RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT?

RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (Full Version)

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

Message

pixidustpet -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 2:36:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 In fact, of the three questions I asked, only #2 -- do you have/want a punishment dynamic, had any real meat to it in my head. That was the question designed to validate exactly this perceptual bias. i dont have that type relationship at all. TheEngineer and i have a Daddy/girl relationship and that's fine with us. i'm not ever punished for misbehaving....because i dont misbehave. we work around the health issues i have, he appreciates when i am able to have a "good" day and get a chunk of stuff accomplished....we refer to those days as having the "cleaning faerie" arrive, so that its not so much "oh, kitten was finally able to do this, yay". he tells me he appreciates me and that motivates me to please him more. the spankings, etc, we do? are for play. we both enjoy them. its part of what keeps the relationship sparkling, like the bubbles in champagne. some days you want champagne, some days you just want a drink of water. and that's all good too. he inspires me to do good because he appreciates it. i can be submissive to him because he enjoys it. i was submissive to my ex husband, but it was like giving spaghetti to a polar bear. it looks at this stuff and pokes it and cant figure out what to do with it, you know? frustration all around. i'm submissive because i am. i'm a better submissive because of his gentle dominance and guidance of me. we mesh. it works for us, and i dont need a better definition for it. kitten, smiling.

DomImus -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 3:36:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 a) Do you see any issues with these definitions? Only when you try to apply them to WIITWD or whatever the acronym is. Leadership is a sword that cuts many ways. There have been some pretty frightening folks throughout history who nonetheless had legions of followers.

Fitznicely -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 4:00:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 So this leads me to a few questions: a) Do you see any issues with these definitions? b) In your personal relationship, do you want a punishment dynamic? c) In your opinion, is there an existing name/label/whatever for a leader/follower relationship? I have an issue with the definition of punishment. I think the problem is that it's just so damned overused. It's an umbrella term for any kind of pain play, but also for the more serious, non-play punishment... The real issue I have is that I don't like the definition of punishment as being an act of retribution. I don't dispute the definition, but I also don't accept that what I do is born of a desire for retribution. I don't cane her to get revenge. Exactly the opposite. It's a nurturing act of guidance. It's a statement that wrong has been done, rules have been broken and another course of action would have been more appropriate/desirable/expected. Before I found collarme, I used to read a lot of Domestic Discipline blogs. There was a lot of philosophising on these blogs about what brought them to the decision to live the DD life. Part of this was a discussion of Discipline vs Punishment. So let's look at the definition of Disipline: According to Merriam Webster: quote: 4: training that corrects, molds, or perfects the mental faculties or moral character 5 a: control gained by enforcing obedience or order Now these definitions I like. I also like the definition I saw at the beginning of the thread, for "Force". In the same way I don't feel right using the word Discipline in it's dictionary sense, the same holds for Force. I certainly don't control my Kat with the threat of violence. Well, not too much, anyway...Of the definitions given for the word, the ones that most closely match what I do are "Impel Inexorably". I like that too. As for a way of describing the dynamic between us? Again, I take something from my DD blog reading days - not because I lack a definition of my own, but on reflection, taking in the fact that I accept responsibility for the lives of not just one but three people, that I make all the major decisions and do my best to protect, enable and encourage my family, I have to, instead of having a label for just me and her, have a label that sums it all up in one... "Head of Household".

Padriag -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 4:29:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 So this leads me to a few questions: a) Do you see any issues with these definitions? Yes... lots... I'll elaborate below. quote: b) In your personal relationship, do you want a punishment dynamic? I recognize that it will exist in some form, and if I actively avoid it by being all "zen-like" (an approach I once tried), the likely result will be an unhappy submissive (which was in fact the case in a previous relationship, which she walked out on because my "non-reactiveness" and refusal to punish left her feeling uncontrolled, unowned, uncared for and with no boundaries... and that turned out to be a hard limit for her). But, given your very limited definition of punishment, this could quickly get confusing (as these discussions often do). So I'll elaborate on what I mean by punishment an where I suspect some of the confusion stems from further on. And yes, fair warning, I'm about to get really long winded. [image]http://www.collarchat.com/image/s2.gif[/image] quote: c) In your opinion, is there an existing name/label/whatever for a leader/follower relationship? I can think of a number of them... "team" comes to mind right away. Now on with the wordy elaborations. Lets start with the definitions. I have a very simple definition of dominance. Dominance is the ability to impose your will over that of others. Nice an simple with no baggage attached. Doesn't qualify you as being a good or bad person, or being any good at a relationship, those are all separate issues. But considering dominance purely on its own, that is what it boils down to... the ability to impose your will over others. Notice it also does not specifiy how that is achieved. Punishment... a much maligned word these days and often not considered politically correct (which immediately makes me want to find reasons to use the word more often... but that's another issue). Punishment as a concept has a very long and complicated history in human culture. Go back to some of its earliest forms in tribal groups and you get a system of what is referred to as "vendetta law". Laws of that period were largely about revenge... you hurt me, so I get to hurt you back... now we're even. Simplistic, crude, but it kept people happy. It made them feel as though things were "balanced". If you hit me, I get to hit you back... if you steal one of my sheep, I get to take one of yours... if you kill me, my family gets to kill you. Simple. That form of law and punishment isn't about correction, its about satisfaction and attempting to balance things out. The threat of such consequences if you did something you shouldn't remained the basis of most law right up through the middle ages. What's interesting to note is that to that point law was generally not a protracted issue... if you got caught stealing something, you got punished right away... an then everyone went on with life. Punishment was often of a very practical nature, you had to pay thing back or make them right in most cases, the noteable exception being certain social crimes for which public humiliation was often the punishment (still the same concept embarass someone else, we're gonna embarass you). Beyond the middle ages (and keep in mind I'm using some very broad strokes here to avoid this turning into a 50 page thesis, I don't think most of you want that...), things got more complicated, societies started the practice of locking people up in prisons for long periods, this was actually a fairly novel concept at the time... previously you had to be someone important to be worth locking up for along time... otherwise they either made you work things off or they killed you... but nobody was going to put you in a secure room and provide you with three square meals a day while you read books, worked out and watched TV (course TV hadn't been invented yet, but you get the comparison I'm making I hope). Curiously, although much of that history of punishment had at its roots a desire for satisfaction, retribution, etc... it had another effect... it actually was corrective discipline. Human behavior is modified by our experiences... we learn that various behaviors get various results... when a behavior frequents gets a specific result, we tend to adopt a specific behavior in reaction. If doing A gets us rewarded in some way, while doing B causes us pain in some form... we tend to do A more often and avoid B. So now we come to the idea of punishment as it appears in behavior psychology ( where even there the word itself is met with a mixed and sometimes confused reaction because of all the "baggage" attached to it). A punishment (the exact term used being "a punisher") is an unpleasant stimulus that occurs as a consequence of a specific behavior. It can either be a natural consequence or an artificial one. An example of a natural consequence would be if you put your hand on a hot stove, it gets burned. As a result, you avoid putting your hand on a hot stove. An artificial consequence is one created, often to take the place of a natural consequence that has a long delay. For example, a kid steals a candy bar, his dad spanks him. The natural consequence to a habit of stealing is that eventually that kid will grow up and end up in prison... but that eventual outcome is so far delayed from the current behavior it has little effect, so an artificial consequence that is more immediate is subtituted because the more immediate a consequence is, the more effect it has on the behaviors we learn. Note a very important difference between the concept of punishment discussed above and as it is used in behavioral psychology... previously anger was almost always a component.... you hurt me, I get mad, I hurt you back... now we're even. But in psychology, attempts to correct behavior, while using punishers... anger is generally not a component (and is strongly discouraged). The goal is not to get even, its to change a behavior. Of course this gets that much more confusing because you have some parents who do punish out of anger, not to correct, but the same term is applied with the same outward appears... and that is I think at least part to blame for the general disdain regarding punishment currently in vogue. But then we come to the world of BDSM and yet again, things are a lil different. Neither of the above definitions fully applies, but both have some bearing. Punishment can be some of both. It is used by some to modify behavior and follows a pattern very much like that found in behavior psychology. Various terms are used for it, depending on what the individuals involved are comfortable with. But punishment also can take on a role that draws from that older mode. Many submissives need to feel owned and controlled, and this is also part of how they feel cared for. For those individuals punishment is an affirmation of those positives. At times this may result in punishment seeking behavior (brattiness) as a way of gaining those affirmations. Even more perplexing to some is that some of those submissives want there to be anger... but in moderation, that is they want to see an emotional reaction from the dominant... they want to know s/he feels something in reaction to their bad behavior... a zen like state just doesn't work for them. However, that's some, not all... for some punishment evokes very negative emotions within them, sometimes so strongly that they have a deep aversion to the whole concept. In short, I've found there are no universal concepts about the application or use of punishment, as a tool or anything else, where submissives are concerned. Instead, you have several broad categories, and even those tend to be made up of lots of individuals... that is to say, BDSM seems to attract a wide range of highly individualistic people who as a result don't react the same way to the same things, and not surprisingly not only can't agree on terms, they can't agree on the concepts behind those terms. So... to try an wrap this up before I end up rambling... do what works for you in your relationship... if punishment isn't needed, that's great. For others it is a necessary component, and that's just as valid. My own experience has taught me that none of this applies to everyone or even all the time. Its also taught me that such corrective measures are ultimately intended to be self eliminating. That is, punishment within some D/s relationships is used as a corrective tool with the goal being to produce desired behaviors... once that goal is eventually achieved (presuming there is a finite goal), then the corrective tool (punishment) is no longer necessary. Maybe the real difference is, you've already got someone who behaves as you wish, so you're already past the point of punishment being necessary, where as others are still working towards that point.

leadership527 -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 5:09:06 PM)
Wow, great treatise on punishment with a variety of contexts and historical background provided. Thank you. I'm going to want to reread that several times. I remember seeing a show on TV once about the history of punishment within society that covered some of these same points but it was too long ago to remember much. transfers 50 points to you

catize -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 5:15:25 PM)
quote: I'm now going back over punishment threads trying to look at them with new eyes. It would appear that my perception of how commonly punishment is used within lifestyle relationships is pretty skewed. I don’t think reading all the punishment threads is going to change your perception about how many people are in that sort of relationship. I agree the topic gets a great deal of bandwidth, but that alone does not mean most or a large percentage of us agree with the concept. I usually stay away from threads with the word punishment in the title because I can’t be objective (read: it drives me NUTS) and I am tired of repeating my dissenting POV. I heartily regret the occasions I break my own rule. There may be others who avoid the topic for the same reasons. Just because everyone (or most) who contribute to punishment threads “need or want it” has little bearing on the actual number of people who incorporate it in their lives. edited for clarification

catize -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 5:24:41 PM)
quote: Maybe the real difference is, you've already got someone who behaves as you wish, so you're already past the point of punishment being necessary, where as others are still working towards that point. Great post and this was an ‘AHA!’ moment for me; thanks!

Jeptha -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 5:44:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Padriag ....Many submissives need to feel owned and controlled, and this is also part of how they feel cared for. For those individuals punishment is an affirmation of those positives. At times this may result in punishment seeking behavior (brattiness) as a way of gaining those affirmations. Even more perplexing to some is that some of those submissives want there to be anger... but in moderation, that is they want to see an emotional reaction from the dominant... they want to know s/he feels something in reaction to their bad behavior... a zen like state just doesn't work for them. However, that's some, not all... As was mentioned, there are some subs here who sometimes mention this sort of punishment. I am curious about it. I don't use punishment in my relationships (except to simulate it pretty closely in play). I don't oppose using it, I just don't have a really good handle on how best to use it - AND - I think it would depend on my partner. She might have to lead the way in terms of teaching me how the concept works for her and having limits that can incorporate it. Otherwise, I think it's a little too complex and tangled up with ideas of manipulation (and so forth) in my mind for me to trot it out to experiment with, unless I did have that intrepid partner who was ready, willing and desirous of going there. Here, I am talking about the idea of punishment with the emotional reactionary component that you mention above. I like the idea of how immediate and explicit and intense it could be as long as it were still done in a responsible way.

TreasureKY -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 5:49:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Padriag ... Punishment... *** clipped for space sake*** Thank you, Padriag. I'd wanted to go into what you've covered last night, but it was already sooo late. I was just going through the new posts in this thread and contemplating a lengthy explanation this evening when I'm already dead tired. You've saved me the trouble and said exactly what I wanted to say... and said it much better than I could have. [:D]

Andalusite -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 7:11:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse Now, lord knows I have not read every single post made by Mercnbeth, nor do I know them personally. BUT, I have never got the idea through what I do know, that Beth's submission to Merc is based upon a punishment dynamic. Quite the opposite from where I sit. Are you confusing S&M activities with punishment and seeing it as the driving force behind Merc's leadership, within that relationship? I'm not him, but my perception is that Mercnbeth do have a punishment dynamic, in that their relationship includes genuine punishment rather than just pain play with maybe a bit of roleplaying (ie. naughty schoolgirl). I don't think that beth is submissive to Merc because he punishes her, as Leadership seemed to be arguing, however. A lot of people here have D/s and M/s relationships that don't include real punishment (but may incorporate "funishment" role-playing and/or S/M). In my current relationship, I have consented to be punished in non-corporal ways if my Master feels it is appropriate, but so far, the subject hasn't come up. In my last relationship, as a submissive, I was punished twice. In one of the cases, I felt guilty because I enjoyed some of the physical aspect of the punishment (I can be a pretty heavy bottom at times), and it made me feel weird about our regular play for a couple of weeks afterward. I am concerned as well that if I were hurt in ways that were beyond a "red," which is the only way I could be punished, that it would make me fearful of either the toy being used, or the person who was using it. I can be hurt in ways I dislike, but that has been an active part of the positive dynamic - something I did for him, and so I usually got at least something good out of it, if only the satisfaction of enduring (and almost always, there was at least some pleasure mixed in). Leadership, I think that using the Dominant label is fine, if you assert control or authority/your will over someone. Different people have a variety of ways they express that. When I first joined here, I at times felt that I didn't fit in, because I didn't need a D/s or M/s relationship, though I was open to having one. So many other people expressed that they needed the control dynamic, and were willing to have a vanilla sex life. I was willing to be in an egalitarian kinky relationship with a boyfriend, rather than just do casual play, and D/s was the optional icing on the cake.

leadership527 -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 8:30:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andalusite I don't think that beth is submissive to Merc because he punishes her, as Leadership seemed to be arguing, however. laughs Hold on a second. Even I'm not that confused. If you want my best guess, beth submits to Merc because, fundamentally, he's a stand up guy. But it is my impression, possibly incorrectly, that they do the whole disobedience->punishment loop assuming beth displeases. Honestly I never asked them about that directly so I could be wrong. But I am certain that there are a ton of great reasons to submit to Merc and "to get punished" isn't one of them.

Padriag -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 10:13:03 PM)
I'll throw out another morsel as food for thought on the subject. One raised in part by the comment just made about Merc and beth. Why would someone accept punishment? Why would someone continue to obey someone who punished them? There are two answers that come readily to mind. The first being fear, they feel they have no choice and they obey purely out of fear. This scenario is the one that raises the objections, and understandibly so. It is an unfortunate fact that some resort to this method as a means of exerting dominance and maintaining control. Its attractive to some because the method is simple, easily understood and easily applied. However, while it may be effective in the short term, it is rarely effective in the long term. The key problem, as those who object often point out (and correctly), is that the person so controlled will only remain so until they find a way of avoiding the threat. But there is a second answer to the question, and this actually brings us in many ways back to the beginning of this thread. Suppose fear and anger were taken out of the equation, that neither were a significant factor in the punishment or the way it was carried out. If the person doesn't accept punishment out of fear, why then would they submit to it? How about out of respect. Going back to Merc and beth, I don't think beth obeys Merc out of fear... I think she does it out of respect. Respect of course is a key part of leadership. You can't lead people who don't respect you, they just won't follow. Its a combination of that respect, the lack of anger / fear, and the knowledge that the punishment is being applied for a reason (and not out of anger) that changes the whole nature of the dynamic. Call it emotional alchemy if you wish. So, it would seem that dominance in a d/s relationship does require an element of leadership. Being dominant does mean imposing your will on that of the submissive, but... for the submissive to accept that in a long term relationship, that's going to have to happen as a result of the submissive respecting the dominant and having faith in the dominant. In short, a submissive submits to the will of the dominant in the long term not out of fear, but because the submissive feels that doing so is ultimately benificial to the submissive. Thus the submissive accepts punishment trusting that doing so will benefit them in the long run, despite any short term discomfort.

blushingflower -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 10:22:58 PM)
Punishment isn't vengeance. Punishment is corrective action. Do I want to be punished? No, because I don't want to do things that require punishment. But if I punish a child for something, it's to teach them negative consequences of their actions. That's not vengeance. And not all punishment is corporal. And dominance isn't necessarily achieved through fear. Humans naturally align themselves into some hierarchy a lot. The one person in the group of friends who is always deferred to, because they're usually right, or because they naturally take the lead. It's hard to define dominance without submission, because you have to have something that you're dominant over. There are people who can dominate me without trying. People who could say "Jump" and my response would be "How high?" People who could order me to fall to my knees and lick their boots and I'd do it without a second thought. There is something about who they are that makes me feel almost compelled to obey them, and to not do what they say takes an act of will on my part. I can't tell you what it is, it is as elusive as romantic chemistry. (Yes, some of it is respect, but there are people I respect and will happily give service to who don't make me feel that way.) That's what dominance is to me. Now, there are responsible and irresponsible ways to use that power over someone, and that's what separates out the assholes from the good Dominants.

Jeptha -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 11:14:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 a) Do you see any issues with these definitions? I don't connect dominance with punishment, necessarily. quote: b) In your personal relationship, do you want a punishment dynamic? No. I'm not absolutely opposed to it. But I've been trying to learn how to verbally communicate in relationships for so long now that that seems to be the primary arena in which those things get worked out that might otherwise be expressed in punishment. Punishment could be a hell of an expression, though. Quite an invitation to dramatize. I'm more interested in punishment as expression than punishment as a corrective, tho it might function as a corrective as a secondary result, I s'pose. quote: c) In your opinion, is there an existing name/label/whatever for a leader/follower relationship? I'm not sure! Maybe just "a team", as I think Padriag suggested. I'm fairly comfy calling myself a dominant because I believe that it is pretty commonly accepted that the term is kind of a general one. I used to think of myself as more of an "independent" by nature, who happened to also be kind of a perv, moreso than a dominant. But then at some point I decided that if I wanted to make stuff happen, I'd better be more positive and more proactive, and so I tried to keep building those habits up. I also had to eliminate some bad habits and create some new boundaries. The net effect is sorta similar to dominance, I feel, though perhaps it is not dominance in some stricter sense...

leadership527 -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/11/2009 5:18:32 AM)
OK, here's the thought I've been holding onto. It's been pretty firmly demonstrated to me that there are some pretty significant biases that get inserted when I am reading what people write over the internet. That appears to be doubly true if those people are actively involved in seeking a mate or otherwise vying for some sort of virtual position. I am no longer talking about what people DO here, I'm talking about terminology, nothing more. If you read anything more into the following statement than a speculation on terminology, then you're mistaken. The original quote I provided for dominance comes from animal behaviorial science. That's fair enough for two reasons. For starters, it would appear that that's where this particular usage of the word comes from. Secondly, we're animals. But that's just a bit disingenuos because while it is true that we are animals, we are animals which build the most sophisticated social structures (including those in intimate relationships) of any animal species out there, by far. So it kind of makes sense that whereas a snap of the jaws and glare would do the trick in a wolf pack, for us humans it's going to take something quite a bit more nuanced and subtle. Something which caters to both our very sophisticated understandings of how we relate to other humans AND is satisfying over very long periods of time (us humans have a long memory both forward and backward in time). It would have to be something that was suitable for domination over not 2, 5, 20, or even 100 individuals, but over millions of them. And so is it all that unreasonable to say that simple violence, mock or otherwise, gets replaced with what we call "leadership"? If that supposition is correct, it would make some sense. Leadership, as I noted previously absolutely includes the concept of coercive force, eg: get that project done or your fired. But it also layers onto that a great deal of other much more nuanced motivational factors, for instance -- sending flowers home to the wives of husbands who are working late on that project. If that's correct, then my thinking goes full circle and I'm right back to almost where I started... "leadership is the word we use for dominance among humans." If that is correct, there are several interesting corollaries that can be drawn and I have a new found sympathy for unattached submissives everywhere. At this point though, I'm whistling in the dark without a sociologist & animal behavioral scientist. But at least out of the journey I got a brand new profile statement, a better understanding of what's going on inside and outside of my own living room, and the opportunity to piss off a bunch of strangers on the internet :)

DesFIP -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/11/2009 5:32:24 AM)
About Padriag's use of vengeance. He makes it way too simplistic. You kill me, my family kills you - fine as far as it goes but it doesn't go far enough. Because some member of your family will then kill a member of mine, and mine will retaliate and so on. Hatfield-McCoy feud is now a cartoon reference but for the many people on both sides who dies brutally over the years it was anything but. As is Shiite/Sunni feud. Vengeance doesn't lead to anything good except two destroyed families, or more. Far better is to say, as do some Native Americans, you kill me, therefore you must support my family since I'm not here to. The consequence is much longer lasting and prevents further useless violence. But again, re punishment, I'm not perfect and I'm never going to be. Neither is he. When I slip back into bad habits, as is human, it means he hasn't kept up on training me, and I haven't kept up with lessons. The fault, if you will, belongs to both of us. So he reminds me again of the rule and for another six months I'm fine. If he pays attention to me following it and uses positive reinforcement maybe I won't slack off. If he falls down on his obligation then I'll fall down on mine. It's a partnership or a dance that both of us must engage in. Ballet dancers can play for the White House with tumultuous applause but they are back in class the next day. If they don't keep up with lessons they get into bad habits, caused by them and by the troupe leader. Punishment isn't what gets you to top status, hard work on everybody's part is.

IronBear -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/11/2009 6:55:33 AM)
FR Something my parents, grand parents and various great aunts and uncles hammered into me as a child growing up about them, and them determined to make sure I have the right education in ways other then purely academic. "You may have been born to rule, but first you need to learn how to lead and have others follow not because of who you are but because you have inspired them to trust and follow you." The Military trained me in leadership theory, practical situations gave me the ability to lead and lead properly.. I see Dominance at it's highest level as Inspired Leadership.

leadership527 -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/11/2009 8:47:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Des said But again, re punishment, I'm not perfect and I'm never going to be. Neither is he. When I slip back into bad habits, as is human, it means he hasn't kept up on training me, and I haven't kept up with lessons. The fault, if you will, belongs to both of us. So he reminds me again of the rule and for another six months I'm fine. If he pays attention to me following it and uses positive reinforcement maybe I won't slack off. If he falls down on his obligation then I'll fall down on mine. It's a partnership or a dance that both of us must engage in. I'd almost agree with you Des except for I really do believe that the buck stops here. So while you're adequately describing the dynamic of the situation, the fault is and can only ever be mine within my head.

Andalusite -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/11/2009 8:49:28 AM)
OK, I guess I don't understand you then. I thought you said that dominance is engendered by force/violence, or the threat of it, in the form of punishment. Leadership can apply in either vanilla or D/s circumstances. To me, someone who would make a good manager, a good general, or otherwise a good leader can leave me utterly cold in terms of inspiring submission from me. Domination is the word I use in the context of BDSM to describe that feeling of the other person's will being surrendered to me, or who inspires that reaction from me. Some of that does involve a little bit of very welcome violence - not punishment, or vengeance, but physically feeling overpowered. I can't submit to someone over the Internet, or who I've only talked with, they need to at least pull my hair, bite me, maybe slap my face a bit, stuff like that. However, just doing those things, even very effectively as a top, doesn't necessarily bring out my submissive side - the emotional place where it is emotionally difficult and hurtful to not do what he wants, where I will do things I genuinely dislike, with some degree of pleasure/emotional satisfaction, because I want to please him. It's very different from just wanting my partner to be happy in an egalitarian kinky relationship, which can also be very deep, and can also involve yummy violence. I do want someone who has good leadership skills, who is patient and caring, and all that, and I need those things in order to feel safe being in a submissive relationship with someone. The actual submission part is made up of pheremones, expressions, subtle body language, and overt physical actions, at least at the very beginning. As I mentioned before, I think it's jargon, so animal behaviour or the dictionary aren't going to be particularly useful sources of definitions for Domination or submission. Also, some people just feel that some words/labels are hotter and sexier than others. I see nothing wrong with someone using "slave" rather than "submissive" if it turns their crank, as long as both people involved are happy with the terms of the relationship, rather than needing to follow some abstract definition of others. Heck, if he wants to call me a Martian or a kitty, or whatever, go for it! During play isn't the time for semantic debate.[;)]

Padriag -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/11/2009 8:54:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 And so is it all that unreasonable to say that simple violence, mock or otherwise, gets replaced with what we call "leadership"? That's a fair statement... but we need to add a caveate. Although human behavior has become much more complex than that of other animals, many of those baser impulses are still there. So while we have a need for a broader form of dominance or submission, and our behaviors regarding each are much more complex... there is still that impulse to respond to or use simple violence. Thus we still have school yard bullies, we still have those who try to use force and intimidation to get what they want... and it works for awhile because for awhile those impulses provide a stronge enough response in some... but it doesn't last. Eventually the other needs we've developed (for safety, for affection, for a variety of other complex emotions) re-asserts itself and that simplistic dynamic predictably fails. quote: If that supposition is correct, it would make some sense. Leadership, as I noted previously absolutely includes the concept of coercive force, eg: get that project done or your fired. But it also layers onto that a great deal of other much more nuanced motivational factors, for instance -- sending flowers home to the wives of husbands who are working late on that project. If that's correct, then my thinking goes full circle and I'm right back to almost where I started... "leadership is the word we use for dominance among humans." If that is correct, there are several interesting corollaries that can be drawn and I have a new found sympathy for unattached submissives everywhere. You are correct. Leadership adds two key qualities that become necessary, trust and respect. A leader, in order to exert dominance over the long term must be trusted. Trusted in what way? At its root trusted to keep those following reasonably safe, to ensure or at least improve their odds of survival, of being able to live with less fear. Put another way, people look to leaders to look after them... leaders are shepherds in that sense. A leader also needs to be respected... but respected in what way? Again, at its simplist is respect for their abilities in important areas... ability to provide shelter, ability to protect from danger, ability to make wise choices, etc. Where things get complicated is when you start to consider the many different perspectives and ideals regarding that. Why does someone like Kim Jong-il remain in power... because a majority of his people actually do trust and respect him... they believe he is a good leader. He works hard to maintain that belief and so long as he does, he's got an unbreakable hold on N Korea. The same was true of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, or George Jones at Jones town... with frightening results. That happens because human judgement isn't perfect... sometimes we simply pick a bad leader to follow. Even worse, we can become trapped in that because we sometimes so feel such a strong need to believe in our choice, we begin to ignore the indications that we're wrong... we fool ourselves. Fortunately such worst case scenarios tend to be the exception, not the rule... most of the time our bad choices aren't nearly that bad... and we also are capable of making some great choices (like the Benjamin Franklins and John Maxwells through history). quote: At this point though, I'm whistling in the dark without a sociologist & animal behavioral scientist Okay, so what is it you want to know? [image]http://www.collarchat.com/image/s4.gif[/image] Happens to be a hobby of mine. Ya I know, I've got weird hobbies... Seriously, I do spend a lot of time studying human behavior, leadership, influence, with a broad look at sociology for context. So while I'm not officially a PhD in the subject, I can answer quite a few questions and back them up with references from various text book sources if that's what you're looking for. Kinda explains the thesis like answers doesn't it. [;)] quote: But at least out of the journey I got a brand new profile statement, a better understanding of what's going on inside and outside of my own living room, and the opportunity to piss off a bunch of strangers on the internet :) A better understanding of anything is usually a good thing.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875