Harm

Harm (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

kyraofMists -> Harm (8/9/2006 5:35:08 AM)
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

SexyRed -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 5:45:53 AM)
Harm: emotional abuse, physical abuse,degradation, humiliation (nonconsensual) disregard for someone's feelings, lying, destroying trust, cheating on someone if monogamy is expected, stealing from them, destroying property, hurting their loved ones, creating problems to interfere with their health or job or emotional well being, using someone. There are countless ways to harm other human beings.

Celeste43 -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 5:50:37 AM)
Emotional harm depends on the person involved. Humiliation and degradation are things I can't handle and it's destructive to our relationship so we don't use them. Other people can handle being told they're a worthless cunt, I can't. It's all subjective. Physical is a lot easier to define. If what you do prevents them from going about their life then that's where I draw the line. If they need to get up afterwards and go to work but they're in the hospital getting stitched up, then yes that's harm. So is breaking fingers, arms, legs etc. So is amputation obviously. Going by the criteria that they need to get on with their lives, a lack of aftercare as they need it could be harmful. If they pass out in a car and have an accident because you didn't give them juice and some food, that's harm.

mistoferin -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 6:12:24 AM)
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.

Mavis -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 6:27:46 AM)
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.)

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 6:41:29 AM)
What Erin said was literally what I was forming in my mind before I read the replies. Thanks Erin.

Tikkiee -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 7:26:19 AM)
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 Hmm, what would I consider to be harmful? It's actually a very tricky question for myself to answer. I am the kind of person who when I reach a stage of pain that is unbearable, I do not want my partner to stop. I want him to push me over that edge, further and deeper. Many times I have been told by others that I am dangerous because of this. I do not become emotionally involved with my partners ( Even with Chris, I was able to seperate myself emotionally from anything we did ); because my emotions are never involved, I do not get hurt in this area. Mentally, much like emotionally, I am able to seperate myself and look at everything that is happening with myself. I feel the pain, I ride the pain, I push for more pain. There is very little that touches me mentally anymore. ( There are some things that can, but I am not going to go into those here ) I guess the only time that harm would actually come into it is at a time that I go into a flashback. During that time, no one can touch me...not even to try and comfort. At this time, you could put a gun to my head and I would not even notice.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 7:37:45 AM)
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 I think mist and Mavis did a great job of stating what harm is and I have to agree with them...and most here. My belief is that the person I am engaged with should never leave any encounter with me...whether it be conversational or physical...feeling regret that they've had that encounter with me or feeling less than what they were before that encounter, whether that "less" be in mind, body, or spirit. They can be angry because they disagree, or they didn't like what I did consensually, or they can be sad because maybe they did not get to play fully at what they wanted to play at, etc...but they will not be less.

SweetSarijane -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 7:46:14 AM)
Harm for me is going past the agreed parameters, stepping into the nonconsensual physically and emotionally, deliberately ignoring limits, becoming uncaring of the health and welfare and wellbeing of the sub. I'm not just meaning during a scene, but in all aspects of a relationship. Erin put it so much better than I can. She said what I was thinking. Thank you, Erin.

KnightofMists -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 7:56:17 AM)
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. 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.

Homestead -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 7:57:08 AM)
Harm is that which impairs.

juliaoceania -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 8:02:51 AM)
Harm can be any of the things you mentioned in your OP. I will say that we all have harmed someone unintentionally at some point in our lives. It is the willingness to take responsibility for that harm and to make amends for the harm that separates those with character from those without it. That being said, intention is everything... I intend to cause no harm, or offense.

mistoferin -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 8:08:32 AM)
I think that you are essentially correct and I was trying to come up with a way to distinguish between deliberate harm and accidental harm. I think you worded it well. quote: I would state that harm to me is anything that causes negative long-lasting or permanant consequences. This sentence in your post though brings up another point. Sometimes a thing can be harmful under this definition and still be acceptable and within the agreement of the involved parties. An extreme example certainly, but an individual may agree to be hobbled by having their ankles broken. It would certainly cause negative permanent consequences and would definitely fall into the category of "harm" in my opinion....and yet it may be perfectly acceptable and agreed upon consensually by both involved parties.

Homestead -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 8:13:19 AM)
Consensual impairment is still impairment. Agreeing to it doesn't make it right. Especially when the person agreeing may not be mentally sound.

popeye1250 -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 8:18:15 AM)
Sexy Red, I think you covered it pretty well there!

mistoferin -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 8:28:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Homestead Consensual impairment is still impairment. Agreeing to it doesn't make it right. Especially when the person agreeing may not be mentally sound. Yes it is still impairment. And no it would not be right for me....but other people aren't me and there are a lot of things that people consent to that cause impairment that is perfectly acceptable to them. Who are you or I to judge what is acceptable to another? That is why we constantly see the word "abuse" being tossed all over these boards...because other people judge what should be acceptable or not acceptable for others based upon what they themselves would find to be acceptable. I posted the other day about videos I saw that involved a man inserting knitting needles all the way through a woman's breast and causing third degree burns. Now those things would not be acceptable for me....and of course they cause lasting and permanent negative consequences. Many would see them as abusive. But if it was consented to and agreed upon then that takes the "abuse" factor out of it. Yes, there is harm...but the harm was consented to. As for the mentally sound portion of your post...no one should be playing with someone who is not mentally sound. Someone who is not mentally sound can not consent.

KnightofMists -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 8:36:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Homestead Consensual impairment is still impairment. Agreeing to it doesn't make it right. Especially when the person agreeing may not be mentally sound. I agree.... which raises the second point I was considering addressing in my last post. Besides the Intent of harm. We have morality and mental capacity in accepting harm. Can a person of sound mind consent to be harmed? Can a mentally sound person consent to abuse? Would a mentaly sound person consent? Is it moral to cause this harm? The best example to consider is Euthanasia. Without question there is negative harm that occurs. But can one consider that such individuals are of a moral and mental level to consent to such actions. Also, what of the person that causes this type of harm with Intent. Here is an example where sole responsibility may not exist with the Intent to harm. These are difficult questions but maybe with no right universal answer.. However, I am sure there is very strong individual answers!

Homestead -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 8:37:44 AM)
But the individual may change thier mind about the harm done to them later. Leaving the one who did it up the creek without a paddle-legally. You had damned well better know that if you cripple a citizen that the state considers to be IT'S property-you may face serious consequences down the road.

mistoferin -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 8:44:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Homestead But the individual may change thier mind about the harm done to them later. Leaving the one who did it up the creek without a paddle-legally. You had damned well better know that if you cripple a citizen that the state considers to be IT'S property-you may face serious consequences down the road. None of us has a working crystal ball unfortunately. I think that the only thing that any of us can do proactively is to get to know the person we are playing with to the best extent we possibly can, understand the risks we are taking and the possible consequences...and make our decisions from the most thought out and informed perspective we can.

Homestead -> RE: Harm (8/9/2006 8:49:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: Homestead But the individual may change thier mind about the harm done to them later. Leaving the one who did it up the creek without a paddle-legally. You had damned well better know that if you cripple a citizen that the state considers to be IT'S property-you may face serious consequences down the road. None of us has a working crystal ball unfortunately. I think that the only thing that any of us can do proactively is to get to know the person we are playing with to the best extent we possibly can, understand the risks we are taking and the possible consequences...and make our decisions from the most thought out and informed perspective we can. Risk manangement and common sense have to be realistic. I'm amazed at how many people fail to do thier research. And I'm amused by people who seem to think I am a cold fish, for looking into things and figuring out various alternatives-rather then just letting my dick rule me "passionately". I don't do high risk things "off the cuff". It's stupid.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.320313E-02