RE: breaking down the submissive

RE: breaking down the submissive (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master

Message

KateyCaine -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 1:31:11 AM)
Firstly, submission is a precious gift that should be cherished and nurtured by a Dominant/Master. Anyone who tears you down in the name of BDSM and causes you to doubt yourself and feel worthless, is an abuser by all counts, and incapable of having any sort of relationship based on mutual respect, trust and love, not just a D/s relationship. Secondly,it sounds like you have been mistreated at least once, by someone proclaiming to be a Dom. Don't tar ALL Doms or Masters with this brush - abusive pigs are quite rare, there are some opportunities for beautiful loving TPE relationships that are genuine. D/s for me, is an expression of love, respect and trust. Don't let one rotten avocado ruin your salad, if you get my drift :) Eleven years ago, I thought that BDSM involved having my spark, my laughter, creativity and spirit destroyed - it's not about that. If anything, non-consensual abusive behaviour that makes you hate yourself or feel worthless, does not belong in D/s relationships. Your intuition should tell you if there are any red flags in a relationship. Something either feels good and safe nd wonderful, as it's spposed to; or feels icky and sets off alarm bells. Hope this helps, k.

DesFIP -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 2:49:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero You are yielding your freedom to the exact proportion of trust you leave him with. I'm not sure how having freedom as one's priority can at all be reconciled with a D/s dynamic. It specifically requires one to curtail their freedom. Not at all. Without my freedom I can't choose to follow him, to admire him, to respect him. It is because I have my freedom that I can recommit to him every day, choose freely everyday to follow him. It is only through having my freedom that I can see how far superior he is to other men I have known. Submission isn't a choice I made once and now am stuck in. It is an ongoing choice that is deeper every day.

KnightofMists -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 6:37:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candisa Can you dominants' please explain to me why you would wish to use this technique? What do you see as the benefits in mentally and physically breaking down the spirit and emotions of a submissive heart ? Please try not to lump all Dominants with the same brush. Many do not use or even consider these types of approaches to be particularly constructive in the long run.

allthatjaz -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 10:28:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 quote: ORIGINAL: allthatjaz I am not sure where you are hearing this. The only time I have heard it is when some melon comes along and proclaims he is Dominant when in actual fact he's just a melon. laughs and laughs yup. I can't award points the way Nihilus can, but maybe I can talk to him about transferring my current balance of 25 points to you for that response. Haha thank you both [:)] can I have a list to see what I can buy with my points please?

GYPZYQUEEN -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 10:32:20 AM)
if by breaking down "they" mean breaking a spirit then they are an asshole abuser..which MOST OF US ARE NOT.. A worn..unhappy...broken...esteem ripped sub has nothing to give.. I want them strong with strong spirits that I will add to,enhance and build on.. now breaking through is another matter as Jim Morrison knew...and sang of.........awwwwwww Jim GQ

IronBear -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 10:55:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candisa Can you dominants' please explain to me why you would wish to use this technique? What do you see as the benefits in mentally and physically breaking down the spirit and emotions of a submissive heart ? I have heard this many times, I don't understand it. From my view point it is abusive, a submission of fear and loss of respect. This does not make me more complacent, in fact quite the opposite, I tend to become more rebellious. When I find a dominant that compels me to submit to him, it is out of respect, and the ability to trust in his judgement. This brings out the desire in me to please him, as I am able to follow his orders because I know he will not hurt my spirit or my emotions which only brings the icing to the cake, letting him control my mind and body. I would no sooner break or even desire to break the spirit of a slave/sub than I would of a dog any more than friends who train wild or "unbroken" horses would break their spirit. Train them and if needs be retrain them to my command yes but I want that fire and spirit left in tact along with the streak of independence so she can operate effectively and make decisions if I am not there or are incapacitated. A slave of mine is mine to do what I will with because this is what she wants, needs and desires all of her own free will and not because of fear. A slave who jumps with fear and tries to become invisible when I enter a room or cringes when she hears my voice is of no use nor value to me...I do not own slaves to be used as door mats nor trophies. Some may but that is neither my style nor my way.

NihilusZero -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 10:59:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero You are yielding your freedom to the exact proportion of trust you leave him with. I'm not sure how having freedom as one's priority can at all be reconciled with a D/s dynamic. It specifically requires one to curtail their freedom. Not at all. Without my freedom I can't choose to follow him, to admire him, to respect him. It is because I have my freedom that I can recommit to him every day, choose freely everyday to follow him. It is only through having my freedom that I can see how far superior he is to other men I have known. Submission isn't a choice I made once and now am stuck in. It is an ongoing choice that is deeper every day. I think we are having a misunderstanding of how we interpret freedom. I'm not speaking of it as an on/off switch (where it is either there or it isn't) but as a spectrum of range. There is no 'ultimate' freedom. "Freedom" is just a word to describe the available options we have left after the constraining laws of physics, psychology and biology have their way with us. In the same manner, freedom is adjusted by the sub to cater to the Dom at every instance. Depending on your dynamic, you may surrender the freedom to cook whatever dish you like. You may surrender the freedom to choose what your work schedule will be. For each part of the sub's life that is yielded, freedom is further constricted. Of course, though, I find many subs do have a seeming fixation with the feeling of freedom of continual choice...but that's a side topic that would spiral us into another M/s vs. D/s discussion, I suspect.

NihilusZero -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 11:07:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Submission isn't a choice I made once and now am stuck in. It is an ongoing choice that is deeper every day. ruffled brow in introspection I don't know how I feel about this. It (stripped down to it's skeleton) is a contradiction of commitment and freedom. I don't think I agree that submission as a whole is something that is continually "chosen". Rather, it's continually absorbed into the realization of the decision made. One wouldn't, for instance, say: "Having a kid isn't a choice I made once and now am stuck in. It is an ongoing choice that is deeper every day." It's not an ongoing choice (unless the person feels open to be able to abandon their child). What is a still available choice, is to understand the commitment one has made to that decision and to continue to devote one's self to it. Maybe a lot of people would decree it as unrealistic, but I can't quite get comfortable with the seemingly flippant way the "choice every day" mentality seems to take the devotion to the dynamic.

Jeptha -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 11:48:16 AM)
It's interesting that you talk about stripping away to "the bare core", Calla. I kind of see D/s as just another value framework. That is, another way of organizing and interpretting experience and a way of creating or finding value in experience. I think we all have to create a story to live by. I don't think that there is an "authentic self" without a story that we attach to it to give it meaning. Maybe there is an "authentic self" that we can strip ourselves down to...but that would involve a lot of introspective work. I'm not sure that kind of work can be strictly the result of tasks imposed , or evaluations made, by another party (like a dominant, for instance). Are there other practices (leaving D/s out of the question here) that do this (a sort of critical evaluation of all value systems and strategies) as well? (r-e-a-l-l-y broad question there.) It sounds a little like old style psychoanalysis, or like some buddhist commentaries I've heard occasionally, too. ~Or am I going way overboard with this? (Wouldn't be the first time.) Edit: I guess the question I'm asking is; am I getting the picture or am I way off the mark?

DesFIP -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 12:20:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero One wouldn't, for instance, say: "Having a kid isn't a choice I made once and now am stuck in. It is an ongoing choice that is deeper every day." It's not an ongoing choice (unless the person feels open to be able to abandon their child). What is a still available choice, is to understand the commitment one has made to that decision and to continue to devote one's self to it. I know some bad parents who don't give their kids the help they need, the structure they need. They put their own desires first everytime and then wonder why the kid is failing, doing drugs etc. They are stuck in the relationship and they aren't committed to doing what's right, what's needed. I don't enjoy grounding the teen and I'm finding raising a boy quite a challenge, but I know people who have just given up and say they'll let the kid turn 18 and figure it out on their own, out of the house. They don't choose to be good parents everyday despite wanting to throttle the kid frequently. They just mark time. Same thing in a relationship, you don't get your own wants met without thinking about how it effects the relationship as a whole. But by committing to him, to the relationship everyday, I find he is more likely to let me have what I want as well. When you don't feel as if you are in this freely, you are more likely to hold resentment. By feeling free to allow him to pick what's for dinner, I don't feel that I don't ever get to have what I want. And resentment is poisonous for a relationship.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 12:24:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeptha It's interesting that you talk about stripping away to "the bare core", Calla. I kind of see D/s as just another value framework. That is, another way of organizing and interpretting experience and a way of creating or finding value in experience. I think we all have to create a story to live by. I don't think that there is an "authentic self" without a story that we attach to it to give it meaning. To me, the "story" is just what we use to explain our existence to others. I believe that, when living as our genuine self, we don't need to create a story for ourselves -- because we simply are what we are. There is no need to justify ourselves -to- ourselves... but I can see that sometimes there -is- the need to be able to find words to explain 'me' to someone else. Authenticity, at least in my mind, doesn't require complex justification or window-dressing. It is the essence of the thing, when everything else becomes irrelevant. quote: Maybe there is an "authentic self" that we can strip ourselves down to...but that would involve a lot of introspective work. I'm not sure that kind of work can be strictly the result of tasks imposed , or evaluations made, by another party (like a dominant, for instance). Perhaps because of having been through the 'stripping down' process in three different externally-imposed environments, I have had the opportunity to see the value to external structures and motivators -- having someone else set direction and note progress (or lack thereof)... in particular because the aspects of self that we, as human beings, are most likely to hide behind masks or procrastinate in dealing with are precisely the ones that need the most work. My experience came twice through work within monastic cloisters where progress was encouraged through mental, physical, and emotional trials, and where an individual's direction was managed by a senior Brother--a mentor assigned for the particular goals set ahead of time. The third opportunity was during my submission and training to earn my crop in House Bladewing. The Keepers laid me bare and guided the manner in which I was restored. I can't say that they -made- me change... but the tools they provided and required that I make use of certainly did the task. In the end, I agree that it is personal work -- but it's been my experience that it certainly -can- be externally -facilitated- if the internal motivation is in place. quote: Are there other practices (leaving D/s out of the question here) that do this (a sort of critical evaluation of all value systems and strategies) as well? (r-e-a-l-l-y broad question there.) As I mentioned earlier, my first exposure to this process was -far- outside of the D/s framework, as it was part of the requirements for me to obtain my (non-sectarian) ordination so that I could provide pastoral care and counseling within the alternative-spirituality, tattoo/piercing, and LGBT communities (this was before I was involved with the BDSM community). I can't speak for other groups, but at least two pandenominational pagan monastaries make use of the process. quote: It sounds a little like old style psychoanalysis, or like some buddhist commentaries I've heard occasionally, too. Interestingly, one of the requirements when I went to school to get my psychology degree was 2 years of psychotherapy. The theory, as they presented it, was that it was better for you to be broken down while in school than to have a chance encounter with a client bring up your old dung and potentially jeopardize your capacity as a professional, so baring you psyche was a requirement of the training process there, as well, and though I didn't end up going in that direction, I still ended up having to face my demons by someone else's direction. quote: ~Or am I going way overboard with this? (Wouldn't be the first time.) I don't think it was overboard at all. I also don't think that my experiences are universally applicable -- but where there is an interest on the part of everyone involved, I find this to be a particularly useful path... with the occasional unexpected outcome. I certainly don't think that I am exactly what Brother Equus thought he was going to get when he stripped me down to brass tacks. chuckles Dame Calla

NihilusZero -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 1:20:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Same thing in a relationship, you don't get your own wants met without thinking about how it effects the relationship as a whole. But by committing to him, to the relationship everyday, I find he is more likely to let me have what I want as well. When you don't feel as if you are in this freely, you are more likely to hold resentment. By feeling free to allow him to pick what's for dinner, I don't feel that I don't ever get to have what I want. And resentment is poisonous for a relationship. But the commitment has already been made...the only question being whether the parent is failing at it (via neglect, apathy, personal greed, etc.). I mean...I agree that it works in reflective theory...but it seems like it's just the parent (or sub, hypothetically) choosing to interpret their commitment in a way that avoids resentment...only because they are the type of sub or parent whose choice of devotion (and desire to honor it) isn't enough motivation on its own. In the example you gave, the "choice" of the parent to, daily, make a positive contribution to the child isn't a choice of freedom...it's a choice of whether to be a good parent or not (the freedom of not being a parent is already out the window, unless the parent wants to deny reality). In the same way, I'd view such "choices" as those of being a good partner. (Note: I'm making these points under the hypothetical presumption that, aside from normal spats, the relationship is otherwise okay and that the Dom, for instance, isn't making clear violations of expectations and relationship guidelines, at which point we're on another topic altogether.)

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 2:47:03 PM)
(As an aside, I'm hugely enjoying this discourse!) For NZ and DesFIP: In terms of resentment, the most common cause of resentment is not -wanting- to be in a given situation and feeling forced into it. There are folks who, regardless of any good intentions, would feel -highly- uncomfortable if someone attempted to force them to lay themselves esoterically bare. The mentor/keeper/guide could -truly- have the person's best interests at heart, but it wouldn't matter, because xhe would be so miserable about being forced to lay hirself open that way that xhe'd not only be unable to do the work, but the act itself would lay seeds of dissent within the relationship that would certainly have the potential to erode trust. On the other hand, there are people who -choose- to undertake these kinds of experiences, and rest themselves, willingly, in a mentor/keeper/guide's hands and allow themselves to be opened and exposed, and allow their tenderest, most fragile selves to be laid bare to the world. It is -not- a road for everyone, but it -is- a -valid- road, and that is the foundation of the question. How could it happen? Because the people who are involved have chosen for that to be part of their interaction. Does it ever go horribly, horribly wrong? Absolutely. Should everyone be forbidden from walking that road because other people screw it up? Heck no! In the end, each of us chooses. Even in our -mistakes- we learn something about life and about ourselves. Those lessons are invaluable, regardless how difficult they may have been to get through. Each of us has the inalienable right, when entering a relationship, to decide what terms we want to have or -don't- want to have in our relationship... and not deciding is a decision. Dame Calla

leadership527 -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 3:33:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero: Maybe a lot of people would decree it as unrealistic, but I can't quite get comfortable with the seemingly flippant way the "choice every day" mentality seems to take the devotion to the dynamic. Actually, for me, it is the "no choice" mentality that seems flippant and lacking any real devotion or commitment. To me, any argument rooted in oxymorons is the domain of politics or religion, not science and not my marriage. I also feel like your usage of the word "freedom" is all over the map. I'm with you on the idea that there is no absolute freedom, only constraints that fit and constraints that don't. But then again, if the very definition of "freedom" is some sort of rough alignment between the actual constraints and our psychological needs, then how did a slave (or a master for that matter) give up any freedom by adopting those roles? And if one of them gave up freedom, why didn't the other? I am here to tell you that becoming Carol's master as opposed to her husband has constrained a wide variety of choices for me. Most flagrantly, I now have no choice when she looks at me and says, "Master, what should I do?" I cannot punt and say, "I don't know honey, what do you want?" as would've been perfectly feasible as her husband. It is the very essence of my role just as obedience is with hers. To not do it is to abrogate the role. The reason the moment by moment choice scenario strikes me as rock solid is that I have a great deal of confidence both in Carol's sensibility and my leadership skills. Ergo, she is mine and will remain mine until such time as I no longer possess adequate leadership skills to keep her. And I'm kind of fine with that. I wouldn't want to own her beyond that point. Ultimately, I have a lot more confidence in my own demonstrated skill than I do some sort of faith-like idea that she obeys for no apparent reason... she simply has no choice. If I command her to raise her left arm and it, in fact, goes up... what the heck did it if not her choice, demonic possession?

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 5:12:45 PM)
quote: Original: NihilusZero One wouldn't, for instance, say: "Having a kid isn't a choice I made once and now am stuck in. It is an ongoing choice that is deeper every day." It's not an ongoing choice (unless the person feels open to be able to abandon their child). What is a still available choice, is to understand the commitment one has made to that decision and to continue to devote one's self to it. The thing is, Ni, that when one is talking about submission, it really -is- a 'choice every day' kind of thing. It's not like having a kid, because the people concerned are -adults-, and technically, they can fend for themselves. The thing with offspring is that, once you have them, they're helpless against the world for a number of years, so a parent doesn't really have a choice unless xhe wants to abandon hir responsibilities. A Keeper and servant, on the other hand, as grown adults, -do- get to choose, and that choice doesn't necessarily diminish the realization of a fully complex relationship. Unless someone is under lock and key and unable to communicate in any way with the outside world in a completely -involuntary- servitude, then getting up in the morning and re-dedicating hirself to the state of servitude that xhe's under is a choice... and it is one that -does- have to be reconfirmed every day. That's part of the conundrum of 'consensual' servitude. If there is no consent and continual re-dedication, then it becomes a criminal act to hold that person in submission. This requires something out of the ordinary from the Keeper, IMO. It requires an ongoing willingness to temper the relationship -- to find and use the tools that will evoke an ongoing dedication in the individual in question. The OP on this thread started out asking about 'breaking down' the submissive. In a completely consensual relationship, the process of breaking things down to their base level can result in a deepening of the attachment between Keepers and servants, to the point where the process -feels- automatic and where 'consent' is nearly seamless from day to day. On the other hand, poorly managed, breaking a servant's spirit can leave hir uncaring about whether or not xhe lives, dies, serves, or withers away. This isn't -mastery-, any more than ruining a fine stallion's mouth and spirit is 'training' the horse to accept a rider. Locking the horse in the barn isn't training up a useful creature -- nor is allowing the horse to remain nasty-tempered and refuse to accept a rider. Neither of those things serve either horse nor trainer. In the same way, destroying a servant's spirit to get what one wants is -not- training... but neither is giving in to the servant's whim where hir direction is not productive for household or servant... which is where the 'consenting every day' thing comes back into play -- because sometimes, in order to protect the sanctity of one's home, one must say "this cannot continue to be this way"... and it is still true that, no matter how much a servant may cherish hir Keeper, xhe may decide that xhe cannot live with such-and-such restriction, and xhe can choose to walk away... and in the same way, a Keeper can say "I can't see how you will ever fit into the shape of my home" and may choose to release a servant rather than accept the unchanged behavior in hir home. Just some more thoughts. Dame Calla

NihilusZero -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 5:33:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero: Maybe a lot of people would decree it as unrealistic, but I can't quite get comfortable with the seemingly flippant way the "choice every day" mentality seems to take the devotion to the dynamic. Actually, for me, it is the "no choice" mentality that seems flippant and lacking any real devotion or commitment. Well, first...I'm not advocating a blanket "no choice" policy in this thread (that's best saved for heavier distinction between leadership, submission and concensual slavery). quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 To me, any argument rooted in oxymorons is the domain of politics or religion, not science and not my marriage. I'm not sure where the oxymorons are that you're referring to. quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 I also feel like your usage of the word "freedom" is all over the map. I'm with you on the idea that there is no absolute freedom, only constraints that fit and constraints that don't. But then again, if the very definition of "freedom" is some sort of rough alignment between the actual constraints and our psychological needs, then how did a slave (or a master for that matter) give up any freedom by adopting those roles? This is why I've been differentiating between absolute freedom (which is an incoherent concept) and situational freedom. Any relationship forsakes certain freedoms based on what the hard limits and preferences are. To some, maybe the relationship only elminiates freedoms that the individual was not interested in anyways (a faithful one-on-one relationship eliminating the freedom of a monogamous person to develop polyamorous relationships they didn't want anyway). But this is getting away from the point I'm trying to make. quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 And if one of them gave up freedom, why didn't the other? I am here to tell you that becoming Carol's master as opposed to her husband has constrained a wide variety of choices for me. Most flagrantly, I now have no choice when she looks at me and says, "Master, what should I do?" I cannot punt and say, "I don't know honey, what do you want?" as would've been perfectly feasible as her husband. It is the very essence of my role just as obedience is with hers. To not do it is to abrogate the role. Then these are examples of freedom restriction. The very reason why "when she looks at me and says...I cannot punt and say" is because you made a decision to enter into a relatioship where (if you are to stay true to your 'role', as you put it) that freedom has been forsaken. The issue I have is in the whimsical "opt out" type of mentality towards relationships. It's not as if other parts of our lives dont' require commitments we cannot just back out of at any given time without either a very comprehensible reason or a pre-discussed reason (a lease on an apartment, for instance). Sure...it's my "choice of freedom" to pay my rent every month. But it's not. My freedom extended up to the point I signed on the dotted line expressing that I declared myself responsible to be held liable for the payment of the funds monthly. Sure, you still can leave in the middle of the night and take all your stuff with you. The freedom to back out of any promises or vows you've made without mutually discussed, valid reasons is always there available. The freedom to be dishonorable is there. Now, I can understand that one can look at each day as a reaffirmation of having made the best decision (I'm still quite content with my apartment), but to say that every day I make the choice to stay here doesn't magically mean I'm on a day-to-day lease. And if I do treat my lease (relationship) that way, it might behoove me to share such with my leasor (partner). quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 The reason the moment by moment choice scenario strikes me as rock solid is that I have a great deal of confidence both in Carol's sensibility and my leadership skills. Unless something horribly wrong happened, why the need to revisit whether you have confidence in her daily (short of it being a nice thing to hear) if it should be presumed by your still being with her that such is the case? I'm genuinely curious. Maybe this is an interesting way to convince ourselves of a sort of daily novelty to the relationship, helping to keep it vibrant and exciting and healthy. Maybe, in my mind, I'd want to presume that the default status of the relationship which we've chosen to be involved in is "Good"...at which point the daily expression of the freedom I have to stay in it or leave it becomes a superfluous excercise in assuaging my own self-assurance that I still have "freedom" (whatever it means). It's the old gilded cage argument. And if the individual has the gilded cage that they specifically chose, what's the fascination with this need to have the door left open (again, unless something directly violating expectations happens)? quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 Ergo, she is mine and will remain mine until such time as I no longer possess adequate leadership skills to keep her. Why? If that's one of the agreed parameters you both base your relationship on, then of course you shouldn't expect to possess her should you decide to continually falter in that facet. What you seem to be speaking of is an eternal game of cat and mouse. Eternal courtship...which (again) as far as how it can play out in the emotional interaction in the relationship is an interesting idea. It seems to fly in the face of a development of trust. If I have to continually prove myself worthy of a sub's submission, where, then, is the expected trust that it shall automatically be there? Maybe I'm drawing a fishing line between a thin slice of cheese...but there's something that strikes me as inherently symbolic about a relationshi where the mentality of the other person I'm with being that I will be, every day, treated as if I have to re-earn something I already have as opposed to being treated like I've earned it until I prove I no longer deserve it. Or maybe the difference is only so stark in my brain. quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 And I'm kind of fine with that. I wouldn't want to own her beyond that point. Ultimately, I have a lot more confidence in my own demonstrated skill than I do some sort of faith-like idea that she obeys for no apparent reason...she simply has no choice. Come on, now. I'm sure you know I espouse no such exaggerated idea. I'm saying the reason was confirmed at a certain point (or two, in your case...the first being the marriage, and the second being the choice to transition to power exchange). quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 If I command her to raise her left arm and it, in fact, goes up... what the heck did it if not her choice, demonic possession? Her commitment to the choice she made to surrender that freedom unto you.

NihilusZero -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 5:39:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW The thing is, Ni, that when one is talking about submission, it really -is- a 'choice every day' kind of thing. It's not like having a kid, because the people concerned are -adults-, and technically, they can fend for themselves. There are commitments we make in life that aren't kid-related, where we are expected to uphold our decisions...where we are not given the option to choose otherwise (sure, eventually when I cannot pay my credit card debt, it will go to collections and I may get lucky to get an deal offer to pay only half of my total debt, but I can't just say "Oh, today I choose not to have signed the agreement with you). The question is, seemingly, that there are people who treat relationships in a manner where they feel that level of commitment should not be expected and people who treat relationships in a manner where they feel it should. And maybe, to most people, the difference is negligible in practice. To me, though, it speaks of a distinct psychological divide in the way the relationship/commitment is approached.

Goddess2002 -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 5:48:04 PM)
Sure it can be a cathartic process if handled responsibly by the Dom...but it's one of those things that can be devastating if handled badly. Not to be taken lightly. OP...if the way this "breaking down" is happening is troubling you...it's best to discuss it with the Dom. To break someone's spirit when it isn't consentual (if this is the case) is indeed emotionally abusive.

FawneTwo -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 6:27:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeptha It's interesting that you talk about stripping away to "the bare core", Calla. I kind of see D/s as just another value framework. That is, another way of organizing and interpretting experience and a way of creating or finding value in experience. I think we all have to create a story to live by. I don't think that there is an "authentic self" without a story that we attach to it to give it meaning. Maybe there is an "authentic self" that we can strip ourselves down to...but that would involve a lot of introspective work. I'm not sure that kind of work can be strictly the result of tasks imposed , or evaluations made, by another party (like a dominant, for instance). Are there other practices (leaving D/s out of the question here) that do this (a sort of critical evaluation of all value systems and strategies) as well? (r-e-a-l-l-y broad question there.) It sounds a little like old style psychoanalysis, or like some buddhist commentaries I've heard occasionally, too. ~Or am I going way overboard with this? (Wouldn't be the first time.) Edit: I guess the question I'm asking is; am I getting the picture or am I way off the mark? Jeptha: In my opinion you took a concept and really targeted the core abstact . Compliments. I couldn't do it; and the reason I say it's true - i've been there - now life and relationships - my mind, memories life - I have returned. hard to explain and you did well, i think. Many people did well...

leadership527 -> RE: breaking down the submissive (6/5/2009 6:31:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I'm not sure where the oxymorons are that you're referring to. I was referring to the "no choice" argument being rooted in consensual non-consent. quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero This is why I've been differentiating between absolute freedom (which is an incoherent concept) and situational freedom. Any relationship forsakes certain freedoms based on what the hard limits and preferences are. To some, maybe the relationship only elminiates freedoms that the individual was not interested in anyways (a faithful one-on-one relationship eliminating the freedom of a monogamous person to develop polyamorous relationships they didn't want anyway). or, perhaps they might've wanted, but didn't want as much as they wanted other mutually conflicting things. I think we're in agreement up to this point. quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Then these are examples of freedom restriction. The very reason why "when she looks at me and says...I cannot punt and say" is because you made a decision to enter into a relatioship where (if you are to stay true to your 'role', as you put it) that freedom has been forsaken. Interesting.. I don't parse this as any freedom being forsaken. To me, this is the very essence of freedom. A choice has been made. If we start talking about basic causality interrupting freedom, then it's true, we are all slaves to karma. quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero The issue I have is in the whimsical "opt out" type of mentality towards relationships. It's not as if other parts of our lives dont' require commitments we cannot just back out of at any given time ... Sure, you still can leave in the middle of the night and take all your stuff with you. The freedom to back out of any promises or vows you've made without mutually discussed, valid reasons is always there available. The freedom to be dishonorable is there. Exactly... and you make a choice that your honor is more important than your money. The very essence of freedom in my book... declaring a choice in support of core values. What's more interesting and where I think I begin to see the rub is in your "opt out" statement. Carol has a huge investment in our marriage and a lesser investment in being my slave. While she can "opt out" as you say, that's simply basic reality. What works against that is the investment she has made as well as the returns she's seen on her investment. She is not in any sense "flighty" towards either the marriage or the collar. The fact that we perceive choice as continuous doesn't mean that we don't have sometimes strong pressures urging in one direction or another. even more significantly, it is my impression that a lot of relationships fail because one partner bought into the "till death do us part thing" which the becomes license to do whatever since hey, they've already found their "one", right? I'm of the opinion that a bit of fear keeps us sharp. And one of the things I fear is that Carol will leave me. quote: Original: NZ Now, I can understand that one can look at each day as a reaffirmation of having made the best decision... It is partly that... but more importantly, to me this is base reality. The reality is that you choose to stay in the apartment. There were other possible courses of action yet that one somehow was the final result. Somehow, it was chosen. quote: Original: NZ Unless something horribly wrong happened, why the need to revisit whether you have confidence in her daily (short of it being a nice thing to hear) if it should be presumed by your still being with her that such is the case? OK, ignoring the myriad issues with presuming things in relationships laughs, in pragmatic terms, neither Carol nor I revisit this decision every command. Like a lot of decisions, we've made it before... a zillion times... it's worked out well, there's no real need to scrutinize it. The decision is on auto-pilot but that doesn't mean it didn't get chosen... it just means it got the fast track. quote: Original: NZ I'm genuinely curious. Maybe this is an interesting way to convince ourselves of a sort of daily novelty to the relationship, helping to keep it vibrant and exciting and healthy. Interesting. I hadn't thought of that angle and there is probably a piece of that in there. But really, you're just looking at me being what, to me, is a hard nosed realist -- multiple possible outcomes.. one happened over the other.. someone chose. quote: Original: NZ Maybe, in my mind, I'd want to presume that the default status of the relationship which we've chosen to be involved in is "Good"...at which point the daily expression of the freedom I have to stay in it or leave it becomes a superfluous excercise in assuaging my own self-assurance that I still have "freedom" (whatever it means). that might be where we differ. Even having lived in a good marriage for a long time, perhaps especially because of that, my opinion is that the defautl state of a marriage is divorce. Any other outcome is the result of serious effort to avert entropy. quote: Original: NZ It's the old gilded cage argument. And if the individual has the gilded cage that they specifically chose, what's the fascination with this need to have the door left open (again, unless something directly violating expectations happens)? For me? This ties directly into consent and from there to morality and ethics. Since I do not believe in durable consent, the idea that you agreed once and now consent forever is another way to say "non-consensual" in my ears. But, I'm the first to admit that now we're getting into more theory space than pragmatic day-to-day reality. quote: ORIGINAL: NZ What you seem to be speaking of is an eternal game of cat and mouse. Eternal courtship...which (again) as far as how it can play out in the emotional interaction in the relationship is an interesting idea. It seems to fly in the face of a development of trust. You might be right in the first part. I definitely see myself as winning my wife every single day. More to the point, I am acutely aware that it is possible to lose her through my own actions every single day. That isn't any sort of reality that is close to possible... but it is my belief that what makes it so unlikely is the very fact that I am aware that it can happen and work to the best of my ability to stop it. Yes, I am courting Carol every day. What I'm less clear on is how that flies in the face of trust development. I can't help but feel that we are sniffing around at the edges of the fundamental viewpoint difference but not quite getting to it. quote: ORIGINAL: NZ If I have to continually prove myself worthy of a sub's submission, where, then, is the expected trust that it shall automatically be there? blinks It never in a zillion years would've occurred to me that anyone, not even my wife who loves me dearly, should automatically submit to me. quote: ORIGINAL: NZ Maybe I'm drawing a fishing line between a thin slice of cheese...but there's something that strikes me as inherently symbolic about a relationshi where the mentality of the other person I'm with being that I will be, every day, treated as if I have to re-earn something I already have as opposed to being treated like I've earned it until I prove I no longer deserve it. Ahhhhh... I don't think I need to re-earn everythign I have already earned. What I do think though is that it's quite possible for me to LOSE everythign I have earned through my own ineptness. Given the long and mostly happy track record between Carol and I, it would take a lot of losing before it was all gone. I've accumulated quite a few chips over the years. But yeah, they can be squandered and then I can be divorced. As a general life strategy, I like to take a look at my "disaster scenarios du-jour" and make sure that I'm mitigating them. Given that losing Carol would be about the biggest disaster I can imagine, I like to keep an eye on things. quote: ORIGINAL: NZ Come on, now. I'm sure you know I espouse no such exaggerated idea. I'm saying the reason was confirmed at a certain point (or two, in your case...the first being the marriage, and the second being the choice to transition to power exchange). nods I had mistaken your argument for the IE, consent-nonconsent, no choice argument. Instead, you are placing your faith in commitment. I have no faith in commitment. I have faith in people doing what is good for them. Commitment and buck will get you a cup of coffee... maybe. I certainly have zero faith in commitment over a timespan of 4 or 5 decades. in the end, there's gotta be more than, "But 40 years ago, you said you'd obey." quote: ORIGINAL: NZ Her commitment to the choice she made to surrender that freedom unto you. OK, but what, exactly, powers that commitment over a span of half a century or more?

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875