I read a very interesting article concerning how people process pain and how it is impacted by the motivation for the pain. In brief, if you perceive pain was given with good intentions it will hurt less than if given with no or bad intentions.
http://www.mpm.umd.edu/Good%20Intentions%20SPPS%20In%20press.pdf
You are right petunia, it is always good to hear other people's thoughts. And a good debate will really make you think.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Just kidding 
While we took a side route from the original post, I think we have discussed something worthwhile.
We've all flexed and thought a bit. Good times!
Evolution generally tends to develope our body parts for use in ways that are BENEFICIAL to us. But evolution is not the leader, it is the follower. The characteristics that prove to be most beneficial to us are the ones that survive and get passed on to the next generation. That is survival of the fitest. We are still evolving. If we continue to walk less, and depend more on other modes of getting around, and the human race survives long enough, our legs and feet will probably change somewhat over a long period of time. Anyway, this has gotten way off course. Certainly, you know, the original subject was Psychology of Pain. Then smackdat asked about ABUSE. Well, the meaning of the word really has negative connotations, to misuse in a BAD way. After someone else jumped in with the, "Whoa, whoa, whoa.", it kind of all went downhill from there.
I fear we go down a slippery slope when we start proclaiming what body parts were and were not intended for. Some body parts have obvious biological functions it's not necessarily abuse to use a part in an unintended manner.
I can somewhat see how you might consider the whipping of tits and arses or oral sex to be abuse. However, lets consider feet for a moment. You can stand on them, walk around with them and even kick things with them. People evolved to do that so those uses aren't abuse. What about pressing the gas or break peddle in a car or wearing shoes? Did people evolve to do either of those? Are they abuse?
Abuse is the misuse of ANYTHING, regardless of consent.You can abuse inanimate objects, and they cannot even give consent. If you mistreat someone without their consent, I'd say that's pretty intentional. Malice. You are trying to limit the definition of abuse to "without consent". That is only one instance of abuse. Truth be known, I don't see the word "consent" in the definition at all. I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about the literal meaning of the word. It's pretty clear cut. And I'm not speaking out against BDSM. I like it too. I'm only talking about the meaning of the word, and how it can be malicious or benevolent, depending on intent. You're talking like I'm putting down BDSM activities, or something. That is not the case at all.
I lost my manual that describes my intended use in the womb. Sorry. My body parts if not for flogging, cutting, etc. were meant to hold in my organs, get me around and do as my mind says. My mind says, in the right moment with the right person, bruise the shit out of me!
You're right that by law "abuse" can define cutting a finger nail incorrectly. While discussing BDSM: abuse vs. consensual physical/mental play has a clear line (at least in my mind). CONSENSUAL!
Okay, the issue was "abuse" specifically, I do not think putting a word in front of it (like benevolent) erases the concept of consent. It does not modify or justify the action.
Talking of malice and malicious acts is equal to abuse, but perhaps even more sinister. Abuse can happen without intent. Malice is intentional. When talking of abuse, it can happen intentionally or not, I hope NOT, and not at all. Malice needs >)
My dictionary isn't worn out yet, but synonyms are getting more expensive 
Maybe you should also look up the words malice and malicious. The very thing you are saying, abuse is to treat bad or mistreat without consent. If that doesn't fit right in with the definitions of malice and malicious, I don't know what does. Moral issues aside (I am not saying we shouldn't be doing BDSM, if that is what we like.) Other definitions of abuse include; excessive use, mistreatment, injury. Our body parts were not intended for these purposes even if you decide that's what you want to use them for. If someone uses your body for these purposes because they know you like it, I would call that benevolent abuse. Those who consent decide what they WANT to use their body parts for. They do NOT decide what the body parts were intended for. Evolution does that.
The definition of abuse is great! You're completely correct.
But... I know.... (frankenstein music)
I don't know who told you what parts of the female, or human body for that matter were meant for what types of activities. That breasts were meant simply for the nourishment of offspring doesn't hold milk with me, why do guys have nipples? Whether any part is whipped, chained, made to bleed, bruised or whatever has nothing to do with abuse. Who decides the bodies intended use?
All the parts in question belong to one thing - a brain. That brain decides if what is done to those parts is okay. Yep, you forgot the brain. That's okay. It's hidden. Beneath the leaking boobs, dripping cunt, bruised skin and welts. Easy to miss. The intent for all these parts is directly related to the brain attached.
I would never get pierced between my toes, but some love that! Their intent is their own. Not the "intended use" of that area? Who decides? The consented, that's who. I will pat them on the back and buy 'em a beer!
My dictionary is all fine and good thank you very much
Petunia, you should get out your dictionary again and look up the definition of abuse. Abuse doesn't really have to be concerned with consent at all. The word abuse is often used on this sight and refers loosely to the wrongful use, or misuse of the female body. Tits and asses were not really meant to be whipped, tied, clamped, tortured, consensual or not. That is wrongful use or misuse. Not the use for which they were intended. Mouths and assholes were not really meant to be fucked. That is wrongful use or misuse. Not the use for which they were intended. That is abuse. Consent doesn't have anything to do with it. Of course,if someone doesn't consent, and they are mistreated, that is also abuse. But the consent factor is by no means the sole definition of abuse.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.....
Wet blanket here reporting for duty!
While this quote brings up the myriad of types of response to pain and pleasure, the topic of abuse is not a word I would associate as being malicious and/or benevolent. Perhaps a word NOT like abuse is better used (things like discipline, play???).
Abuse in any relationship, BDSM or otherwise is not okay. Well then how do we define abuse? Anything non-consensual is a perfect start!
But then, a slave does not have consent! Especially a 24/7 one... I mean c'mon, this is slavefarm right? Sure it is, but consent to enter the relationship was there. Consent to stay in the relationship is there. Most would say the right to remove consent at any time is the safest, funnest and kinkest of all things.
Insisting a slave does not have consent to refuse amputation of a limb does little for the slave or Master really and seems to fall under abuse. Extreme example, but an illustration of what "could" happen.
Abuse is not: discipline, pain for pain sake, pain for pleasure sake, a beating a whipping, a gang bang, hell, even a good barbed wire flogging - as long as everyone consents to it and the possible shit that could go wrong (R.A.C.K.). Abuse is non-consensual, from tickling, amputation, verbal humiliation or toilet licking. Non-consensual = abuse.
Okay, the wet blanket has dried up and I'm glad I got that off my chest. Disagree if you must. I'm listening.
As per the original article, the notion that outside factors influence our own perception of pain/pleasure is entirely plausible and I've experienced it first hand. Usually it is suffering for the pleasure of another; the suffer doesn't seem as bad if another is gaining a benefit, but I'm good for it. I get off on that.
Just my thoughts, smackdat, that ABUSE in its literal meaning falls into the malicious category. However, when you add BDSM to the context of this study, ABUSE could fall into either the malicious or benevolent category, depending upon the mind set of the person administering and/or the mind set of the receiver.
i reread the article a few times, dissecting piece by piece as i do when attempting to process a new perception that comes my way. i am grateful for the amount of freedom i do have, however, i question a myriad of thoughts, ideas, theories, etc.
Abuse surfaced a few times while perusing the article on several rereads. Please hold the pins of the grenades until the complete post is read...
"The thought behind deeds may often count for little, but physical experience appears to depend in part on the perceived intention of the person administering it. So, while subjective experience is clearly in our own mind, this research suggests it also depends on how we perceive the minds of others."
In an attempt to get some brain synapses connecting...who, what, when, and where does the possibility of abuse fit into the context as related to the above quote from the article Sir Nasty shared in the forum?
Heading for the bunker...just in case
respectfully,
smackdat
Sir Nasty,
This article was a great read. Thank you for sharing. i am considerably familiar with the the Moral Dyad and the way in which it can take its role into the psyche of BDSM.
It has succored me to discern why some people choose to be slaves while others choose to be submissives and the extent at which their are willing/able to take their relationships.
respectfully,
smackdat