|
Faramir -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 7:32:08 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CitizenCane
It seems to me, that regardless if one self-identifies as part of the D/s or BDSM 'community' (forgive my quotes, but I find it hard to write the term with a straight face)...
Oh, that put a smile on my face [:D]
As to your post::
I think human beings in general find ambiguity problematic. Either you are fully a post-modernist, embracing deconstructive readings of the world, or you just know post-modernism is all crap for people who can't handle "the real world"--it can't be that a post-modernist approach could be true in some ways, or in some aspects, or useful at some times. It's all or nothing. I use that example because I've come to the humanities as an academic late in life, and I see my old world and my new world in violent disagreement over the nature of reality, and I see utility and truth in both approaches.
I think the "it's all just roleplay" or "it's only ok if it is formally negotiated" are human reactions to the discomfort of ambiguity. There can be ways or aspects of looking at D/s, especially from an identity theory standpoint, where we can talk about roles, about taking our identity at least in part from other's perception/reaction to us. The inistence that "true" D/s must be formally negotiated and follow a set of protocols representative of a community consensus on standards is really an over, or total, emphasis on the negotiated aspects to our relationships. Even if we don't formally negotiate (the ide of a transactional, "I do this, You do that" negotiation is antithetical to me), things like talking about fantasies, pillow-talk, reactions to experimentations, attentive listening all suffice to serve as a kind of negotiation.
I'm thinking right now of a women who, sincerely desiring to be obedient to me in everything, took my slap across her face in silence, gracefully. I could tell, however, that it did mean to her the reciprocal to what it meant to me--instead of bringing her closer to me, it hurt her heart. She responded in her actions with obedience, and there was no overt negotiation, no "business dealings," but silently, intuitively, we had negotiated in the metaphorical sense and got around something, knew our way. She wasn't meant to be slapped.
The same thing happens with "consensual non-consent:--some people think those words are ludicrous, it's all just play-acting, and others insist on there has been a complete exhange of power. I don't think we would have the words in usage if they didn't mean something. When I use the words, I'm trying to short-hand that I see two things as being true at the same time. That in a very real, immediate semse, she's lost the ability or right to consent, that I can whatever I desire, even though what I desire is very often what she doesn't. At the same time, in a very real, meta-sense, she does consent to all this--if she didn't I would be some sort of rapist/kidnapper, engaged in the vilest abrogations of another human being's rights.
I think human beings, and the relationships between human beings, are very complex, contain multiply true and yet differing aspects, and are fraught with both nuance and ambiguity. This ambiguity and nuance is difficult for most people, and they thus tend to over-emphasise, in an exclusionary way, one aspect that is most resonant and relevant to them.
|
|
|
|
