RE: Equality within D/s (Full Version)

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



Message

chamberqueen -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 6:55:33 AM)

I have also used the work analogy when explaining this to someone.  I go on the say that while the boss may have the power they are often lost without their main support person.  It used to be said that the true power in the company was the secretary.  Having been both a secretary and a company president I know the reality of this. 

I don't like the word equal when it comes to a relationship anyway.  Would you consider an apple equal to an orange?  Equivalent is a better word.  There will be things that you are better at than him and vice versa.  The phrase only demeans you if you let it.  That might be his way of saying that the final decision is his, or that he feels that his needs come first.  If he said either of those things to you it probably wouldn't bother you, but you've chosen to let one word get to you. 



Knite064 -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 7:19:03 AM)

The partner in control will always be the one that values the relationship less than the other whether in D/s or vanilla. 
Setting that aside im in the "equal" camp simply because the foundation of  a well balanced D/s relationship will be built on a mutual agreement between parties of how things will run within the relationship.So yes one will lead the relationship and the other be led but that fundamental agreement for this to be the way will always be there and agreed equally at the outset....one needs the other equally 



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 7:56:31 AM)

No, I'm not on the "equality" bandwagon when it comes to D/s. To me, there is an inherent -imbalance- between the two sides, and it is the Universal attempt to equalize that provides the enjoyable "tension" in the dynamic. To take that away is to take away the whole -nature- of in-egalitarian relationships.

In D/s, the inequality is an authority issue. I concur that in other aspects of life, there may be more egalitarian aspects, but if one is living in a manner that gives precedence to the in-egalitarian authority aspect, then the areas where one -may- be an equal fall away.

As a real-world example, I have a higher IQ and substantially higher level of experience in many areas than my immediate boss. However, when it comes to IRB (Institutional Regulatory Board) and CRC (Clinical Review Committee) issues, she wins -hands down-. When we are within the dynamic where she oversees my interactions in the above areas, the areas in which I know more or have more baseline intelligence are, essentially, irrelevant. Calling them up, or dwelling on the fact that I've got higher IQ numbers or more experience in, say, midwifery, than she does makes both her inherent strengths and the need, for both of our success, for me to acede to her superior expertise -and- her authority over me that much more difficult -- so it becomes self-defeating to our relationship to dwell on those things while striving for success within our relationship.

It always seems to me that the cry of "but I'm hir equal!" comes out of the perspective (both D/s and mainstream) where one is really chafing against that natural imbalance. To me, someone who has to make a point of such doesn't really grasp the whole idea inherent in imbalance-based relationships like authority transfer.





CreativeDominant -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 7:57:01 AM)

I'm of the belief that there is "equality within the inequality and inequality within the equality" of any relationship, especially D/s so I guess that puts me in MissM's and IrishMist's and agirl's camps.

The dominant has more authority than the submissive so he gets the "yea-nay"...but the submissive retains the power to refuse/walk away.
My needs/wants/desires come before hers...and she does that best when I don't forget that her wants/needs/desires need attention also.
I get to make the rules but, except for the basic ones, most of those wind up being discussed with a view as to what is best for the dynamic and for her growth as an individual and a submissive.  I still get the final say as to whether they are set into place and at that point, she either chooses to submit or she chooses not to.  The basic ones don't change and, if they cannot be met, the dynamic will never take place.

Like others, I don't understand where the belief...mistaken in my opinion...that the term equality has to relate to worth and/or value.  The example of a surgeon and his nurse...yes, the surgeon gets to make all the decisions and has the power to do so.  The nurse may have the better ability to implement many of his decisions but she cannot make them.  She does not have the power to do so.  He can fire her, she cannot fire him except by choosing to quit her position.  That does not make her worth less than he when it comes to health care...hell, go to most hospitals and it is the nurses making sure that the patients survive what the doctors have done.  But she is still not equal in power to the doctor...if something goes wrong with that patient, the nurse may be responsible for first attendance to that patient but it is the doctor who gets called in again. 

I've been in several of those "all things must be equal" relationships and what I learned was that it doesn't work.  Human nature precludes constant equality of power...It does not preclude equality of value or place within the relationship nor the worth of each partner's contribution.



MAMandSlave -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 7:59:30 AM)

I believe each has equal ability to committ to an unequal power dynamic. There is also final equality in that either may choose to leave the relationship if it is not working for them.



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 8:00:18 AM)

quote:

The partner in control will always be the one that values the relationship less than the other whether in D/s or vanilla.


See, now, -this- I have to disagree with strongly. To me, this attitude marks an unhealthy authority-based relationship (an unhealthy relationship, period). In terms of valuing the relationship, all members -must- value the relationship as much as the other participant(s). An imbalance in this area dooms the entire relationship, and has -nothing- to do with accepting inequality within the context of authority or experience.



IronBear -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 8:34:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knite064

The partner in control will always be the one that values the relationship less than the other whether in D/s or vanilla. 
Setting that aside im in the "equal" camp simply because the foundation of  a well balanced D/s relationship will be built on a mutual agreement between parties of how things will run within the relationship.So yes one will lead the relationship and the other be led but that fundamental agreement for this to be the way will always be there and agreed equally at the outset....one needs the other equally 


Whilst I have never personally experienced a D/s relationship nor am I likely to being wired for M/s, I still refute your comment: "The partner in control will always be the one that values the relationship less than the other whether in D/s or vanilla." In fact I will go as far to say that in all successful relationships D/s, M/s or Mundane, often the partner in control is the one who may appear to and sometimes does value the relationship more. I and one or two others I know here, will never agree with such a global statement saying that some one or group will ALWAYS..... To state such a piece of drivel and argue it you'd need to monitor every relationship in the entire world..

That a sub/slave is not the controlling person takes nothing away from the equality of the relationship if you see equality of a relationship being where all parties are following agreed roles and carrying out well defined duties



Knite064 -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 9:16:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

The partner in control will always be the one that values the relationship less than the other whether in D/s or vanilla.


See, now, -this- I have to disagree with strongly. To me, this attitude marks an unhealthy authority-based relationship (an unhealthy relationship, period). In terms of valuing the relationship, all members -must- value the relationship as much as the other participant(s). An imbalance in this area dooms the entire relationship, and has -nothing- to do with accepting inequality within the context of authority or experience.


Yes of course it does which was why i remarked on setting it aside,but there is absolutely no doubt that in such a dysfunctional relationship the one that values the relationship less will therefore have a control over the one that does value it more, all too often i read posts here which support the theory that a form of negative control is used over the more eager partner in a relationship.
Familiarity breeds contempt?perhaps, call it what you will, its an unfortunate effect of an inbalanced dysfunctional relationship (and yes iron bear i concede your point on this being a sweeping generalisation but i stand by the point as a general point based on observation and of course there will be exceptions the the "drivel".)




Lordandmaster -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 9:30:42 AM)

Yes, exactly.  "Equality" has so many different shades of meaning that it only leads to confusion in a d/s context.  Besides, our commitment to equality is essentially political, and in the political domain "equality" means something very different from whatever we might mean in d/s.  The fact that we are (or should be) equal before the law does not mean that we are (or should be) equal in every other respect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeIgnited

Sounds like something of a semantics issue.



MissJanice2 -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 9:52:54 AM)

Greetings:
 
This is a tough one.  There is no right answer because you will find different points of view from everyone on this matter.
 
My view is that the Dom and sub are equal and the only thing that separates them is consent.   I do nothing to a slave that he or she would not allow me to do.  I don't plan on going to jail in this lifetime.
 
Best Wishes,
 
MJ

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rayne749

Hi everyone,
Wasn't sure where to post this so please excuse me if you feel it doesn't fit. (and let me know where it would be better posted if you could!!)

I have been having a discussion about equality with a Dom.
He states that while both the Dom and the sub are worth as much as each other, they are not equal. Well I just don't get this? I might be opening myself up for a slaughtering but hey, i'm just trying to understand. (btw, this is based on a two person, male Dom, fem sub, 24/7 relationship)

I think (and I may be wrong, i'm not infallible after all!) that yes the two are worth as much as each other, and yes the power ratio is unequal, and that one leads the other follows. No qualms there.
But overall I look at it like a version of good and evil, or yin and yang.  two very opposite parts that make the whole, and are equal (perhaps not in a conventional sense, but we are talking D/s and not vanilla), because one cannot be greater than the other as they are limited by the other.

So how does equality come into it? Besides the obvious power part of it? (this includes what comes from it, day to day activities, choices etc).

To my way of thinking to be unequal means that one side is greater (to which he agreed and said the Dom was greater), but the Dom is limited by his perceptions and beliefs, and the subs limits and capabilities, and vise versa i would suggest. Or am I wrong there?

I may have missed something here, cos i'm just not getting it. Yes certain parts of the relationship are unequal, that is what gives it the D/s dynamic, but to say the two people invovled are not equal...as a good friend of mine said  "in essesnce they are equal - two different parts of the same whole - neither more or less than the other.... ".

I guess its just not sitting with me right, and i'm trying to find out why.
And yes I have asked him to explain it differently so that I might understand, obiously it's not working, haha.

All thoughts are welcome, if you need me to expand or clarify anything just ask.

Thanks
Rayne




NihilusZero -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 10:37:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knite064

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

The partner in control will always be the one that values the relationship less than the other whether in D/s or vanilla.


See, now, -this- I have to disagree with strongly. To me, this attitude marks an unhealthy authority-based relationship (an unhealthy relationship, period). In terms of valuing the relationship, all members -must- value the relationship as much as the other participant(s). An imbalance in this area dooms the entire relationship, and has -nothing- to do with accepting inequality within the context of authority or experience.


Yes of course it does which was why i remarked on setting it aside,but there is absolutely no doubt that in such a dysfunctional relationship the one that values the relationship less will therefore have a control over the one that does value it more, all too often i read posts here which support the theory that a form of negative control is used over the more eager partner in a relationship.
Familiarity breeds contempt?perhaps, call it what you will, its an unfortunate effect of an inbalanced dysfunctional relationship (and yes iron bear i concede your point on this being a sweeping generalisation but i stand by the point as a general point based on observation and of course there will be exceptions the the "drivel".)

Well, it is a sweeping (and incorrect) generalization, but I find myself thinking that what you meant isn't what you wrote. Meaning, I think the way you structured the original sentence (quoted by Calla) gave a misleading impression. I'll explain and I guess you could answer as to whether I'm correct or not. You wrote:

"The partner in control will always be the one that values the relationship less than the other whether in D/s or vanilla."

The way you arranged this sentence grammatically is saying that the chosen partner "in control" (the D-type of a relationship, by default) "always...values the relationship less...". That Dom(me)s always value relationships less than their sub(s). Implausible.

However, if we flip the portions of the sentence into (and this is what I think you meant)...:

"The one that values the relationship less than the other whether in D/s or vanilla is always the partner in control."

This makes sense, because you are asserting that being at the shallower end of emotional investment in a relationship puts you in a position of control (whether overt or not). This becomes a statement of the importance of mutual devotion, not a paint-brushing of all D-types.



CreativeDominant -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 12:18:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Yes, exactly.  "Equality" has so many different shades of meaning that it only leads to confusion in a d/s context.  Besides, our commitment to equality is essentially political, and in the political domain "equality" means something very different from whatever we might mean in d/s.  The fact that we are (or should be) equal before the law does not mean that we are (or should be) equal in every other respect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BeIgnited

Sounds like something of a semantics issue.



Nicely...and succenctly...put.

My being the dominant partner doesn't make me worth any more than the submissive partner...and we're still not equals.



AquaticSub -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 2:15:57 PM)

~Fast Reply~

We see each other as equal in this. He can't dominate if I don't submit, I can't submit if he doesn't dominate. In the end, we are each equally capable of destroying the balence and it requires us to both work at it for our relationship to continue.

Other people see things differently. I don't think any particular answer is going to work for everyone.



LovingMistress45 -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 3:30:17 PM)

I think a lot depends on how you are using the word equal. To me both people in the relationships are equals that have agreed to an unequal power exchange.  I agree with the signature line on aquaticsub. Referring to one's sub/slave as property is fun, but reality is property can't decide to not be property and a sub/slave can decide exactly that.



IrishMist -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 3:47:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

The partner in control will always be the one that values the relationship less than the other whether in D/s or vanilla.


See, now, -this- I have to disagree with strongly. To me, this attitude marks an unhealthy authority-based relationship (an unhealthy relationship, period). In terms of valuing the relationship, all members -must- value the relationship as much as the other participant(s). An imbalance in this area dooms the entire relationship, and has -nothing- to do with accepting inequality within the context of authority or experience.

Thank you Miss Calla; you beat me to it and said it far better than I could have.



Knite064 -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 3:48:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knite064

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

The partner in control will always be the one that values the relationship less than the other whether in D/s or vanilla.


See, now, -this- I have to disagree with strongly. To me, this attitude marks an unhealthy authority-based relationship (an unhealthy relationship, period). In terms of valuing the relationship, all members -must- value the relationship as much as the other participant(s). An imbalance in this area dooms the entire relationship, and has -nothing- to do with accepting inequality within the context of authority or experience.


Yes of course it does which was why i remarked on setting it aside,but there is absolutely no doubt that in such a dysfunctional relationship the one that values the relationship less will therefore have a control over the one that does value it more, all too often i read posts here which support the theory that a form of negative control is used over the more eager partner in a relationship.
Familiarity breeds contempt?perhaps, call it what you will, its an unfortunate effect of an inbalanced dysfunctional relationship (and yes iron bear i concede your point on this being a sweeping generalisation but i stand by the point as a general point based on observation and of course there will be exceptions the the "drivel".)

Well, it is a sweeping (and incorrect) generalization, but I find myself thinking that what you meant isn't what you wrote. Meaning, I think the way you structured the original sentence (quoted by Calla) gave a misleading impression. I'll explain and I guess you could answer as to whether I'm correct or not. You wrote:

"The partner in control will always be the one that values the relationship less than the other whether in D/s or vanilla."

The way you arranged this sentence grammatically is saying that the chosen partner "in control" (the D-type of a relationship, by default) "always...values the relationship less...". That Dom(me)s always value relationships less than their sub(s). Implausible.

However, if we flip the portions of the sentence into (and this is what I think you meant)...:

"The one that values the relationship less than the other whether in D/s or vanilla is always the partner in control."

This makes sense, because you are asserting that being at the shallower end of emotional investment in a relationship puts you in a position of control (whether overt or not). This becomes a statement of the importance of mutual devotion, not a paint-brushing of all D-types.


The statement i originally made was not intended from a lifestyle point of view so yes on a BDSM board it could clearly be misunderstood.(and yes its grammatically fucked up [;)]) 

Yes this was my point

The statement was never intended as  a reply to the Op s post but as an aside before replying to the original point, on hindsight perhaps this point would have been better raised  as a totally seperate topic perhaps for discussion along  the lines of Can the power exchange truly work within a relationship that is obviously inbalanced from the outset.

Be well



IrishMist -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 3:50:43 PM)

quote:

as a totally seperate topic perhaps for discussion along  the lines of Can the power exchange truly work within a relationship that is obviously inbalanced from the outset.

Of course it can.
Perhaps you should instead illustrate why YOU believe it can not.



marie2 -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 3:55:37 PM)

I would say that both parties are equally as important, as far as their needs being met etc.  But there can be a certain inequality to the way you relate to each other, with one being dominant and one being submissive.  The "roles" are very much different....therefore, not "equal".  It doesn't mean one is "greater" or "lesser" than the other, like in a mathematical equation.



Knite064 -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 4:19:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist

quote:

as a totally seperate topic perhaps for discussion along  the lines of Can the power exchange truly work within a relationship that is obviously inbalanced from the outset.

Of course it can.
Perhaps you should instead illustrate why YOU believe it can not.

If we are on the same wavelenth based on the rest of my statement you ommited then for me i disagree that it can.
For me personally both parties need to have similiar emotional feelings to the other for the power exchange to work in a healthy non abusive manner.
It would be unthinkable for me to enter a relationship wherebye i cared less for her than her for me(or the potential for these feelings on both sides)
Thankfully we all have our own opinions on what works for us and the type of relationship we want to enter.
This is what historically has worked for me and will do again.

be well
ps.This is detracting from the original post(which has got my interest) so ill leave it there but feel free to pm me if ive not understood you correctly



IrishMist -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 4:21:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knite064

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist

quote:

as a totally seperate topic perhaps for discussion along  the lines of Can the power exchange truly work within a relationship that is obviously inbalanced from the outset.

Of course it can.
Perhaps you should instead illustrate why YOU believe it can not.

If we are on the same wavelenth based on the rest of my statement you ommited then for me i disagree that it can.
For me personally both parties need to have similiar emotional feelings to the other for the power exchange to work in a healthy non abusive manner.
It would be unthinkable for me to enter a relationship wherebye i cared less for her than her for me(or the potential for these feelings on both sides)
Thankfully we all have our own opinions on what works for us and the type of relationship we want to enter.
This is what historically has worked for me and will do again.

be well
ps.This is detracting from the original post(which has got my interest) so ill leave it there but feel free to pm me if ive not understood you correctly


No thankyou. I understood you perfectly; just as you understood me perfectly.
I said it can.
You said it can't.

Obviously we disagree.
No biggie.

Have a nice day




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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.152344E-02