RE: Dominance and submission?

RE: Dominance and submission? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

darkinshadows -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 7:34:50 AM)
tammyjo - what I wrote wasn't in direct response to what you wrote, but also countless others here and in other threads, yours was just at the end of the line and also mentioned the word insulting.[:)] I just see a huge up-in-arms response when what is said is perceived to be saying that wiitwd isn't real. (ie roleplay) I do not think that anyone is claiming it (BDSM /Ds/Ms/SM etc) isn't real (ie Suliemans thread or CLs responses) - just that there is a tendancy for some people to percieve it is more real than - well - real life. And it isn't. It is just another aspect of life. All roles are different - we just act them out in different ways according to our preferences... mother/submissive/father/teacher/business consultant - whatever. We play them in life. Peace

Archer -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 7:37:08 AM)
Curious it really depends on who's doing the SM or the bondage and toward what purpose. There are folks who do SM to gain internal insight, connect to the spirtual relms, to break down barriers to trust, to break down barriers to growth,... SM with purposes other than kinky thrills exists. Perception is reality is a common subject for logic and philosophy class exercises. In many cases the idea is to reach reality you work on the suspenssion of disbelief. As for consensual slavery being an oxymoron for some it really is, for others the bond of their agreement, their personal sense of honor that binds them to their agreed to condition is as strong if not stronger than the legal slavery practiced through the centuries. If the slaves of Greece, Rome, Europe, the US southern states were treated badly enough they ran away or committed suicide, or rebelled. That's not so diferent than what we have in consensual slavery if te consensual slave feels they are abused they sometimes respond with the same means of escape the only difference bein that Owners do nat have the force of law to reclaim their former property.

darkinshadows -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 7:39:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsKatHouston quote: I have difficulty understanding why people seem so insulted when defining life as roleplay. (And I really wish I could 'get it'). Not insulted, just don't think it is accurate. I don't think role play is negative in the least. Of course we all have roles as friends, parents, siblings, employees, etc. But when I think of role play, I think "pretend". Perhaps that is because when I think of role play I am imagining a scene like the professor, student, etc. When I consider the dynamic of my relationships, I don't consider it role play or pretend if you will, it just is the way it is. But, we are likely just arguing semantics. Thank you for your response - and it makes things clearer and yes, I guess we probably are just discussing semantics. To me, the role is what we are and accept (or not as the case maybe) and anything that is pretend ie; for example I would never be a nun but if I were to take on this charachter this to me is scening - no more no less. There is a difference between becoming a person you are and trying to emulate a person you could never be. Peace

Faramir -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 7:44:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: darkinshadows I have difficulty understanding why people seem so insulted when defining life as roleplay. (And I really wish I could 'get it'). Because roleplay has a specific denotation and a set of connotations that link it to pretending, that deny authenticity. Role is a different word, with a different denotation and connotations that center around different aspects of identity. The imputation that out psycho-sexual identity is pretending, is not authentic, is offensive to many of us--we don't like to say "This is who I am," and have another person say, "No silly, that's just you pretending, doing make-believe like a big kid."

CuriousLord -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 7:47:45 AM)
When it comes down to it- the question, "Why does a submissive act?" I would say that, in the classical ownership/domination sense, it is because of being forced to. In the BDSM sense? Submissives want to feel submissive. It's who they are. They serve as a matter of identity. They would want to be submissive- often, if not with their Dom, then another; in the same way that, if a woman didn't marry one man, she'd likely have married another (should she be the marrying type). subs on this site come to feel dominated. Not for virtue or power of the dominant, but because of their own will. Dominants come to act by virtue of their own will- wanting to feel dominating. Doms and subs come together- giving and exchanging this feeling. The feeling is true- it's a legitimate feeling. But the subs are not coerced out of their own desire to serve. This isn't the kinky slavery thing a vanilla might imagine; it's people acting submissive and acting dominant. This is further explified in the sub being able to set limits on what the Dom can and can't do, being able to leave (unless you're talking about forced "BDSM"- which I would argue isn't "BDSM" as this site would accept), and even often has a safe word. As others have pointed out, roleplaying isn't necessarily a bad thing! Myself, I'm not considering the pros and cons.. I want to consider it in earnest before deciding if I have some stake in the conclusion. I would encourage all to do the same.

lateralist1 -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 7:51:38 AM)
I think free will can often get very very clouded even in the vanilla world. As human beings we are very much a product of our nurturing. It has taken me years in the lifestyle to learn not to look after any male who asked for or demanded or even who seemed to need me. I was a slave. That was my role in society. I wasn't acting. I was doing what I was brought up to do. I still find it incredibly difficult to put my own needs before any mans. However I have learned to do so. I have undone my early training. It's the same with some men who have been trained to always give preference to his woman. They just can't not do as they are told by their partner because that's how they have been brought up probably by a demanding mother. Even when they know that it is going to be to their detriment. It isn't weakness it's conditioning. So conditioning is a fearful weapon. If you are going to use it then it is your responsibility to use it wisely. And the last thing anyone should ever do is to condition someone and then abandon them. It is natural for women to be submissive if not sexually then certainly maternally. It's very rare that a woman is naturally dominant outside her home environment. Those that are have traditionally gone into the 'caring' professions with authority such as teaching/nursing etc. For a man to be naturally submissive is again rare but it does happen. Most submissive men chose to be because it turns them on. Some act submissive to get what they want. Except that they are never very good at it. It takes years of experience to run a hone effectively and efficiently especially if you work full-time and have children to look after. It always makes me laugh when men think they can learn to do it over night. Ask any widower left with children how hard it is.

CuriousLord -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 7:56:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Perception is reality is a common subject for logic and philosophy class exercises. This is a pillar I'd like to knock. Mostly.. I just.. really don't like this common idea. Perception is reality? People often make this statement, citing a situation in which it seems vaguely true, and then apply it to something else. What of a bullet, about to hit one's head? This one might consider himself immortal in perception, but his life is about to end. But there are a dozen or more different true concepts this can refer to- many being approximated by this simple (even if inaccurate) statement. I do believe you're thinking of one of the true applications- though it's impossible for me to know which, as so many exist. This is mostly why I'm asking for clarifcation on what you mean by it.. how do you feel perception makes a BDSM role any more real than a role of an actor on LotR? quote: As for consensual slavery being an oxymoron for some it really is, for others the bond of their agreement, their personal sense of honor that binds them to their agreed to condition is as strong if not stronger than the legal slavery practiced through the centuries. I whole-heartedly agree with this sentiment. I would ask, though, if one is serving by virtue of her word as opposed to anything else, is she not truly in slavery to herself? Acting as she desires, because she said so?

SimplyMichael -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 7:57:10 AM)
Faramir, You and I have crossed swords a few times but your post blew me away! Wonderful insightful words! quote: 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. Very very eloquent!

Faramir -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 8:00:28 AM)
Thank you--isn't that the essence of dialogue--to reach across a divide and still be willing to listen?

SimplyMichael -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 8:00:34 AM)
Take the ambiguity spoken of so eloquently by Faramir and add in the various levels of skill and experience of both parties and you have a mix that would make it hard to discern what is and isn't. And I mean not just by those doing but by those observing. What I consider a good intense scene/relationship now is VASTLY different and in many ways opposite of what I thought when I first entered the scene. We need a new acronym ARACK - Ambiguous Risk Aware...

CuriousLord -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 8:03:29 AM)
You make a good point. I must point out that, in truth, we're discussing the idea of roles vs. free will with the assumption of just that- free will. But free will is an illusion, in many senses. People are open to manipulation. To this end, a slave is, ultimately, free to get out of her chains. As others may have argued, though, she may not decide to- she may have been manipulated into not doing so, and, by virtue of not doing so, was unable to do so, in the physical sense. Still, assuming free will, I would argue that roles prevade this community, and that most act, at least in part, based on them.

CuriousLord -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 8:09:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Faramir, You and I have crossed swords a few times but your post blew me away! Wonderful insightful words! quote: 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. Very very eloquent! Well, this is technically to you, Faramir, but Simp seems to have liked it, so I'm just quoting as it would seem like a good point to address. I would ask you two things: -Would the girl you slap be allowing it because of you or by virtue of fulfilling her own identity? -Do you see "conscentual non-conscent" as something different from consent given in advance? (To me, it seems that this idea refers to giving consent ahead of time so that it need not be given later. Is this so? If not, what does it mean?)

Archer -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 8:27:41 AM)
To this end, a slave is, ultimately, free to get out of her chains. As others may have argued, though, she may not decide to- she may have been manipulated into not doing so, and, by virtue of not doing so, was unable to do so, in the physical sense. You're tip toeing around the part of perception is reality that I was pointing to with that bit. Generally though we find that perception is reality applies to nagatives more often than possitives. If you believe you cannot lift a 2,000 lb automobile then in likelyhood you will be unable to do so. However if you are successfull at suspending that disbelief (truely as in the thought does not even occure to you that you might not be able to lift it) there are many stories of people being able to do just that lift a 2,000 lb automobile, because they needed to to save a life. So in fact the "impossible" can be made a real possibility when the mind gets out of the way. It doesn't cross all lines of physical reality, you're not gong to believe your way out of dieing if a 40 ton block of steel falls on your head. But you might believ your way into moving out of the way. Even if the response time is "Impossible".

daddysprop247 -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 8:34:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord When it comes down to it- the question, "Why does a submissive act?" I would say that, in the classical ownership/domination sense, it is because of being forced to. In the BDSM sense? Submissives want to feel submissive. It's who they are. They serve as a matter of identity. They would want to be submissive- often, if not with their Dom, then another; in the same way that, if a woman didn't marry one man, she'd likely have married another (should she be the marrying type). subs on this site come to feel dominated. Not for virtue or power of the dominant, but because of their own will. Dominants come to act by virtue of their own will- wanting to feel dominating. Doms and subs come together- giving and exchanging this feeling. The feeling is true- it's a legitimate feeling. But the subs are not coerced out of their own desire to serve. This isn't the kinky slavery thing a vanilla might imagine; it's people acting submissive and acting dominant. This is further explified in the sub being able to set limits on what the Dom can and can't do, being able to leave (unless you're talking about forced "BDSM"- which I would argue isn't "BDSM" as this site would accept), and even often has a safe word. As others have pointed out, roleplaying isn't necessarily a bad thing! Myself, I'm not considering the pros and cons.. I want to consider it in earnest before deciding if I have some stake in the conclusion. I would encourage all to do the same. i disagree vehemently with the idea that this lifestyle (D/s) universally is a community of roleplayers, that everyone is just acting submissive or acting Dominant, that there is no solid truth or reality behind any of it, etc. although i will say that i do believe that to be true for a great many people you will encounter in the lifestyle, especially many of those involved in an online lifestyle community such as this. in such a community, there are certain things that are seen as acceptable and not, certain idealogies and tenets that are respected and certain ones that are not. things like "SSC", the idea that a slave (universally) always has the right to leave, safewords (leaving the submissive ultimately in control), etc., things you mention above. i won't even get into the popular lifestyle books like "The Loving Dominant"...eek. however not everyone in the lifestyle believes in or lives by such values and standards. some of us see WIIWD as a lot more simple, a lot more basic, and much less warm and fuzzy. in the OP, it was mentioned that Dominance and submission pervades life and human interaction in general, it is hardly limited to the lifestyle. this i would agree with very much. the key difference between the unconscious D/s that every person on earth is a part of, and the D/s that i live with my Master, is our understanding, acknowledgement, and open acceptance of the dynamic. however this makes our D/s no more authentic, good or true than that of the rest of the world. had Daddy and i never heard of D/s, M/s, BDSM, etc...but had still met one another, our lives would be much the same, with me submitting to him unconditionally, him controlling me without bounds and limits, and my living life as his property. the catchy terminology would simply be missing. because for us this is just a natural state of being, and a natural dynamic for relationships between a Man and a woman. with him being naturally Dominant to the point of unconcsciously being domineering, and me being naturally submissive to the point of being what most lifestylers would call "doormat-ish", our relationship would always be that of Owner and slave regardless of what "lifestyle" we followed. and for us that means that my purpose in life is to serve and please him, that my pleasure in any context is irrelevant, that i have no right to personal limits, that i have no right to ever leave him (and that he has every right to prevent this by any means necessary), and that my life is very much in his hands.

CuriousLord -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 8:34:36 AM)
I'm afraid I can't believe in physic powers or see the relevance to this conversation. Still, it's a neat enough subject. I take the scientific view of a single, consisent reality which deviates in perception only by the limits of intepretation and understanding of the beholder. Things such as cars lifting are attributed to surges of hormones increasing physical strength- a very real and mundane occurance- as opposed to mind over matter. More back to the subject, though, are you contending that a Dom might be using mental powers to keep a sub in chains against her will? (I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulty seeing your point in this case.)

CuriousLord -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 8:42:55 AM)
I would like to articulate my case more slowly, then, daddysprop247. Your case is one I would like to speak of, in specific, if this is alright with you? (If not, you may feel free to ignore the rest of this, and/or request it deleted, as its your place to decide whether or not your personal life may be involved in conversation.) Your alias seems to imply you have a Daddy. This.. strikes me as awfully fimilar to the father role, at least in some senitment, that children might have; elsewise, why would your titles refer to it? If he takes a role of father- and you of daughter- is this not a roleplay? This isn't to say you're scripted.. but.. he's in a fatherly role, as you are in a daughter's role.. correct? If there's a divance of view on this, I'd appreciate it pointed out, though it seems rather straightforward to me that roles influence, at very least, your relationship?

SimplyMichael -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 8:43:08 AM)
LMFAO Archer, careful with your forehead, those brick walls can be mighty hard!

CuriousLord -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 8:46:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael LMFAO Archer, careful with your forehead, those brick walls can be mighty hard! Please, just.. ..act more mature? Archer's a good guy with a lot to contribute.

Archer -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 8:52:12 AM)
No I am suggesting the exact opposite from what you are reading me. I am saying It is possible for man to lift the car (and that happens when he suspends disbelief along with the surge of hormones etc). However if the person cannot suspend disbelief then the hormonal shifts do not reach the same level and so the ability is lost. belief is not the trigger for the ability but it is a trigger for the loss of the ability. As I said negative perceptions are more common in this field. Remeber the old saying can't never could do anything? It is cliche certainly but the nugget of truth inside it is that perceptions that a person cannot do something, become a self fullfilling cycle. If a slave percieves they cannot leave then their perception can often become such a self proving/ self fullfilling cycle. The reality in the legal sense is over ridden by the mental conditioning.

CuriousLord -> RE: Dominance and submission? (6/5/2007 9:05:23 AM)
Alrighties, I get what your point is now. Still, how is this not roleplaying, even if it's just one being convinced they're in a role? Taken to an extreme, how is this any more real than a man convinced he's Elvis via mental disease or/and hypnosis? In both cases, it seems, the subject is either delusional or pretending. Also in both cases, the subject is referring to a role which she isn't actually in. (Did anyone else just get the mental image of a female Elvis in bondage?)

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125