In Need of a Community Voice and Opinion

Bandog​(switch male) • Nov 28, 2018

Wow. This has been a most fascinating discourse. Posting that this story has so much going on seems silly, right? Y'all got the initial drama, the retorts, further argument; a wisdom vs. opinion vs. experience tennis match wrought with bite, understanding and a raw look at the abuse / consent issue. Fuckin dynamite shit going down here. So , yeah, that's silly to rehash all that. The substance, though, struck me pretty squarely when I realized that I'm wired for WKS. Talking through some stuff on the phone tonight, going down a little rabbit trail and BAM! Holy shit! The Dawning.

So thanks to the OP, the subjects involved, the apologies, and the other side of things from all the, well...all the discourse. I know something more about myself now, thanks in a big part to all this. Something I can monitor and recognize should there be...when there will be a situation.

Hell, I think we've all learned a little something here. Peace brothers and sisters.

DrWakko • Nov 28, 2018

I isolated this one quote, not to pick apart a relationship, but to comment on BDSM relationships in general:



It should be a red flag if you play with someone with anger issues. If you are angry you should not be hitting anyone while mad, to me that is abuse. There is nothing wrong in my opinion to playing to release some stress, how ever that is different than angry.

Be in a good head space when playing. Its better for all parties involved and its a lot safer than letting anger take over your scene.

Once again this comment is NOT directed at anyone or any couple. My comment is just a good rule to follow in my opinion.

FabSeverus​(dom male) • Nov 28, 2018

Dr Wakko, I already mentioned it in my post...!" missub I am bit concerned about few words you said "He’s angry and frustrated and has little patience" this kind of reactions a sadist shouldn't have in my opinion. "

I remember in one post you mentioned people repeating comments without reading other post

curiouskittyy​(sub female){GentlemanX} • Nov 28, 2018

I think like Miki said .. this thread is getting a little out of hand. Phanes, though misguided, thought he was doing the right thing and has apologised. It’s a lesson learned I’m sure. Missub also cleared the air by explaining that she was not abused ... and that he respected her boundaries and took care of her after. I don’t think you can take one line from what she said and call it a red flag. It’s all about context, and as far as I’m aware she never said they played while he was angry. I know you said you’re not talking about their relationship but Bdsm in general ... but I don’t agree that this is necessarily a red flag. Everyone gets angry at some point, we’re all human at the end of the day.

EnforcedBliss​(dom male) • Nov 28, 2018

I wanted to reply to this point by point because I think it contains the entirety of the conversation surrounding White Knighting.



I don't think that Phanes approached this in the best means possible. That being said I think he was right to do what he did and here is why, sometimes even those with a voice are unable to use it and need someone to step between them and the source of their distress. That this does not seem to be the case here does not change that central fact. Sometimes someone does need to be willing to speak up in the face of what they see as silence. I think Phanes deserves to be recognized for caring enough to stick his neck out.

People don't speak out for fear of being accused of / dismissed for White Knighting and generally there is little to no tangible consequence. But the consequences when they do exist are so potentially catastrophic as to make, to me, possibly excessive vigilance warranted. I think the form was in error but the function and resulting conversation (the participants and peanut-gallery alike) it has engendered has been of great value.



Here you are painting with far too broad a brush. An insufferable twit sees women in the light you have described. Done properly one waits until the damsel, to use your term, has had a opportunity to take up her own arms. If, however she is unable to do so, for whatever reason, and she has expressed dissatisfaction with the situation, then I see stepping forward in her defense as a moral obligation. Please understand, I apply this standard to any situation in which the powerless are preyed on by the empowered - regardless of externalities.

The reason that the white knight has become the archetype it has is because there has always been the need for one of the strong to stand with the weak. The reason the term has become one of derision is because too many knights are more Quixote than Gallahad and too many of those who enjoy the privilege of predation need a whip with which to fend off their opponents.



And that wraps it up in a nice Randian packet. At what point do you assist the princess? When the sword drops from her hand? Perhaps as the flames lick at her hem? Do you wait until she is fully ensconced in the mouth of the beast before you decide she might need a hand? Chivalric respect can be a hair's breadth from chauvanistic apathy.

To take this out the realm of pure fantasy, imagine yourself walking down the street when you see a person being mauled by a large dog. Would you grab a stick stick and fend off the cur or toss the stick to the maulee and consider your obligation over. What about a guy who starts beating his wife on the street? Would you walk past and offer up nothing more than, "stop dropping your right and tuck your chin"? What about someone who is in thrall having that used against them as a means of coercing them into doing things they distinctly do not want to do?

These are all real world situations with real world consequences that are not, in my opinion, adequately addressed by glibbly asserting that they have the agency to defend themselves. In fact, you feeling that it is your place to force agency upon them could be seen as a species of White Knighting in and of itself. You are, in fact, white knighting on behalf of all victims possessed of said agency in opposition to those who lack it.

You have framed a problem of gradation as one of stark contrast and that framing falls apart under the gravity of absolutism.

If you can accept that there are in fact many victims out there who effectively have no voice and if you can accept that victimization is wrong on its face then you must accept that providing what assistance you can is your simple duty as a human. This is the heart of proper White Knighting. I would be surprised (based on what I've read from you) that you would advocate inaction.

You allude to a great point though. Just as there are causes that need a champion there are champions that need a cause and they will charge any likely looking windmill. And every one of those Knights Errant makes the world slightly darker through indiscriminate jousting. These are the ones that open the door for cries of "White Knight Syndrome" everytime one person aids another in opposition to a third.

Fudbar​(dom male){❤️❤️❤️} • Nov 28, 2018

@EnforcedBliss

I addressed a specific situation. My points were about that, and I conceeded all the points you made in my original reply.

Phanes broke some very specific site rules going about things the way he did. I addressed that.

This forum has devolved into a general discussion about abuse and confronting it.

Break it off and make a separate post if you want to discuss. I stand by my points as they applied to the specific topic at hand. Please don't move the goalposts.

EnforcedBliss​(dom male) • Nov 28, 2018

Respectfully, you didn't address a single one of them in your original reply.

And if you are not finding the as conversation rewarding as some others are then I would offer you the option of exercising your agency as an adult and opting out of it.

Fudbar​(dom male){❤️❤️❤️} • Nov 28, 2018

I was talking about one specific situation. You want to warp my words into a general statement. No.

SweetSirRendering​(sub female) • Nov 28, 2018

This was a WK post that I am sure was posted with the best intentions, but unfortunately it was wrong and misguided for all the reasons mentioned above, but for one more reason no one seems to be addressing. If this woman was truly in danger and based on the concerns mentioned in OP such as isolation etc, the act of making this public post could and very likely would have resulted in serious injury or death. With this being understood, one can see all the intentions and virtue signaling and projections from personal experiences laid out clearly, one would think. I do not think malice was the design, but harm was the outcome. It has also opened up a good discussion, but I think this can discussion be richer if we read the perspective of an individual as a whole rather than quibbling over semantics that fit your own agenda / perspective. Forest for the trees, friends.

SweetSirRendering​(sub female) • Nov 28, 2018

Correction:

It has also opened up a good discussion, but I think this discussion can be richer if we read the perspective of an individual as a whole rather than quibbling over semantics that fit your own agenda / perspective. Forest for the trees, friends.