Neil wrote about h/c:

I would define it as a story in which one character, not necessarily Avon, is literally and physically hurt, and markedly debilitated as a result, quite possibly to the point of complete helplessness. he (usually he) is then sustained through the period of debilitation by one (possibly more, but normally just one) other

character.

This might be the entire recovery process, or might merely be until the Liberator arrives to teleport the hapless duo to safety. The story ends with a strengthened bridge of understanding between comfortee and

comforter

(or indeed the building of such a bridge from scratch), mostly through the comfortee's heightened acknowledgement of the comforter's worth. The

story

is typically written from the comforter's POV. He or she can often (but

by

no means all always) feel suspiciously like a rather ubiquitous woman who goes by the name of Mary-something or other.

As outlined here there are certainly some similarities with what I would understand by S&M (and please stop reading now if discussion of this is going to offend you). Let's take it as read that the event discussed is fully consensual and is between people who are not strangers.

To me, the central feature of S&M is the relationship between the top and the bottom, in particular, trust from the bottom and responsibility from the top. An ideal scene will often try to push the limits of the bottom's trust. There's also usually two phases to an S&M scene, which correspond in an obvious fashion with hurt and comfort. In these regards, there are clear similarities with h/c.

In h/c, the hurt is almost invariably inflicted by a third party or other agent. In S&M, the hurt and comfort are usually both dispensed by the same person. Psychologically, the two ideas seem completely different to me.

In h/c, the hurt is out of control of either the comforter or the comfortee, and usually does real damage, which would be permanent, even fatal without the Liberator medical technology (and therein lies the angst potential). In S&M, nothing should *ever* be out of control. The hurt is usually reasonably trivial, short-lived and self-healing. While the top *nominally* controls the process, the bottom is really in control of what goes on (and I don't just mean what tends to be referred to as 'topping from the bottom').

In my opinion, this is such a key difference between the two areas that I get quite annoyed/upset by people who equate them, even though I can perceive some similarities.

Another aspect that Neil mentioned in another post was ritual. I don't have his comment to hand but I think he was talking about the way the hurt/comfort stories evolve usually being relatively formulaic and comparing this with the ritual of the S&M scene. I don't see this myself. A perfectly good explanation for the formulaic nature of some h/c stories is bad (or at least unoriginal) writing. The ritual aspect of S&M exists (1) to heighten the experience of what might in other contexts be perceived as relatively trivial pain, and (2) to allow a top who's physically weaker than the bottom to exert enough control for the scene to work.

I'm certainly one of those who sees sexual imagery in at least some h/c stories, and I've even referred to Blake & Avon h/c as a kind of 'poor man's slash'. I mean this in the sense that slash stories often use the sex almost as a plot device to develop an emotional relationship between the two characters, while the comfort fulfils this role in h/c stories.

Tavia http://www.viragene.com/

PS: In another context, Fiona talked about a friend with a 'gay-dar'. In similar fashion, I possess an S&M-dar, and believe me, hurt/comfort doesn't activate it.