RE: Dominant?

RE: Dominant? (Full Version)

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

Message

Leonidas -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 6:37:05 PM)
Hi Taggard, Well, that was kind of my point. If you look a bit further up at Angelika's post, she is, in effect saying exactly that; doing what someone else wants is submission. I was just posing the inverse scenario, to see if that logic holds. Take care of yourself. Leonidas

anthrosub -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 7:08:48 PM)
i really like this thread. You can see the dance right within the context of the discussion. i thought i would add one more observation. The Yin/Yang has been mentioned and one of the dynamics between the two is that as one side approaches its greatest influence, it's on the verge of "flipping" to its opposite. This is the point of the little circle (looks like the eye of a fish) colored with that of the opposite side within each half of the symbol. Anyone see this loosely applying in D/s? anthrosub

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 8:30:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas Well, that was kind of my point. If you look a bit further up at Angelika's post, she is, in effect saying exactly that; doing what someone else wants is submission. I was just posing the inverse scenario, to see if that logic holds. Actually, what she said was: quote: ORIGINAL: Lady Angelika I agree it that the one calling the shots is the dominant. I completely agree with this statement. You then proceeded to define "calling the shots" to include what I see as negotiation, communication and setting clear boundaries. This I do not agree with at all. I do not think a submissive who states her likes, dislikes, and limits is in any way, shape or form "calling the shots." She is communicating her desires in a partner, be it for an hour of play or a lifetime of torture. If the dominant in question doesn't like her desires, he is certainly free to walk. If he finds her desires compatible, he then takes control, submitting himself to the dynamic created, yet still "calling all the shots." To me, your idea of "calling the shots" seems to be exclusively the domain of no-limit, no-safeword slaves and Masters, and any suggestions, limits, or squcks coming from the slave are seen as topping from the bottom. While certainly one way to look at life, it seems a mighty extreme way to me. Personally, I can do what someone else wants and still "call the shots." Maybe it has to do with creativity or understanding my slave. Not sure, but I don't even find it all that hard. Personally, I adore the give and take, the real life struggles and the amazing feeling that comes with growth. If your slave starts out with no limits, how will they ever know what it is like to have a limit turn into a non limit and then into a preference? What you define as "calling the shots", I define as an expression of state, a knowledge of self than no no-limits, no-safeword slave I have known has ever expressed. Of course, YMMV. Yours, Taggard

LadyBeckett -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 8:33:52 PM)
quote: if I say "grapefruit" I take issue with grapefruit being used in this discussion, in this way.

topcat -> RE: Dominant? (7/22/2004 9:57:30 PM)
quote: Zen, and other forms of Buddhism qualify M.Leonidas- Zen (simply 'eastern' in Nipphon) is not a religion. Zen Buddhism is a religion, and Zen is often used as a term to descibe the philosophy underlying the religion. One doesn't need a diety to have a religion, but one does need (as milady A. pointed out) Theism. Otherwise, it is a philosophy, not a religion. Stay warm, Lawrence

MzBerlin -> RE: Dominant? (7/23/2004 12:38:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyBeckett quote: if I say "grapefruit" I take issue with grapefruit being used in this discussion, in this way. LadyBeckett- I agree with you. The grapefruit is a sensitive citrus and should be used in a more sensible way. As Always Berlin

Leonidas -> RE: Dominant? (7/23/2004 7:29:50 AM)
Hi topcat, Outside the attention-span deprived popular culture where some folks refer to "Zen" (and similarly "Zen" of this or that) as some vague notion of calm and coolness (think David Caradine in Kung Fu). When someone says "I'm a Zen pratitioner" I know exactly what they mean. They have a practice of sitting zazen. Phil Jackson, late of the Lakers is one of these. There may be some folks out there who talk about something that they call "Zen". I could dance around here in my underwear and call it ballet, but I'm not gonna get much respect from real ballet community, I think. Things like Zen are practice lineages handed down from teacher to student for a long, long time. You can't just take the term and have it mean whatever you want. Well, you can, and I suppose that some folks who don't know any better might even believe you. Something similar goes on with the term "Tantra". In the west, "Tantra" has become synonymous with "fancy fucking" promoted by people who happen to like fancy fucking but don't really understand the concept of a tantra at all. The Dalai Lama is a devout tantric practitioner, and he hasn't had pussy since pussy had him. We're getting way off the subject of this thread here. Some religions are not theist. Buddhism, just to use an example I know again, does not posit that there is a God at all, and yet it has been widely referred to as one of the major world religions for a long time. In fact, before the cultural revolution in China, it was the religion that had the most adherants on the planet. Maybe our friends Merriam and Webster can help: religion: b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance Yep, God is mentioned in there, but God or the supernatural (maybe a nod to our Pagan friends?). Second definition just says that you have to be devoted to a religious faith or observance, which is very similar to what I said in my first post. religious: 1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity. Hmmm. Yep, there's a deity in there alright, but just like with God in the first definition, it's optional. Hope this helps. Take care of yourselves Leonidas

Sinergy -> RE: Dominant? (7/23/2004 7:45:46 AM)
quote: Zen (simply 'eastern' in Nipphon) is not a religion. Zen Buddhism is a religion, and Zen is often used as a term to descibe the philosophy underlying the religion. One doesn't need a diety to have a religion, but one does need (as milady A. pointed out) Theism. Hrm, I learned that that basic philosophy of Zen was originally brought from ancient China to pre-feudal Japan. The philosophy was originally called "Chan" in China, and was duct-taped to another philosophy (Buddhism) which the Japanese had brought to stick on top of their culture. In regards to the egocentric comments, Leonidas, I am trying to recall the source where I read that comment about egocentrism and distraction. I am not going to argue that I am correct, because Zen Buddhism and other forms of Buddhism (Nichiren, etc) vary rather widely from that originally developed in India, brought over the mountains (and changed to fit the existing culture) to China, and eventually brought (and changed to fit the culture) to Japan around the 11th or 12th century. Just me, could be wrong, but there ya go. Sinergy

Leonidas -> RE: Dominant? (7/23/2004 8:03:27 AM)
Hi Sinergy, Yep. Buddhism has picked up different flavors wherever it goes. In Tibet, the religion that was there before Buddhism arrived was called "Bon". I have no doubt that Tibetan Buddhism as it exists today was influenced by it, just like the catholic church with its reverence for the madonna was influenced by the hellenist religion of Rome at the time when it sprang up. I might be wrong, but I don't think you're going to find any practitioners of "Chan" today, or anyone who credibly claims that Zen has survived as something separate and apart. When serious folks talk about Zen today, they're referring to one thing. Take care of yourself Leonidas

LadyAngelika -> RE: Dominant? (7/23/2004 8:04:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas Not to be picky, but you don't have to have a diety to have a religion. You mean the sadistic nuns at my private high school lied to me!?! Bitches! quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas Wow!!! Look Ma, I just made a religion! Here is a gold star! * :) - LA

Sinergy -> RE: Dominant? (7/23/2004 8:05:30 AM)
quote: Things like Zen are practice lineages handed down from teacher to student for a long, long time. You can't just take the term and have it mean whatever you want. Several thoughts on this. First off, Practioners of many martial arts and spiritual disciplines originating in Asia use this concept (practice lineages passed down from teacher to student for generations) as a means of establishing credibility. While it is entirely possible it is true, there are issues with verbal traditions changing over time (think of the children's game telephone) from what was originally developed by whomever. I personally spent almost 21 years studying from a man who trained under the person who developed my primary martial art. Does this give me credibility and closeness to The Source of all knowledge? Perhaps, Im not sure how relevant I feel that is to me. I found many of his ideals and precepts for both the particular martial art, Zen spirituality, and general attitude towards other people to work really well for me, so I go with it. Secondly, almost the entire historical record of China was initially transliterated into Japanese (Would the invading Japanese change or not understand something when they rewrote it, or (perish the thought) have a vested interest in changing the historical record for their own purposes?) during World War 2 and then the existing written records were burned. Then the majority of the entire historical record was again rewritten (would Mao ZeDong have an interest (perish the thought) in altering the historical records for his own purposes?) burned during the Communist revolution. So there is no written record to support many of the claims made about who learned what from whom. Any Tom-tse, Dick-te, or Harry-tsu can indicate that they learned The Truth from Blahfucius and there is no real way to dispute or prove their claim. I personally just smile, nod, and go with it. Thirdly, the Chinese have a historical tradition going back 6000+ years of attempting to establish credibility for whatever they are doing with what are known as the "mythical emperors" of antiquity who did everything right, were good and just, and everything was hunky dory. This was most amusing during the Mongol (cant recall the dynasty name at this point) takeover where the Mongol hordes came down from the north, overthrew the existing dynasty, set themselves up as Emperor, and 2 generations later were harkening back to their connection to the Chinese Mythical Emperors. I suppose if I existed back then I would smile, nod, and go with it. My personal opinion is that practitioners of a lot of Chinese arts may be inculcated into this cultural tradition. But it is not up to me to be critical of their claims; while they may be wrong, it is also entirely possible that they may be right. Anyway, just my opinion and I could be wrong. Sinergy

LadyAngelika -> RE: Dominant? (7/23/2004 8:08:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MzBerlin quote: ORIGINAL: LadyBeckett quote: if I say "grapefruit" I take issue with grapefruit being used in this discussion, in this way. LadyBeckett- I agree with you. The grapefruit is a sensitive citrus and should be used in a more sensible way. As Always Berlin Life... is like a grapefruit. It's orange and squishy, and has a few pips in it, and some folks have half a one for breakfast. -- Douglas Adams (I, too, will show my geeky side!) - LA <edited as I missed MzBerlin's addition>

Leonidas -> RE: Dominant? (7/23/2004 8:14:08 AM)
You are absolutely right LadyBeckett. My apologies. To brazenly bring a fruit into a scene without proper and prior negotiations is a clear violation of SSC. The fruithood of a fruit should be honored and respected at all times. Take care of yourself Leonidas

Sinergy -> RE: Dominant? (7/23/2004 8:16:17 AM)
quote: I might be wrong, but I don't think you're going to find any practitioners of "Chan" today, or anyone who credibly claims that Zen has survived as something separate and apart. My buddy and I at different times studied two variants of Kung Fu, and the concept of Chan was discussed at both of them. However, in studying various other Zen teachers the concept of Zen and the concept of Chan mostly share a similar lineage, but have morped into slightly different concepts since they were brought to Japan around the 15th century or so. From what I recall, Zen was brought to Japan because the Japanese warrior culture had a vested interest in using a little used philosophical concept to allow their culture to develop in the way they wanted it to develop. quote: When serious folks talk about Zen today, they're referring to one thing. I am not sure I agree with the concept that all people who claim to follow Zen refer to one thing. I know what I think Zen is, but I personally think that what makes Zen unique is the inability to nail down exactly what it is from a rational point of view. To me it is a state of beingness, and indescribable. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

LadyAngelika -> RE: Dominant? (7/23/2004 8:22:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas I could dance around here in my underwear and call it ballet Now this might be interesting to see! ;) In all honesty, my version of Zen has been adapted to suit my lifestyle. I like to think that almost everything that I apply to my life has been influenced by something I respect and then modified to suit my needs. It’s quite a post-modern way of seeing things, bricolage if you are Lévis-Strauss (the anthropologist and linguist, not the jeans guy!). And yet is it quite an old way of seeing things, as all philosophies, tenets, paradigms and religions have been open to interpretation and personalisation. Now watch me tie all of this back into the original topic… That is what I do with BDSM. I know there are these general broad rules of dynamics, but I take the essence of BDSM and apply it the way I see fit. And as Taggard said, if the submissive I am considering isn’t in synch with me or doesn’t feel he or she could become in synch with me, then we go our separate ways. - LA

LadyAngelika -> RE: Dominant? (7/23/2004 8:24:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: When serious folks talk about Zen today, they're referring to one thing. I am not sure I agree with the concept that all people who claim to follow Zen refer to one thing. I know what I think Zen is, but I personally think that what makes Zen unique is the inability to nail down exactly what it is from a rational point of view. To me it is a state of beingness, and indescribable. Damn you for posting while I was writing! You said it better then I! - LA

Leonidas -> RE: Dominant? (7/23/2004 8:24:17 AM)
quote: I know what I think Zen is, but I personally think that what makes Zen unique is the inability to nail down exactly what it is from a rational point of view. To me it is a state of beingness, and indescribable. Well, yes. That is that "vague notion of calm and coolness" that I was talking about before. Nothing wrong with it at all, it's just not Zen. If you want to understand Zen, seek out a Zen lineage holder. It's a very rich oral and written tradition, and as you say, while you may practice for a lifetime and never really grasp it completely, there is still a lot there to discover. Take care of yourself Leonidas

Leonidas -> RE: Dominant? (7/23/2004 8:36:53 AM)
This is fascinating. The thread started out in search of "Dominance", and now we're on to Zen. In both cases, the argument is along the lines of "It's whatever I think it is. My definition is as good as anyone's." This thread has been more instructive than I could have hoped for when I started it. Separating the truth of something like "Dominance" from the falacy is not valued here. The valuable thing is that everyone can happily believe that they are whatever they think they are. On that basis, this whole discussion is more or less moot. Thank you all for your contributions. I have enjoyed this thread a lot. Take care of yourselves. Leonidas

LadyBeckett -> RE: Dominant? (7/23/2004 8:45:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas You are absolutely right LadyBeckett. My apologies. To brazenly bring a fruit into a scene without proper and prior negotions is a clear violation of SSC. The fruithood of a fruit should be honored and respected at all times. Take care of yourself Leonidas According to the Tao, we are taught to treat every grain of rice as if it is our eyeball. I am not Zen, or Buddhist, and cannot tap dance either. But I know that about the Tao, and I know that "Tao" means "Way". If I am living according to the "Way" and "treating every grain of rice as if it is my eyeball", then I'm not wontanly (sp?) tossing grapefruit around. Am I? I've already thanked you for the joke, Leo, but I'll thank you again. Laughter is good medicine, and I'm glad you shared some of yours with me. [;)]

Leonidas -> RE: Dominant? (7/23/2004 8:59:24 AM)
quote: To me, your idea of "calling the shots" seems to be exclusively the domain of no-limit, no-safeword slaves and Masters, and any suggestions, limits, or squcks coming from the slave are seen as topping from the bottom. While certainly one way to look at life, it seems a mighty extreme way to me. Yes. I am out there on one extreme. I don't know how long you have been in the lifestyle, but from what you have written, I have to imagine that you've been around long enough to have seen the other extreme, no? Where the "submissive" really is calling the shots, both in terms of the play, and the relationship. Dominant does what submissive wants done to her, and if he's been especially courteous, she might allow him something that he wants. Dominant avoids at all costs doing or saying anything that will piss submissive off, because if dominant does, submissive will withhold play until dominant toes the line. It goes back to what Iwill was saying: She has it, I want it, I'll conform in order to get it. Though in Iwill's case, he's self aware enough to know that he's the submissive. There may be, and probably is, a middle ground there, but you know what? The guy being pussy whipped is usually the last guy to realize it. Just something to ponder. Take care of yourself Leondias

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875