RE: Equality within D/s

RE: Equality within D/s (Full Version)

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

Message

DrkIntensity -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/17/2009 6:19:31 PM)
Some relationships may have equality; mine does not. The very nature of our relationship does not allow for equality. If I pushed for it, we would no longer have a D/s structure; that is not something that I desire. *lise*

Jeptha -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/18/2009 9:30:31 AM)
Their are many different aspects to which the idea of "equality" could be applied, and the answer may be different for each; In terms of a relationship, it does take two to tango. And it is a consentual relationship, therefor, it is 'one person, one vote'. Each person has the right to withdraw their consent. That is one definition of equality. In terms of objective "value", no one person has a higher value than another, objectively (they may have a higher value to you because you have a relationship with them, find them of some particular usefullness, etc.; but all that is subjective valuing.) So, that's another definition of equality. Personally, I view power exhange (or authority transfer!) as an agreement between consenting equals.

agirl -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/18/2009 10:17:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeptha Their are many different aspects to which the idea of "equality" could be applied, and the answer may be different for each; In terms of a relationship, it does take two to tango. And it is a consentual relationship, therefor, it is 'one person, one vote'. Each person has the right to withdraw their consent. That is one definition of equality. In terms of objective "value", no one person has a higher value than another, objectively (they may have a higher value to you because you have a relationship with them, find them of some particular usefullness, etc.; but all that is subjective valuing.) So, that's another definition of equality. Personally, I view power exhange (or authority transfer!) as an agreement between consenting equals. I view it similarly. We have a set-up where he has ultinate authority ...... equal doesn't come into it at all, to be honest. I've never thought I was equal to anyone else. It smacks of someone else being able to mirror everything I am , which no-one can. My Owner can't be my equal no matter what ......grins. agirl

Rayne749 -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/19/2009 7:18:45 PM)
marie2 - what you said about relating to each other gave me a whole different view to look from. So simple, I just needed it pointed out! agirl - liked what you said about equality being like a mirror, again a new point to look from. Thank you everyone for contributing!!! It has certainly helped me to expand the way I think about this. (and yes, i did make myself stop thinking on it for a time and it did help).

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/21/2009 7:19:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rayne749 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 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 involved are not equal...as a good friend of mine said "in essence 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. The message of equality—the status of having equal rights and opportunities—is all around us in Western society. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights is the creed by which we live in the United States, at least. It sounds wonderful, and for the most part such ideals are embraced, pursued and manifested in our daily lives, but most can see that even under this firmament, plenty of inequality exists—be it socioeconomic or situational. One of life's harsher lessons is perhaps that nothing is uniform in the way of "value" among our fellow humans—that it is earned through one's own merit (or lost due to lack thereof), inherited or visited upon another by way of fortunate (or unfortunate) circumstance. I know the ideal we all ascribe to in a traditional sense is 50/50 "energy", 50/50 value, 50/50 input, equal this and equal that, yin and yang on so on and so forth, and as noble and cosmic as that idea may be, I've never seen a relationship structured in such a way. It is my belief there is always a power dimorphism of some form in a relationship—an authority dynamic, a more dominant half, a decision maker, etc. As citizens of the state, we are legally considered "equal", but when it comes to consensual relationships of more give and less take, there are no solid rules here, save one: the door is (almost always) there for either party. Having said that, I tend to view D/s as a gateway into another way of living, often free from orthodox philosophy and spiritual mumbo jumbo regarding fairness and balance, equal but different energies and so on. In that light, I find the constantly resurrecting notion of "equality in D/s" to be strange, and I tend to wonder why people need to applaud the validity of the idea when, by virtue of the very phrase, there is at least some purposeful imbalance hinted within it. I see a lot of concern about "value", as if it's distressing for some to think that being in a D/s relationship may change their value, either in their own eyes or in the eyes of another. That depends entirely upon the relationship, naturally. But what if it does make someone of less value in their relationship? Is that too hard to fathom? In the relationship archetype I personally idealize—the final subset of D/s being M/s—the idea a slave is of equal value runs philosophically counter to the entire point. I can understand those who are in a romantic D/s relationship espousing the idea of some sort of "equality" in D/s, but it's important to remember this is not an umbrella philosophy for all. Sometimes the servile imperative goes beyond sensual simulation dismissed with a safeword. Sometimes the imbalance of value and right in a relationship is not smoke and mirrors for the sake of mere fantasy fulfillment, but a real, working power and value dynamic of dominance and submission. In that sense, equality of any form doesn't have to have anything to do with it at all. Speaking in that neat metaphysical parlance about energies and equally opposing forces is placatingly seductive rhetoric, though.

Andalusite -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/22/2009 8:15:26 AM)
With apologies to George Orwell, "All people are equal, but some are more equal than others." For me, all human beings start out with a baseline amount of value as a person, which can vary depending on what they do. In a D/s relationship, I'm not submissive because I'm not as strong, or as intelligent, or am worthless, I'm submissive because I react that way toward an individual person (or vice versa, if I am the Domme). I don't want to feel like I need to conceal my strengths from my partner, but to have them enjoy them! Even in a non-D/s relationship, expectations on one person might well be different from the other one. It depends on what people negotiate.

heartcream -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/22/2009 8:56:26 AM)
We all have Free Will. In many ways fundamentally we are equal in that neither is more or less than the other. We would be nowhere without each other. Personally I dont get the whole one gender is superior to the other tip. Women have been held down and back by men and by themselves. This definitely needs to change. We create each other--if one is held down the other suffers as much even if the illusion of power and bigger paycheck is in play. We havent begun to imagine how good it could be if neither gender were held down and back. If with your own Free Will you decide to hand it over to another that doesnt make you less than, I dont think, that is what you want to be doing so it is a dream come true to be actively doing it. If you want to control and manage another same thing, it gets your wheels turning so you are doing/getting what you want. We compliment each other. Or not.

xxblushesxx -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/28/2009 11:02:50 PM)
Sorry to bring this back up again; I just came across it. HM and I are two sides of the same coin. One in control, the other following. Although I DO make my opinions clear within our relationship. I don't know about equal, unequal, but then again, He has much more education, and standing in our community than I do, so...yeah...I guess I am unequal. But not because I sub to Him; just because He...is a man who did a lot with His life. I believe you can live your dynamic in the way it is comfortable to you. You can believe that a dominant is always in control and better, or you can believe that people are people no matter what role they are called to. I believe the latter. But it's perfectly acceptable to believe the former. I also know (from playing a dominant on the phone) how easy it is to get caught up in the "the dominant is superior" game. Some might actually be. Some might not. But it's best not to believe your own hype. It might just bite ya in the butt!!

truesub4u -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/29/2009 10:14:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IrishMist No. I do not believe in equality. Not between men and myself; not between myself and other women. Cut it up any way you want; put up every example of 'so called equality' that you can come up with; my stance will not change. What's more. I don't want, or need, equality. I don't need to be treated equally; in any way, shape or form. I prefer, instead...to be treated as a unique individual. It's that simple. Gotta love the honest words here. Very well put.

kdsub -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/29/2009 10:44:17 AM)
Look at it this way... what is he without you...yes he may wield the power but you can walk away at anytime. You are equal in power no matter if he realizes it or not. He sure will if you walk out the door. The bottom line is you allow him dominance but only as much or often as you like. The submissive is always the true power of a relationship. The dom is the initiator but the sub is the allower. This is true even if the sub does not realize it. Butch

CatdeMedici -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/29/2009 11:29:48 AM)
I expect that both sides put in equal effort, invest equal energy, equal commitment. However in the structure of the relationship, I hold the majority stock--it does not mean that I win all the decisions.

LAgirlsub -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/29/2009 4:39:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fitznicely quote: ORIGINAL: Rayne749 Fitznicely - Thanks for your post, that is another point I have been considering, You say "It's when there's inequality that things begin to fall apart". To my way of thinking how can a healthy relationship (D/s or otherwise) be built when there is a basic inequality there? I don't think it can. It's too simple to run around saying "I'm Dominant, so you're not My equal". A Dominant might feel the need to believe this for egotistical reasons, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. There's a natural balance to any relationship, D/s or otherwise. One gives, one receives, one falls, one is there to catch. Where there's inequality - and to My mind, this is the majority of cases - one or both parties are unhappy, with there being a lack of balance, a lack of equal commitment to the relationship, and cracks soon show from the strain. Everyone reading this will acknowledge that they've seen/been a part of such things. I know I have, whether it be a simple friendship, D/s arrangement or marriage. I don't see any natural inequality to a D/s relationship. I assume a sub is My equal, as they will, if it's to work out, put in as much to the relationship as I will. The roles W/we play compliment each other and, ideally, balance is struck. Thank you Fitznicely - that was the answer I was looking for. I do not see a d/s relationship as unique to any other kind of intimate relationship and even with each having different strengths/weaknesses if you will, there is a balance. If there isn't, that's not a healthy relationship.

lally2 -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/29/2009 4:56:27 PM)
i think there has to be a balance of equal value to each other. that doesnt necessarily equate to equality, but at any given time a Dominant can exert his control and dominance and the submissive will bend to that. but in doing that the submissive expresses her equality in the relationship by responding correctly and meeting her end of the bargain. to me inequality is when there is an imbalance in the dynamic of give and take, when one is top heavy and crushes the lifespark out of the other. therefore, for me there is equality by dint of the balance between dominant and submissive, its just that a submissive chooses to have little or no control over decisions and has no desire to lead. but it makes the submissive no less equal in terms of their importance, value and input.

HalloweenWhite -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/30/2009 8:34:16 AM)
I think there is equality in D/s, just not in individual relationships. What I mean is that W/we choose the role W/we want to play within the lifestyle-Domme,Dom,sub,slave-then make choices about how W/we want to express those roles through,( from the subs/slave perspective) limits they decide on. Then when W/we find O/ourselves in a D/s relationship, more choices are made through negotiations,contracts and the use of safewords. All these choices may or may not be accepted by the Domme/Dom, if they aren't theres no relationship. This to Me is what power-exchange is about;one gives power to another who takes it, using it to the mutual enjoyme/satisfaction of B/both. A lack of equality is where choice is taken away and some are forced to be subservient to others with no regard for the dignity,safety,happiness,fulfilment of the one being subservient, also, they cannot choose to not be subservient.

Padriag -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/30/2009 4:38:45 PM)
I'm going to reply to two points, first the OP said... quote: So how does equality come into it? Indeed, I often wonder why the question even gets raised. If you are happy in the relationship... who cares whether anyone is equal or not? But to address the whole issue of equality, this is my view... What exactly is meant by the term "equality"? I say that very seriously... because reading over different replies and thoughts it is clear to me that different people have very different meanings. It would seem that so many have different ideas of what equality means alone would invalidate any claims of equality. In most of these posts there is the implication that all people have value, though not all agree as to whether this value is equal. Whether they agree or not, what I find curious is that no one seems to have noticed that there is an absence of any system of determining that value. Further, I would wager that few would agree as to how that value should be determined should such a system be suggested, whether that value should be objective or subjective, and so forth. To my mind this raises the question, how can anyone be said to be of equal value, or even unequal in value... if there is no means of determining this. To be able to answer the original question of equality, we would have to have a system of determining an individual's value, and that system would have to be generally agreed upon by all involved... otherwise, any claim of equality is otherwise completely invalid (or at least only valid among those who agree on one system). As such, how can we say if a dominant and a submssive are of equal value? Or if two dominants are of equal value? Or two submissives? Or anyone? Some would say that a dominant and submissive should be assumed of equal value in a relationship because... and again there is no general agreement as to why. Because they contribute equally? Do they? Do you have a means of measuring this? It has been my observation that in most relationships I would not consider both people to be contributing equally. People invest more or less emotion, more or less time, more or less labor, more or less money... I have never seen a relationship where all these various factors were equal, so I cannot say I have ever seen a relationship where both people contributed equally. Some would say they are assumed equal because the dominant could not dominate without the submissive, or vice versa. But the absense of a submissive merely means the dominant cannot actively dominate someone... or the submissive actively submit... yet they remain who they are, nothing about who they are as a person has changed so how can we say their value has changed? If this does not change the value of either person, how can we say the absence of one or the other raises or lowers their value. If if we cannot say that this can affect the value of either person, then how can it be a measure of their value being equal? Put another way... apples don't affect the value of oranges, oranges don't affect the value of apples... we can't say they are equal because they are two different fruits, and we cannot say the presence of both makes them equal, because the absence of one has no bearing on the value of the other... an apple is still worth an apple whether you have an orange or not, and vice versa. In one post someone used the analogy of a surgeon and a nurse, claiming both are of equal value because both are necessary to perform a surgery. But I find this analogy very flawed. First, because a surgeon may not need the assitance of a nurse at all for minor surgery, being able to perform it alone... yet the nurse is not qualified to perform any surgery. In other cases all the surgeon seems to need is an extra pair of hands... meaning a second surgeon could fill in the job of the nurse, as could an intern or an orderly, but again the nurse cannot perform the job of the surgeon. I would think a hospital administrator would likely argue that a surgeon is much harder and more expensive to replace, so in that regard the surgeon certainly seems more valuable. In other words, the surgeon is more valuable because they possess skills few others do. The skills of the nurse are more common and more easily replaced. My personal belief is that people assume everyone to be of equal value for two reasons that haven't been said. First, because in western society this is taught from cradle to grave as being true... yet is rarely questioned (funny how a culture that supposedly prizes free thought doesn't question certain of its ideals). Second, because most people are uncomfortable assigning value to others... and so assume everyone's value to be equal in order to avoid the discomfort of having to consider what another person's value might be. Another point raised in the OP was the presumption of higher value by a dominant. I understand why a dominant would do this. Some unconsciously equate value with power / authority... since they are supposed to have the authority / power in the relationship, they assume they must also be of higher value. In some cases both submissives and dominants actively embrace this view, others do not. My object is much the same as I raised above... how can we assume the dominant's value, whatever that may be, with no system in place to judge this value? In fairness, if the submissive agrees that the dominant has greater value, than for all practical purposes within their relationship... the dominant does in fact have greater value. But only so far as that relationship goes... that value is not necessarily true with anyone else. Some may find it useful to come up with a system of valuation, to determine in some manner the approximate worth of a submissive or slave... that's up to individuals. Others certainly will find no utility in such a system and and some would actively reject any such system no matter how rational it might be. To each their own. All that said, I find myself coming back to my original thought at the beginning of this post. Does any of this really matter? Is it really that important whether any of us is "equal" or not. Is it that important to some of you in order to have a relationship? Just my thoughts on the matter.

kdsub -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/30/2009 5:52:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CatdeMedici I expect that both sides put in equal effort, invest equal energy, equal commitment. However in the structure of the relationship, I hold the majority stock--it does not mean that I win all the decisions. In my opinion and common sense you do not hold the majority stock...your submissive does. She or he can walk away at anytime... they can allow you to do something or not allow you to do something...They control the relationship. Now they may choose not to act on a breach of an agreement but it is still their choice not yours. They make the final decision. Butch

Padriag -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/30/2009 7:04:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: CatdeMedici I expect that both sides put in equal effort, invest equal energy, equal commitment. However in the structure of the relationship, I hold the majority stock--it does not mean that I win all the decisions. In my opinion and common sense you do not hold the majority stock...your submissive does. She or he can walk away at anytime... they can allow you to do something or not allow you to do something...They control the relationship. Now they may choose not to act on a breach of an agreement but it is still their choice not yours. They make the final decision. And the dominant doesn't have the same ability to walk away at any time? The same ability to refuse to do something? Not so simple as all that.

kdsub -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/30/2009 7:41:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Padriag quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: CatdeMedici I expect that both sides put in equal effort, invest equal energy, equal commitment. However in the structure of the relationship, I hold the majority stock--it does not mean that I win all the decisions. In my opinion and common sense you do not hold the majority stock...your submissive does. She or he can walk away at anytime... they can allow you to do something or not allow you to do something...They control the relationship. Now they may choose not to act on a breach of an agreement but it is still their choice not yours. They make the final decision. And the dominant doesn't have the same ability to walk away at any time? The same ability to refuse to do something? Not so simple as all that. I believe it is as simple as that... The dominant is instigating the action...if they are not they are not dominant... But the submissive decides to allow or not to allow. There is the real power. The dominant can walk away but forfeits the whole relationship. Submissive does not allow…submissive power Submissive walks away…submissive power by negating the wants of the Dominant. Dominant walks away…both loose relationship…equal loss That is 3 to 1 submissive have more power. Butch

MistressDolly -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/30/2009 8:12:30 PM)
It does not matter whether the submitting man asks to serve the Woman or vice vera - - whomever is least attached to the relationship suffers least in the end. Some may call that power, some may call that the Principal of Least Interest.

Padriag -> RE: Equality within D/s (4/30/2009 8:39:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I believe it is as simple as that... Clearly quote: The dominant is instigating the action...if they are not they are not dominant... So nothing happens without the dominant, is that what you are saying? The submissive never takes any initiative, never requests or begs for anything, has no desires, wants or needs of their own that they act on? You seem to be implying that the submissive does nothing but react to the dominant... frankly... that's bollocks. quote: But the submissive decides to allow or not to allow. Sometimes, so does the dominant. Submissive wants to go to the bathroom... dominant decides to say no or yes. Submissive wants to chat online with friends, dominant decides no or yes. Submissive wants to be spanked... dominant decides. Clearly you haven't considered any of these very common scenarios. quote: There is the real power. Which in light of the above situations, seems to be shared quite a bit. quote: Submissive does not allow…submissive power Submissive walks away…submissive power by negating the wants of the Dominant. Dominant walks away…both loose relationship…equal loss What that is is very skewed and fuzzy logic. On the one hand you claim if the submissive walks away they have the power... but if the dominant walks away it is at best an equal loss. Clearly, you assume the dominant wants the submissive more than the submissive wants the dominant... that's false logic, you have nothing in evidence to support that with. Not all dominants desparately want submissives, nor do all submissives desparately want dominants. Both can say no or walk away in theory... and as Dolly points out, their ability to do so will be very much related to their level of attachment... least attached "wins" (if losing a relationship could be called winning, which I don't). quote: That is 3 to 1 submissive have more power. Butch And clearly that's how you want to see it. While it might be fascinating to pick apart whatever brought you to that narrowly focused conclusion, its also far afield of the topic... as nothing in this brief discussion has anything to do with the OP's topic. End digression.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625