A community for discussion, sharing, and critical thinking on kinky topics.
Discussing CNC's Definition of Abuse
Now and again, my friends texts me links to kink-&-abuse articles for us to discuss -- various pages from across the internet about defining abuse while making moral space for the ethical practice of kinks. And these things are usually... bad.
I don't know how much interest y'all have in this, but I decided to share some thoughts here on the latest of these discussion pieces: Abuse and Erotic Power Exchange on collarncuffs.com (cw: NSFW image of person in lingerie) -- and yes, as you can tell from the title, it focuses on "power exchange" (d/s, m/s, etc.) and assumes an erotic element.
Gonna try to be brief to start off with, because hoo boy.
Some points in its favor: the article frequently uses "should" instead of "is" -- indicating an ideal or baseline for how people should go about things and what they should look or aim for, instead of using those standards as part of a definition of what EPE always inherently is. Failure to make this distinction tends to coincide with talking as if kink and abuse can never overlap. So thumbs up. I also appreciate that it acknowledges the role of covert coersion, social punishment, etc. that can cajole or corner people.
What I don't get is why they follow up that acknowlegement with "This may be the case for example if colleagues at work enter into EPE-activities or within a marriage." I don't know why marriage is being highlighted as a risk factor. I seriously don't know, and it's not explained.
Onto a more serious problem: sticking "sane" in as one of the "should" criteria. Shove off. They throw "safe" in there too, out of tradition, I guess. Oddly enough, though, the elaboration on that one comes across as more RACK-y than SSC to me. I recommend Cor's post on RACK vs SSC for more details on those terms and the issues.
Here's where things get ridiculous.
Although the majority of the people, involved in erotic power exchange, usually have very high moral and ethical standards there is no standard moral or ethical code when it comes to erotic power exchange. Since EPE is such a personal and intimate activity it is questionable if such a moral code can be produced at all. This means that people who are into erotic power exchange activities very much depend on their own judgment, often without references.
Yeah. Okay. This literally just said that the majority of people who do EPE "usually have very high" moral standards. In other words, they are ethically A Cut Above. Imagine me wrinkling my nose right now.
And don't get all faux-Nietzsche on me with that "it is questionalbe if such a moral code can be produced at all." You just said that EPE folks have great morals! How can you make that judgement call if you aren't even certain that any moral code applies?
Respect: Any erotic power exchange relationship should be based on mutual respect. In the event you have doubts about this, it is very likely there is something wrong.
Sure. But unfortunately, not having doubts doesn't mean you're in the clear.
Relationship: In general - disregarding incidental kick-seeking - erotic power exchange can only flourish within a sound and solid relationship.
Rules apply, except for when they don't.
Dominance and ego: Dominance is not male chauvinism pr Female supremacy. Although it is sometimes very hard to draw the lines in individual cases, ego trips are out of the question when it comes to erotic power exchange. It is a mistake to think only the submissive can be “persuaded” into something s/he does not want. It happens to dominants as well and submissives can sometimes be very persistent and manipulative.
Where do I even start?
- This paragraph starts off talking about defining dominance but ends with a warning about dangerous subs (there is no corresponding warning about doms, as you can see).
- "it is sometimes very hard to draw the lines in individual cases" -- which is why it would be helpful to give some specific guidelines on how to draw the lines in individual cases. "Ego trips are out of the question" is not a specific enough guideline because it doesn't go on to say what counts as an ego trip. If someone's under the influence of an abuser, they may well be facing a lot of internal pressure to excuse or justify an episode even before it occurs to them that something could count as an "ego trip."
Moving on... it's not clear why "domestic violence" is specified in the next section instead of abuse, but I won't roll out my full thoughts on that terminology unless someone asks.
The definition it gives for domestic violence, which most certainly is not specific to domestic violence, is "a pattern of intentional intimidation for the purpose of dominating, coercing, or isolating another without his/her consent"... which has me puzzling over the implication that someone could "consent" to isolation. I mean, there's "everyone please leave me alone," yeah, but in these contexts "isolation" is used to mean a specific tactic by an abuser to cut off other ties and make the target emotionally/socially dependent on them alone. Why are we implying that that's something you can consent to? Or that it's nuetral to do, as long as it's "consented" to?
Can we please try talking about damaging interpersonal tactics without throwing on "unless it's consented to," for once? Just because consent is important doesn't mean it's the only factor to take into consideration. It's a trademark of gaslighting and violent experiences that survivors doubt their feelings and abusers get them to lower their bar for what they'll call "consensual." You've got to take this kind of stuff into account.
Does your partner ever hit, choke, slap, or otherwise physically hurt you? (Erotic power exchange scenes excluded) Has he or she ever restrained you against your will, locked you in a room or used a weapon of any kind?
Okay, look. This is the problem. A scene can still go wrong or be misconstrued as a "consensual scene" by one partner even when it wasn't. Throwing in that little parenthetical exception doesn't resolve the complexities here -- it just signals and validates a means for abusers to gaslight. That's not just lazy, that's irresponsible. What would be better is a frank discussion of how pain/impact can manifest in a relationship and what criteria (even within a scene!) makes it neutral treatment or mistreatment.
I'll add, though, that several of these examples/question prompts are pretty good for providing concrete details. They're thrown down a little blunt, without as much elaboration as in above sections, which can make it read a little jarring, but this is still a step above what some "resources" accomplish.
That said, a lot of these are the "extreme" stuff -- threatening pets, stealing, choking etc. -- that, I would think, are on the far-end of escalation... I'd also like to help people identify warning signs before getting to that point, if possible, and in this article I don't see a lot that would do that until you're already in deep.
Is your partner constantly criticizing you, humiliating you, and generally undermining your self esteem?
I think it's interesting -- and questionable -- that the physical violence question got a scene disclaimer, but this question doesn't. Given, well, the nature and expectations of PE-type relationships and scenes... sometimes "humilation" is explicitly negotiated as part of the package, right? Are we going to discuss a roadmap for that? No? Well alright then.
Although it does not occur often, abuse within an erotic power exchange relation does occur.
Look, it's good that you acknowledge it, but you're a coward for downplaying it like that. This is not a "sell kink to the general public" article. This article is directly addressed to a kinky audience that wants to assess the nature of their own individual relationships. There's no point in prefacing your "abuse can happen in these relationships" with "it doesn't happen much" unless you're trying to argue that your own article is barely relevant. And as for the claim itself, I would say "citation needed" here, but you know what? I've got my own citation. What's your definition of "often"?
Rape and forced sexual acts are not part of consensual S/M.
Did you really have to specify that rape and forced acts aren't consensual?
One word of advice to aid workers: someone who has been in an erotic power exchange relationship did not bring it upon him or her self.
Just how many different audiences are you trying to write to at the same time here?
Anyway, its recommendations for abuse survivors at the end are... lackluster. They're there, at least, but there's not even a single link, and it's pretty funny (in a gallows humor kind of way) that the article brings up isolation as an abuse tactic but also presumes you can "ask a friend" for help.
Overall, I'd give this one a...
★ ★ ★ three out of five stars on the Kink And Abuse Article Scale that I made up just now, because for all its flaws, it's still the best of the ones my friend has sent me.




There's a part of me which is very find-the-edge-cases. A lot of anti kink things go, "Who could possibly consent to being [insert kink activity here]?" when, as a matter of fact, many people do - enthusiastically, even.
I can't actually think, personally, of circumstances where isolation as the social tactic it usually is could be emphatically consented to. Though maybe, idk - suppose the sub has toxic family members that they want to cut ties with but feel like they can't without being a bad person, so their partner "forcibly" isolating them from their family is a thing they emphatically want?
I can even see a situation where it's like "I will manage your entire social life for you and have complete authority over whom you see" - to me that seems desirable but unhealthy: I would actually love having a dominant who took over my social calendar, as long as they had a taste in people I enjoyed. At the same time, doing that seems like a recipe for winding out completely without a support system in the event of a breakup and thus a Bad Idea. Still, something being unhealthy doesn't mean people don't get to consent to it.
My point being: I feel very slippery-slope about saying something can never be consented to, even when it's something I only saw in the context of abusive relationships and can't personally come up with a way or a reason to consent to it, unless there is a very strong dividing line explaining why that thing cannot be consented to.
Yeah, I thought about that too.... I'm just confused about what they were saying there, I guess. Should have worded that better.
grr/-some other emotional expression I don't know words for- that "(Erotic power exchange scenes excluded)" kind of thing.
I was reading a different re abuse article on another kink site recently (which to be clear had a lot of good stuff in it, and I admire the author on a lot of things they do even as there's some things they do that I have issue with), and it also kept having things like "(This excludes things you consented to as part of a D/s dynamic; it is about non-consensual control)", "(This excludes consensual humiliation within the context of BDSM; it refers to non-consensual humiliation.)"
Which like - given the amount of anti-kink, erasing-or-some-such-word of kink, etc stuff out there, that is an important thing! But leaving it at that like - well, I just immediately think of people with experiences like 'but I said yes so it can't be abuse'. (And the 'given anti-kink' swings in that direction too - there's also quite enough people with internalized things like 'well if I want such things what else can I expect' and - all that stuff).
And like, I can see why that kind of article-writing happens (or, well. I can see some not-entirely-terrible reasons why that happens, aside from the is-terrible reasons) - there's not many resources on working that kind of thing out. And with a 'vanilla' article it's very possible the person has learned kink exists but doesn't know much about it (which to be clear, doesn't mean this doesn't do harm). And even kink people writing have likely seen all sorts of resources for 'general' abuse things, and not for the kink stuff specifically.
But, well - as a kink person, that's where these resources have to come from, if they're to start existing more - to exist, to be linked from these other articles... And of course that doesn't mean any one person has to go do that, if they can't or don't know how to or that's not what they want to write about, etc.
But I think even at least a note that, like, you're not going into this topic here, but it does exist and is important would be better that just parenthetical 'unless it's consensual!'s.
Had this been written by a programmer, it would've been modular rather than monolithic: It would be a series of posts/articles dealing with various smaller issues within the scene. Each post/article would go in-depth about a specific issue rather than being superficial about all issues.
I guess that depends on how good the programmer is at writing articles :P or, I guess, whether their native programming language is C++ or Assembly.