Mind control (97)

or indeed, just being exposed to another person in a vanilla relationship... they may change your politics, religion, and preference for dogs vs. cats.

Well yes, but I think thats broad brush. Many people would want their (current) self to be dominated, without those longer term implications. The feeling of being 'controlled' wouldn't be there if you had been moulded into perfect complicity. I think mia touched upon this in another post IIRC.

Thats the difference between informed and uninformed consent surely? Most people operate in a more grey area on the psychology side, but probably revert to the physical side when asked to explain what it (consent) means, because the psychological side is riddled with the ethical dilemma I suggested.

Great post. Yes, I fully agree that people should increase there awareness. However I also think there's a distinction to be drawn between intentional modification, and incidental modification - mens rea and actus reus, if you like, in terms of the consequential responsibility.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

In terms of suggested reading, I would recommend the book 'Brainwashing' by Kathleen Turner.

It's not an instructional book at any means, but it looks at how brainwashing and learned behaviours work with some actual neurology involved, and it is very insightful and useful I think.

Also good (if you can find a copy in print) is Look Into My Eyes: How To Use Hypnosis To Bring Out The Best In Your Sex Life by Peter Masters.

I hope these are of use.

Absolutely Ethics, a lot of social interaction involves manipulation, deliberate or otherwise. Domination is just a more open and overt instance.

You're right, it is broad brush, and it is their current self they want dominated and controlled. But equally, longterm control of a current self can lead to the formation of a new self, which can be entirely unpredictable. A psychological chaos theory, if you will.

Of course the original feeling of control may then become diluted, as you suggest, but then that can lead to a search for the next "high" or level. How many people started with an idea that they might like a bit of spanking every now and then and ended up being fully submissive or even slaves? Who knows, but I'm sure there are a few.

An enormously ethical dilemma, because the physical interaction triggers an emotional and psychological response.

As such, how many are truly informed as to what they're consenting to and where it might lead?

I don't really want to get into the rights and wrongs here, as my purpose was merely to point out that a deliberate intention to understand and use mind control is only really a means of trying to refine and develop what most people do anyway, by accident or design, in both vanilla and d/s interactions.

I know what you mean Ethics and in some ways I tend to agree with you, as that seems to be the reasonable position to take. I guess I'm just not convinced that it's a logical one, or even whether logic counts.

For example, it could equally be argued that incidental modification, especially where some modification is intended, is therefore to some degree done blindly, and with less certainty of the longterm outcome. The fact that any outcome is an accidental byproduct and not an intended consequence doesn't really matter in practical terms.

In fact one could go so far as to say it's just dicking around with mind control, without all the available skills and knowledge.

Done deliberately, whilst on the surface appearing a little sinister, may actually be better for some, depending on the knowledge, ability and intentions of the controller and the desires and needs of the subject.

In the end who knows, it's a terribly complex subject, full of grey areas.

Edited 21 Oct 11, 1:32 AM by Abraxus

If some people are more prone to dependency and inability to cope with new unwanted situations, then that is something which sadly exists because of human nature and the differences within it. If the other person did not intend for the rejected one to be so utterly dependent and helpless in the aftermath of the split, it is very sad for them but they are not guilty of deliberately creating helplessness and inability to cope. They did not intend to be a catalyst to changes in a person that make their subsequent life harder.

I can also see that temporary mind control methods like hypnosis within a D/s relationship (or as vanilla entertainment) do not mean necessarily same as 'mind control' within an intended breaking process. Methods are similar but the intent is different.

In my own relationship, it is obvious that the nine years of being in submission to me has changed aspects of @paulss personally and certainly in his behaviour. I acknowledge that all relationships influence and mould us. I have also changed over the course our relationship. I know that ultimately he could leave me. I am not keeping him in prison. I have 'trained' him to obedience and submission but he still retains his own 'person' and will . If I die tomorrow, he would be devastated but his abilities to survive long term without me, though impaired through grief would not have been intentionally reduced, or removed.

'Mind Control' as an inherent part of the 'breaking process has the intent to de-construct the person and remodel as the 'breaker' wants.

There is intent to do that. It isn't a accident or unintended consequence. It is a deliberate act. Once there is intent in an act, the level of moral responsibility increases. The higher the risk in the intended act, the higher the moral responsibility.

The risk in my hurting someone with a caning is at worst, large amounts of physical pain, lengthy bruising and a long term dislike or fear of the cane and of those who wield them. Bad, if I get it wrong but unlikely to cause the person to be unable continue to lead his life normally.

With breaking a person, you take them over, take them apart and rebuild them.

Taking them over is somewhat risky but at that stage you could release them relatively unharmed. It would be a bit like the attachments felt in any relationship, strong and painful if the relationship ends but not a psychological disaster. The bridge connecting back to their original self is still intact.

Once you get to the taking apart bit, then you are intending to remove things from a person, things which they may not be able to retrieve without you and your help, you are intending to make irrevocable changes. Unlike the scars of a bad caning or regretted tattoo, the mental dismantling will be fraught with unique challenges, the ramifications of which cannot be known or fully understood by either the 'breaker' or the intended 'broken'. So, at this stage the person is effectively in psychological pieces, in a hugely vulnerable state but not yet with bridges burned in terms of returning to something like their old selves.

If at this stage, the 'breaker' dies, leaves, gets bored, does the wrong things (and how at that point will they actually know the difference), this will be a difficult situation for the one being broken to recover from. Who, in the absence of the 'breaker' will be capable or qualified to restore the person to their former state.

I should say that I am assuming the person taking part in the 'breaking' process is emotionally and mentally healthy as otherwise we get into issues of taking advantage of those with issues that stop them being able to consent with sound mind.I mention this because if the breaking process was terminated at the 'dismantling' stage, I am assuming the sub would want to return to their old previously quite sane and healthy state if possible.

If the process goes the whole hog, then you have created a different person, mentally/psychologically wiped cleana nd re-programmed. One who now responds only to what the 'breaker' has created within them. They have no chance of ever getting back to what they were as by definition that has gone, has been destroyed and something different is now in its place. So, what happens is the 'breaker' dies, leaves, loses interest or has made such a poor job of it that the person who has been broken is 'missing a few bits', or not rewired back correctly.

Provided the 'breaker' is always there in their life, they could be okay. They have the one moral compass they need. They have the structure for living, the new drives, motivations and goals. That lifelong presense is a huge ask and a statistically unlikely outcome.

When we develop as people in the usual sense, we are a bundle of influences, from our families, our education, our work, our social life, hobbies and interests. The idea is a whole person, made up, as we go along of what has happened to us.

A 'broken person' is nothing like that and never will be again. They are 'mono' to everyone else's 'stereo'. One-dimensional, eternally diminished and at risk of being a 'Frankenstein's monster' if 'broken' badly or inconsistently. Just one wrong move or action within the process could create unintended and permanent flaws.

So, that outlines the risks and the responsibilities.

There is a lot of talk about 'breaking slaves' in erotic fiction and of course, there are some highly entertaining accounts of alleged real life stuff. One only has to read some of the contributions, often from the US from The Slave Register or personal websites. Just because they are written on the internet doesn't make them true or legitimate sources of empirical knowledge. I haven't yet read any data from both parties, where they are known to be real people, about long term life after 'breaking', the process in detail, the methods and follow ups to discuss successes, failures and all things in between. It just isn't there.

I know that we are bound by the AUP and by YKIOK, but that does not stop us being allowed to ask for valid and genuine information about this process within consensual bdsm and be able to say if we do not receive or can find it, that we remain unconvinced. Better to be sceptical and cautious than blindly accept what is being purported on a subject with a known history (outside of bdsm) of potential risk and damage.

A Fine Norfolk Domme. Mistress of @paulss My PD blog at http://mistress-keene.blogspot.com/

A little disappointed that you bring brainwashing and hypnosis together in the same post, it possibly perpetuates the belief structure of misguided that hypnosis can bring this about.

Their is a law of the mind that states a person will not do anything thats out side of their moral code and a hypnotist of integrity would outline and affirm this in a pre hypnotic state.

Yours is not to reason why, yours is but to do or cry.

Edited 21 Oct 11, 2:51 PM by xAdamx

Hypnosis alone, absolutely not. Can hypnosis be a useful technique within a wider framework? Absolutely.

Absolutely agree.

Yours is not to reason why, yours is but to do or cry.

i,m wondering though theres been a great deal of attention given to break a person and from my understanding of where the OP is looking to go in a way that she obviously ill understand's then from this broken state how is the OP possibly going to 'rebuild' ( pause for laughter ) this broken person given all the onus appears to be in the other direction,

are we to see street's highways and byway's strewn with wandering nye on brain dead failures,,

going from trying understand how to severly fuck some-one's mind to then 'rebuilding' that person would take many years of knowledge before getting any way near a real life person who would be reciprical to such a process

cripe's we could start a new 'fad'

Please excuse crap spelling cause i,m rubbish

bwahahahahahahahaha....

I for one, welcome the new ZombieNation

What are we going to do with the ones that rebuild, but a bit wrong? Surely they go back into the breakage pool for recycling?

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!