Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Physical Violence
It seems I've managed to start threads on discussion groups some of which I'm not even on regarding when physical violence may or may not be appropriate. I'm providing this post as a forum to which to transfer these discussions, so that they can occur where I will be aware of them and thus capable of participating in them.

  • 1
This oughta be inneressing. lol


Personally, I think physical violence should be kept in the bedroom where it belongs. LOL

You do realize of course, that is a "forever" debate, that has raged down the ages.

That said, One starts, i suppose, with Self-defense, and defense of family and loved ones, with the assumption of failure of negotiation and personal diplomacy, and having exhausted other non-violent other options. But from that point on, thinks swiftly get REAL fuzzy. One of the most emotionally charged tangents being corporal punishment.

And that's just off the top of my head, with a background in Karate, Jujutsu, and T'ai Chi. Never the less, I do cling to ideals of Zen and Tao and Nativism, but there is a strong warrior path honored there. And in a recent situation with a client, the attitude of being willing to "go to war" and to accept the potential consequences brought the man to the conference table.

Which brings on the further tangential question, is battling layers and escalating lawsuits any less brutal and more civilized? And extended legal action can be horrifically stressful and an awesome sucking pit for the participants stamina and resources. Strikes me as somewhat violent as well.

OK.. thinking WAY too much for Thanksgiving Morning!


>You do realize of course, that is a "forever"
>debate, that has raged down the ages.

Of course, though I'm amused by your phrasing. Perhaps if the debate raged a bit less, more of a productive nature might get said.

Personal defense is a reasonable reference point for such a discussion, agreed. Given the rapid deterioration of police ethics that symbioid was decrying here with me earlier in the week, the discussion gets rapidly murkier.

I see corporal punishment as being a tangentially related issue; my concept of "punishment" doesn't seem to mesh with the norm. Largely, I don't use it, though I *do* use physical communication. And sometimes what I'm physically communicating is irritation, and occasionally even anger (though I tend to get very precisely verbal when angry, rather than physical).

>And that's just off the top of my head, with
>a background in Karate, Jujutsu, and T'ai Chi.

I usually play Aikido, though if you have a move involving the top of your head I would be delighted to learn it from you.

>I do cling to ideals of Zen and Tao and Nativism,

Elaborate, please, if you would. I've done a bit of reading on Zen, and somewhat less on Tao, but what little I know of nativism suggests that the term has not really evolved a formal definition as yet.

>there is a strong warrior path honored there.

For purposes of *this* discussion, how would you define a warrior, and what is the correlation between being one and following a path, of whatever degree of formality?

>the attitude of being willing to "go to war"
>and to accept the potential consequences
>brought the man to the conference table.

I think it would be pleasurable to do business with you. What business are you in?

>Which brings on the further tangential
>question, is battling layers and escalating
>lawsuits any less brutal and more civilized?

Marvelous point, and I don't think it's tangential at all. I'd argue "No," and I want to get back to that. But I too have a lot of formal socializing to do today; perhaps I'll be able to get to this tomorrow.

>OK.. thinking WAY too much for Thanksgiving

I'll happily host your brain any time it's not otherwise occupied.

Twisty little trees to you too,


Regarding the following on discussion (found here) not directly concerning violence...

I deliberately used the term 'unnerved' because I think many people might have a hard time articulating the reason for their 'unease'.

As you note, an open-door policy is not in itself anything to be ashamed of.

Some people may just feel that it is a rather naive and dangerous stance, and may be concerned for you or anyone you might share a home with.

Others may wonder about your motivations. This may be in part due to the nature of the Internet.

I've encountered lots of people who have freely invited me or friends of mine to their homes despite not ever having met me or my friends before. Often there is overtly something sexual about the offer, but we are all aware of the dangers of 'internet perverts' whom have more subtle approaches.

It would be entirely wrong and irrational to assume that was true of you, but the associations may be in part an explanation for the unease. The problem is that people may find it hard to relate to whatever motivations you have for your 'open door' policy, and hence be inclined to speculate on some of the worst possibilities.

When your post presented them with evidence that you were in some way 'dangerous' (although it turns out that it was merely a misleading phrasing of words) this seemed to confirm their fears, hence why people so eagerly judged you.

The Internet is a weird place after all, we almost expect these things and look for the danger and perversion behind people's posts. After that one guy whose 'primary' turned out to be a horse one doesn't really boggle at much anymore :o)

My thanks for relocating the discussion, Jamie.

I think we're in general agreement that the archetypal Most People haven't thought through their social interactions at all, and specifically don't give thought to their social interactions on line. And, as you note, are inarticulate about it.

In voicing my own opinions publicly, I feel I'm providing the public service of helping such people learn enough about what's going on inside their own heads to become articulate about it.

If you or anyone else cares to discuss my motivations with me, I will be happy to indulge the collective you. A good challenge helps me refine my understanding of my own motivations, and I'm as happy to recieve that service as I am to provide it.

As far as I'm aware, all of my current intimate relationships are with humans. Perhaps I'm speciesist, but all the other folks I know at the moment are pinnipeds and cetaceans, and I don't swim well enough to keep up with them.



I've made the offer to the folks on the dot_poly_snark community, so anyone who has serious concerns and wants to clarify things with you will know they are welcome to contact you directly.



A blunt question then - you stated "Anyone who attempts to control whom I sleep, love, or have sex with other than their own persons or people for whom they are directly personally responsible will, if they're lucky, escape with mere ostracizing. I do let it be known early on in any acquaintanceship that I consider such attempts reasonable grounds for physically violent response." did you mean that if a partner of yours said they did not want you to have sex with someone that you would consider it reasonable to use physical violence as a response? In what circumstances would you use physical violence except in defence from a physical attack?

I think this is a good point:

You made a clarifying comment in the polyamory community as follows: "What I'd had in mind for "trying to limit me" was either physical action limiting my freedom of action, or social action that could most directly be interpreted as extortion."

Icecreamempress said, on 2007-11-21 06:29 pm, in reponse to the above comment:---------------------------------------------------------------------
Your comment in no way communicated that. You commented on a discussion about two people having a relationship conflict, and your comment appeared to be a response to the issues raised in that discussion, rather than some other issue of someone who might hypothetically physically or legally threaten(ing) you.

To be perfectly honest, I think you're backpedaling and justifying your comment now. However, I'll grant that it's possible that you meant to communicate something pretty far off topic from the discussion that was going on, and just happened to choose a point in the discussion and a set of words that instead communicated something pretty hateful.

. . . .Occam's Razor would suggest that if so many complete strangers react in the same way to something you said, perhaps you should look more carefully at how you phrase things.
This is me talking now:

I really think icecreamempress has a good point, Joel. Your comment came during a discussion of romantic adult relationships. There was no mention of custody or children being removed from their parents. There was no discussion of *any* kind of force, not even emotional manipulation.

The OP simply said that she had fallen in love with a woman who was monogamous, and in choosing that relationship, the OP was giving up relationships with other people. No one was forcing anything. She says, "My girlfriend and I talk about it (a possible F-F-F triad) sometimes, but of course she can't really relate, and while she says she 'never say never', she also says there's a slim to nil chance she'll consider anything but monogamy."

Then you said:

"Don't get into one.

Anyone who attempts to control whom I sleep, love, or have sex with other than their own persons or people for whom they are directly personally responsible will, if they're lucky, escape with mere ostracizing. I do let it be known early on in any acquaintanceship that I consider such attempts reasonable grounds for physically violent response.

You are different, and have allowed yourself to get into a situation that could not occur for me. While I wish you luck with it, I also suggest you review your decision-making processes that resulted in your being in this situation, with an eye towards preventing such problems in your future interactions."

This comment came out of left field and most likely reflects your own issues (sparked by some button pushing in what she said, perhaps) as opposed to shining light on *hers.*

I agree with icecreamprincess, that in your responses to the questions of other members of the community, you seem to be defending yourself, rather than clarifying yourself or explaining which of your buttons had been pushed to explain why you expressed yourself as strongly as you did.

Now, I know that you and I work differently, and that I am very quick to apologize (perhaps too quick), AND that soothing people and smoothing things out tends to be my first priority, BUT, I do believe an acknowledgement from you right up front that you mis-spoke, or that you were off-topic at the very least, would be the best option in this situation.

much love as always,


Re: I think this is a good point:

I think that is a very good point.

If someone was to say 'How do you feel about monogamous relationships?' and the response was 'I don't like them. I don't like being controlled', one would naturally assume the person replying believes monogamous relationships to be controlling.

If they then note that they believe that violence is an acceptable reaction to controlling behavior, then one naturally assumes that violence is being suggested to be an acceptable reaction to monogamy.

friend_of_tofu posted, in Polyamory:

>Since when is emotional 'force' equivalent to physical force?

Let's amend that to "How is..." instead, as that's a more answerable form of the question.

I'll get back to this shortly; gotta find a knife sharpener. (For use on a turkey-carving knife, not to any of the Tribe of Professional Victims who are trying to reincarnate me as Jack the Ripper.)

Throughout most of your thread in polyamory, you continued presenting your case as if you had all along been talking about a situation like the DeVilbiss case, where someone was trying to actively infringe upon your rights, parental or otherwise, because they didn't approve of the people (or the number of people) you were sleeping with, and that the whole discussion had been a lamentable misunderstanding. But you also, in exactly one comment, indicated that you would find it acceptable to use physical violence in a situation very similar to the one people were concerned about -- you wanted to sleep with someone (Robert's younger-but-of-legal-age-and-consenting sister), and someone else (Robert) didn't want you to. Please understand that this is what people are concerned about and find threatening, frightening, and/or abusive. You set up this case in response to someone suggesting that this philosophy might lead you to become physically violent with a significant other, as if "I don't like you dating my sister," coming from a potential S.O.'s relative, were vast worlds away from "I don't like you dating that other woman," coming from a member of your established family. To most of us, those do not appear worlds apart.

Whilst preferring to be a non-violent person and agreeing wholeheartedly with society's view that physical aggression is wrong I feel that I must add the caveat that if someone physically attacked 'one of my chosen people' I doubt that my intellect could overcome my instinct for protection. This does not make it right but?????

  • 1