|
Padriag -> RE: Dominance defined. (7/23/2005 5:12:20 PM)
|
To Sabis
I enjoyed reading your essay quite a bit, I thought it to be a very clear expression of dominance with integrity from a submissives point of view. Something that I found inspirational regarding what it means to be both a dominant and a man was expressed by Rudyard Kipling in his poem If.
If
To Junecleaver
You asked for opinions on dominance, all I can give is my own. Peoples opinions will differ because different things are important to them, what they value is different. What is enlightening is seeing what they value in the opinions and ideas they express. Contrary to some other opinions I think the dominant who gave you this assignment is more interested in that sort of insight about you than anything else. Every dominant has their own method of getting to know a submissive, of gaining insight into them, assessing them and determining what areas need to be focused on. Some use essays and journals as tools to get there, others prefer observing reactions in controlled settings, some just wing it and make it up as they go. Its difficult and a bit rash to judge someone's motives based on a few lines of text. As you said, he wants in your head. If you have concerns about how he is going about that, I would suggest you put those questions to him directly.
But as to my own opinion about dominance I have two definitions I'll share with you. The first is dominance in the abstract, that is the pure concept of dominance. The second is dominance within the context of the lifestyle.
Dominance as a principle or abstract concept is this, the combination of both the ability and the will to project force to achieve control over another, a situation, an object, etc. Dominance is the use of some kind of force, be that physical force (military force, brute strength, etc.), economic, social (peer pressure), charismatic (personal charm, presense, etc.), or intellect (brains over brawn, logical arguments, etc.). Simply having the ability isn't enough... you can have force, but if you don't use it, you will not be in control. Likewise having the will is nothing without ability, achieving dominance requires the combination of the two.
That was the abstract, now for my second definition within the lifestyle which gives the concept a specific context.
Within the lifestyle we use guiding concepts like Safe, Sane & Consensual and Risk Aware Consenusal Kink. As a community we put a lot of emphasis on consent, on being ethical about what we do, and having integrity in what we do. It hasn't always been this way, but its been an evolution of things I consider very healthy. It also affects how we in the lifestyle view dominance. If someone were to force someone else unwillingly into "play" with no form of consent being given I think most of us would call that abuse and criminal, at the very least unethical. Yet taking my first definition it would still be called dominance, it qualifies as the application of force to gain control. But within the context of the lifestyle we add the extra qualifiers of consent, integrity and ethics... and thus we call that form of non-consensual dominance abuse. Its worth noting that despite the emphasis placed on consent, many within the lifestyle still have fantasies about non-consensual play, both dominant and submissives. Its a throw back to that more raw form of dominance without the social constraint of consent, the fantasy of someone so overpowering they can take what they want, and for the submissive the fantasy of being taken. My personal opinion is that this is much of the driving force behind Master / slave relationships where "permanent" consent is given and thereafter the Master can freely "take" what he wishes. And also with force play and fantasy rape, which both deal strongly with the use of overwhelming force without seeking consent. We may have evolved into a safer, saner, more risk aware community, but that does not mean that primal beast isn't still there howling at the moon in the darker recesses of our minds.
As individuals we add other qualifiers too, but which ones vary from person to person. One person might find extreme forms of physical dominance a wild turn on, some one else might feel that would be abusive. One person's humiliation play is another person's mental and emotional abuse. Dom X might apply that "force" in the form of charisma and intellect, Dom Z might be more the physical type. Sub A might respond wildly to Dom Z but be turned off by Dom X while Sub B might be excited and awed by Dom X and think Dom Z a troll. Perception is everything. While dominance is the application of some form of force with the intention of gaining control, the context in which that is done changes what is acceptable and what is not.
That my opinion on it anyway, make of it what you will. [;)]
|
|
|
|
