in a gang bang was thrilling and exciting, another might be mortified at the very thought. Which brings us back to this very important point...

quote:

Something that hasn't been said...perhaps because it is understood...this is where knowing the person you are dealing with through communication is so very, very important.

And I absolutely agree and it should be said. I don't think its as understood as it should be, people rush into things too quickly so often it seems. People leap before they look, and then too late find the rabbit hole has turned into an abyss.

Its also important for the dominant to be responsible in preventing harm. In considering where that line is. For example, while keeping a slave nude in a snow storm is a bad idea, but a brief exposure isn't likely to be harmful (if chilly and a bit unpleasant). A responsible dominant might put a submissive in that situation for a very short time, but will also have learned a bit about hypothermia and frost bite so as to be able to reasonably gauge what is and is not safe, what is likely to be harmful, and act accordingly. My point being that many of us engaging in activities that if allowed to go to an extreme could become harmful, but if managed and limited to safe boundaries, are not harmful. Responsible and informed decisions make the difference.

_____________________________

Padriag

A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer

(in reply to caitlyn)

Profile

Post #: 39

RE: Harm - 8/9/2006 10:40:38 PM

Mavis

Posts: 828
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mavis
Harm is essentially...Leaving someone in a state that is less than they were before you got there.

Emotionally, financially, spiritually, physically (unless you gave them the flu by mistake, and the obvious positive vs negative results of WIITWD.)

Hey Mavis,

I don't think your "lesser state" definition is particularly helpful. That is, if "harm" is taken to have a negative connotation and to be used as a label for activities to avoid.

This makes me wonder if you see "harm" as value neutral rather than negative.

If I buy my friend some lovely flowers, take her to dinner and give her the gem-encrusted bracelet I got for her yesterday, well, I'm left in a lesser financial state. By your definition I would be seen to be doing myself harm, no? Or if I let her buy me a plane ticket to visit her I'm harming her? But do you really think these cases of being left in a lesser financial condition (and not trivially so) are instances of harm?

On the emotional side, one day I might have occasional to tell a friend some very bad news. The time to tell them might fall when the news will interrupt a lovely, happy time. By telling the news I would leave my friend in a lesser emotional state but I shouldn't hink most people would say I am harming my friend.

Physically, well if I take my friend our for a day of cross-country skiing we will surely return physically depleted, in a clearly lesser state than when we started, yet again I don't see any harm being done.

Am I missing something implicit in your lesser state definition, or do you think it might bear some tweaking to account for examples like these?

Thanks

No, i don't see the ring example as leaving You in a financial "lesser state".. i see that as You got the cost / benefit balance there, same for the plane ticket, same for the bad news example. In each case, something of value was exchanged for something of value, not reducing either party. Even in the example of bad news, the friend got truth, an acknowledgement of their pain, something.. Even being part of the general human condition isn't exactly a negative impact, although an unpleasant one.

Don't You think that if ski weekend ends up with friendly bonds formed, fun, exercise or freedom experienced, that it's an exchange of one thing for another, with a net result of balance?

Childbirth can be fatal, but if it isn't, it doesn't tend to cause "harm".. because there is an exchange of physical pain for a resulting good thing. Even though that child may become the unruly teen, or be lost young and cause grief, i don't know of a parent that would give back the experience.

i think of harm as that which has a net result of imbalance, something or someone that reduced our water level in some way.

(in reply to Noah)

Profile

Post #: 40