|
Amaros -> RE: It's all just roleplaying (a rant) (1/4/2008 10:24:13 AM)
|
The confusion lies in thinking that "playing" is somehow more frivolous than "work", a "role" less commited than an "identity" - people take their identity seriously, a role is presumed to be more facile, more easily discarded.
So, a sub who says: "I am a slave" presumes a higher degree of authenticity than one who says, though perhaps not in so many words, "I play the role of slave when I'm not required to maintain some other role/identity for practical reasons".
The biggest difference here is in the implications of commitment: the "true" slave is presumably commited fully, the "playuh" is keeping their options open. In fact, this may well be the case - or not, but it is the perception.
One way of resolving this dichotomy is if you think not in terms of roles, but in terms of stategies: a power exchange relationship offers a number of advantaqges, reducing social stress in the household by defining clear divisions of labor, parameters of sexual interaction, etc., that otherwise might require constant negotiation and re-negotiation as situations change and power shifts in response to external social forces.
Chritianity, and in fact most of the world major religions are built arouund this very concept, just not as flexibly, i.e., masculine dominance is assumed, regardless of the peronality types involved, the roles that involve gender bending type behaviors are strictly marginalized in order to avoid undermining the gender roles, which agian some people are going to identify with, others are going to act out as roles, while perhaps observing another dynamic in private.
Again, these are technically strategies: if your wife is smarter than you are, it's probobly in your interests to be at least smart enough to listen to her - two heads are better than one, etc.
Again, a PE relationship can either hinder or facilitate this, and technically, the key dynamic here is communication: PE can hinder if it means that one partners input is simply disregarded, and facilitate if both partners have input, even if one makes the final decision - as opposed to simply butting heads till somebody get's their way.
In short, roles can be adaptive as camoflague, they can be learning experiences - when cats play with a ball of yarn they're learning strategies and honing reflexes that will aid them in hunting, when kittens are sparring they're learning offensive and defensive techniques, etc.
A more complex world, or more complex personalities may require more complex behaviors, and this has always been true - even when Christian political dimorphism was in full effect, women exerted influence in a lot of indirect ways.
A lot of this actually has to do with primate psychology, and would require a bit more detail, but I think much of the dispute can be resolved if realize that different strategies work for different people, there are numberless personality, social and ecomomic factors at play, and if theocracy has proven anything, it's that one-size-fits-all enforced roles don't really work, but just cause a lot of hate and discontent with an ultimately destabilizing effect on that culture.
Diversity baby, diversity - nature covers her bets.
|
|
|
|
