RE: Dominance and Responsibility (Full Version)

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



Message

domiguy -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/6/2007 3:19:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Faramir

I've often used the phrase "Unequal in power and position, equal in worth and responsibility," and feel a truthful resonance there. 


"Unequal in power and position,equal in responsibility."  Makes no sense whatsoever.

edited to add...My cock is bigger.



CitizenCane -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/6/2007 3:45:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit



As much control/authority/power we like to think we have, I have yet to be in a relationship where at some point where certain issues and problems were out of my hands and it was solely on the efforts of the submissive to make it work.

I can give the order, make the corrections, provide punishment, whatever, but at best, I am implying incentive threw discipline to get what I want. They still have to make a choice to do it and do it right.

This is where the other person's own power comes into play which is why I use the words "authority exchange" and stress "two equal people working to make an authority based relationship work."



I don't by any means believe that my power is absolute, or that anyone else's is. Nevertheless, I can, from time to time, identify areas where I have actual power- that is, the ability to make something happen.  In these situations, the notion that the submissive is making choices is in abeyance.  If we consider the submissive to have unimpaired choice at all times, then dominants indeed have no power to compell, by whatever means, and we are indeed role-playing in the accepted sense of the word.
I am puzzled by the resistance that many people seem to have to the idea of dominance involving real power.  While it can be frightening to be in the presence of real power, even your own, it seems to me that this a fundamental aspect of WIITWD. At least, it is a fundamental aspect of What It Is That I Do.

In your discussion of the limits of your power, I think you're missing a point that's central to my thinking about this subject: viz, that people, even rational people, even 'sane' people, can often be in states of mind of varying duration in which the whole focus of their minds is on compliance, and when in these states they are not considering the issues that make notions such as 'choice' and 'consent' meaningful.  Further, I would suggest that these states of mind can often be induced by an outside party. The fact that this frequently happens without either party being consciously aware of it really undermines the significance of 'choice' and 'consent'.

Even talking about 'incentives', whether rewards or punishments puts things into a grey area.  This is what I mean when I use phrases like 'unequal power relationship' or 'power differential'. If you have the power to actually compel punishment or grant/withhold rewards, there is a power differential, at least within the scope of the transaction, if not always in a pervasive sense. It is generally accepted that coercion invalidates consent, but where there is a power differential there is some form of coercion, even if it is only the vague threat of consequences. The greater the degree of power differential, the less meaningful the idea of 'choice' or 'consent' becomes.

This is why I believe that 'consent' is not the appropriate gauge of ethical behavior, especially not in D/s.  As soon as someone is in a position of unequal power, their ability to consent is eroded. If the model of 'consent once, obey always' is acceptable, this is perhaps not an issue, but most people seem to be attached to an idea of ongoing, or repeated consent.

Overall, I find the concept of Benevolence a much more useful guide in relationships of unequal power (which I believe describes all relationships).



MadRabbit -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/6/2007 3:52:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CitizenCane

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit



As much control/authority/power we like to think we have, I have yet to be in a relationship where at some point where certain issues and problems were out of my hands and it was solely on the efforts of the submissive to make it work.

I can give the order, make the corrections, provide punishment, whatever, but at best, I am implying incentive threw discipline to get what I want. They still have to make a choice to do it and do it right.

This is where the other person's own power comes into play which is why I use the words "authority exchange" and stress "two equal people working to make an authority based relationship work."



In your discussion of the limits of your power, I think you're missing a point that's central to my thinking about this subject: viz, that people, even rational people, even 'sane' people, can often be in states of mind of varying duration in which the whole focus of their minds is on compliance, and when in these states they are not considering the issues that make notions such as 'choice' and 'consent' meaningful.  Further, I would suggest that these states of mind can often be induced by an outside party. The fact that this frequently happens without either party being consciously aware of it really undermines the significance of 'choice' and 'consent'.

Even talking about 'incentives', whether rewards or punishments puts things into a grey area.  This is what I mean when I use phrases like 'unequal power relationship' or 'power differential'. If you have the power to actually compel punishment or grant/withhold rewards, there is a power differential, at least within the scope of the transaction, if not always in a pervasive sense. It is generally accepted that coercion invalidates consent, but where there is a power differential there is some form of coercion, even if it is only the vague threat of consequences. The greater the degree of power differential, the less meaningful the idea of 'choice' or 'consent' becomes.



I see what your saying and its something I will have to think on some. Limits on my experience keep me from really giving an opinion. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CitizenCane
This is why I believe that 'consent' is not the appropriate gauge of ethical behavior, especially not in D/s.  As soon as someone is in a position of unequal power, their ability to consent is eroded. If the model of 'consent once, obey always' is acceptable, this is perhaps not an issue, but most people seem to be attached to an idea of ongoing, or repeated consent.


If what your saying is the case, then I think its more my own infamiliarity with the submissive mindset that keeps me from having more prespective on this. Its hard for me to wrap around the idea that there isnt a choice, since in every situation of my life, there is one for me.



CitizenCane -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/6/2007 4:12:09 PM)

MadRabbit-
Consider some scenarios in which people do not have choice:
1) They are physically constrained from taking action- this seems to be the kind of lack of choice that most people are focused on.
2) They are unaware of alternatives (or, slightly more subtly, consequences- in which case choice is possible but not meaningful). Many people pay attention to this, thus RACK.
3) They are unable to conceptualize alternatives. Most people don't think much about this, but it's a common situation in life in general.  The facts are there, but the person is unable to picture themselves taking certain actions. All kinds of things can lead to this- upbringing, religious views, individual prejudices, lack of intellectual discrimination, traumatic associations, the commitment to keep promises, or just a feeling that 'that's not me'.
I would say that a major feature of an ongoing D/s relationship is the gradual increase of the third situation over time.  Training, habituation, rewards and punishment, commitment, emotional connection or dependence and natural bent can all work together  to make alternatives functionally inconceivable. This certainly happens in vanilla relationships, it would be absurd to think it doesn't in D/s relationships.
Before anyone goes nuts on me, let me say that this can happen in some areas and not others- erosion of choice may be limited to very specific areas. It does not imply that a person in this situation is a mindless robot, in or out of a D/s context.



MadRabbit -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/6/2007 4:19:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CitizenCane

MadRabbit-
Consider some scenarios in which people do not have choice:
1) They are physically constrained from taking action- this seems to be the kind of lack of choice that most people are focused on.
2) They are unaware of alternatives (or, slightly more subtly, consequences- in which case choice is possible but not meaningful). Many people pay attention to this, thus RACK.
3) They are unable to conceptualize alternatives. Most people don't think much about this, but it's a common situation in life in general.  The facts are there, but the person is unable to picture themselves taking certain actions. All kinds of things can lead to this- upbringing, religious views, individual prejudices, lack of intellectual discrimination, traumatic associations, the commitment to keep promises, or just a feeling that 'that's not me'.
I would say that a major feature of an ongoing D/s relationship is the gradual increase of the third situation over time.  Training, habituation, rewards and punishment, commitment, emotional connection or dependence and natural bent can all work together  to make alternatives functionally inconceivable. This certainly happens in vanilla relationships, it would be absurd to think it doesn't in D/s relationships.
Before anyone goes nuts on me, let me say that this can happen in some areas and not others- erosion of choice may be limited to very specific areas. It does not imply that a person in this situation is a mindless robot, in or out of a D/s context.



Oh no...I see what your saying and dont think your talking about someone becomming a mindless robot.

Its just not a perspective that I've ever really thought a whole lot about.

Thanks a lot. This is really giving me a lot to chew.






mons -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/9/2007 2:50:57 AM)

greetings

with my slave i do not role play this is real for me his is mine and is dominant mistress

mons



maledave7 -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/9/2007 4:15:54 AM)

I know that with some people this is just a fantasy to them. That Dom and sub is just a fun game to play for the evening. This is fine if this is, what both people involve want.

I feel that in a real D/s relationship there is responsibility with both persons. I am a submissive by nature. I feel this is my lifestyle and how I want to live. For me this is not a game to be play only for a night or a weekend. I feel that I would have responsibilities toward my Domme. That there are things and duties that I need to perform to fulfill her needs and desires. She would have responsibilities toward me of my welfare and needs.



CreativeDominant -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/9/2007 8:16:54 AM)

I often use the phrase that "there is equality found within the inequality". 

I believe that I take on responsibilities as a dominant.  I believe the submissive has responsibilities also.  I cannot use BDSM/D/s as an excuse to be an abusive, non-caring individual because "it is my way" when that way encompasses all the fun and none of the responsibility and not call that "role-playing".  My opinion only...your mileage may vary.

I also see the submissive as having responsibilities...one of the biggest being to submit to what she agreed to submit to.  If she has agreed to yield her will in an area of her life, that does not mean she can or should become "stupid" and follow blindly...when he shows no responsibility other than wanting to order her but not take responsbility for the consequences of his orders, then she has a responsibility to speak up.  She also has the responsibility to yield...if she has given over control and stated such...then do so.  Watch the dominant's actions and see if he follows through responsibly with the control you have given but do not be ready to pull the rug out when it goes in a way that you do not agree with.



octavia -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/9/2007 9:10:11 AM)

simple ananogy but effective imo:

it takes a follower and a leader to dance a dance well.  A leader can try to follow and a follower can try to lead.  They might even pull it off, but a dance danced while the leader leads and the follower follows is... beautiful. 
The leader is responsible to lead and the follower to follow.
How that all plays out in a specific dance, with a specific leader and follower is as varied as the size of cocks here.  With Domiguys being the biggest of course. [;)]



CreativeDominant -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/9/2007 12:33:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: octavia

simple ananogy but effective imo:

it takes a follower and a leader to dance a dance well.  A leader can try to follow and a follower can try to lead.  They might even pull it off, but a dance danced while the leader leads and the follower follows is... beautiful. 
The leader is responsible to lead and the follower to follow.


I'm glad you agree with me and those of us who feel that way.[:)]

quote:

How that all plays out in a specific dance, with a specific leader and follower is as varied as the size of cocks here.  With Domiguys being the biggest of course. [;)]


See.............now HERE is where you lost me.  [:@]                 [;)]



Sinergy -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/9/2007 2:58:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: octavia

The leader is responsible to lead and the follower to follow.



Have to agree with this.

I did want to add something to it, however, as somebody who has danced since High School (modern, swing, ballroom).

I do not think that what we do is about "me."  I am not one of those dancers who twirls my partner while preening myself in the mirror to see how great I look.

I also do not think that the dance is about her.  Although I do feel that my "job" is to make her look good.

To me, what it is really about is the "dance."  That which we do as a team or partnership, my leading and her following, in order to find that transcendant place in the dance where everything extant to the dance blurs and falls away and all that remains is the reality shared by those who are dancing.

Sinergy



KnightofMists -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/9/2007 6:40:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CitizenCane

I am puzzled by the resistance that many people seem to have to the idea of dominance involving real power. 


mmmmmmm I am puzzled by what you mean by "Real" Power.

by denoting the ideal of "Real" Power  you imply there is "Fake" Power.

So I can not help but wonder what is "Real" Power and also what is "Fake" Power.



KnightofMists -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/9/2007 6:48:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CitizenCane

In your discussion of the limits of your power, I think you're missing a point that's central to my thinking about this subject: viz, that people, even rational people, even 'sane' people, can often be in states of mind of varying duration in which the whole focus of their minds is on compliance, and when in these states they are not considering the issues that make notions such as 'choice' and 'consent' meaningful.  Further, I would suggest that these states of mind can often be induced by an outside party. The fact that this frequently happens without either party being consciously aware of it really undermines the significance of 'choice' and 'consent'.


You seem to imply that for choice and consent to be meaningful there must be an awareness and reasoning for the choice/consent in the first place.  You seem to imply that a person's automatic response to a situation denotes a lack of choice or consent.



octavia -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/9/2007 7:08:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant



quote:

How that all plays out in a specific dance, with a specific leader and follower is as varied as the size of cocks here.  With Domiguys being the biggest of course. [;)]


See.............now HERE is where you lost me.  [:@]                 [;)]


Of course im gullible as hell being new and all and will believe anything im told.  [:D]



octavia -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/9/2007 7:09:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy



...  That which we do as a team or partnership, my leading and her following, in order to find that transcendant place in the dance where everything extant to the dance blurs and falls away and all that remains is the reality shared by those who are dancing.

Sinergy



exquisite!



KnightofMists -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/9/2007 7:10:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CitizenCane

This is why I believe that 'consent' is not the appropriate gauge of ethical behavior, especially not in D/s.  As soon as someone is in a position of unequal power, their ability to consent is eroded. If the model of 'consent once, obey always' is acceptable, this is perhaps not an issue, but most people seem to be attached to an idea of ongoing, or repeated consent.


I disagree.

Consent eroding within a D/s dynamic will occur most frequentlly when the basic premise of Responsibility is transferred to the Dominant.  If Responsibilities are removed from the submissive it becomes a moot point for consent.  Since their responsibility for choices is being eroded.  The more prevalent that responsibilities are tranferred and/or removed from the submissive the greater degree that consent will be eroded.  Therefore, in this type of situaiton.. consent is indeed a poor measure to gauge ethical nature of the relationship dynamic.

However, Within relationship dynamics where there is a maintained responsibility upon the submissive.. consent can and does maintain it's strength and importance within the relationship dynamic.  A constant awareness that each individuals within the relationship hold responsibilities makes consent an important function to the relationships success.  For a person as to constantly consent/accept these responsibilities in the first place.  Therefore, I find relationship dynamics that accept a concept of each individual having responsiblities to the relationship also embrace Consent/choice as important construct within their relationship dynamics.

Lastly, I have never seen any intimate and/or significant relationship endure and grow that did not embrace a measure of joint responsibilities for the growth and endurance of the relationship.  Therefore, I rather content to express that lasting and successful relationships will occur when the parties each consent and accept their responsibilties.  That each person fulfils the given role within the relationship they choose to become a part of.  A decision they will make with each choice in action they make that enhances and demonstrates their commitment to the relationship.



Sinergy -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/9/2007 9:14:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: octavia

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy



...  That which we do as a team or partnership, my leading and her following, in order to find that transcendant place in the dance where everything extant to the dance blurs and falls away and all that remains is the reality shared by those who are dancing.

Sinergy



exquisite!


I hope you experience it some day, octavia.  I have found it a couple of times playing publicly, and some times dancing. 

Do a search for peak experiences if you are curious.

Sinergy



charlotte12 -> RE: Dominance and Responsibility (6/9/2007 11:24:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: octavia

simple ananogy but effective imo:

it takes a follower and a leader to dance a dance well.  A leader can try to follow and a follower can try to lead.  They might even pull it off, but a dance danced while the leader leads and the follower follows is... beautiful. 
The leader is responsible to lead and the follower to follow.
How that all plays out in a specific dance, with a specific leader and follower is as varied as the size of cocks here.  With Domiguys being the biggest of course. [;)]


Beautifully put.

I think a submissive who has less responsibility than a Dom would look like someone trying to dance with a person who doesn't want to dance. The leader might be able to physically move the person about the floor but it won't be pretty. The partner may lift the ballerina (i know i know..i like ballet) off the floor but if she is not reaching as high as she can then it will look forced or she might fall.

There i just butchered your metaphor. sorry. sometimes the urge to say something too gets the better of me.
~charlotte



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125