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

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

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

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT?

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? - 6/11/2009 9:26:14 AM

Padriag

Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite

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.

Thanks for posting this... because it raises another important point... that there are additional expectations at work within the BDSM / D/s context. This is where things can begin to get really complex, for two reasons that come to immediately to mind. The first being that again, we're dealing with a sub culture made up of a pretty diverse range of individualist. As if that weren't complicated enough, we also have to contend with the emotional aspects involved which can get pretty involved on their own (small wonder so few can agree on anything then).

But there are, I believe, some basic principles that apply to most situations (again, not all, but call it a significant portion). Years ago a friend of mine was working on a novel which had a BDSM theme, including rape fantasy... and she was doing research trying to better understand it. She picked my brain quite abit about it trying to understand what the appeal of rape fantasies were... what made it attractive. In our discussions I explained to her that some individuals want to feel overwhelmed, want to feel swept away by someone stronger and more powerful than themselves. We often look for a "strong" leader, but in politics and business that strength is rarely physical... but in BDSM, it can be very literal and very physical. That physicallity can have a powerful emotional effect on a submissive. The irony is that it the effect plays on those basic desires to feel safe and protected... it does it by playing on that base impulse to respond to strength, and one of the most common displays of strength is physical violence. BDSM often plays on many such base impulses... how often have any of us heard someone refer to a scene, a form of play, etc as being "primal" or having a primal quality to it.

To come back to your point then, you're right. Benjamin Franklin probably wouldn't make a good Master... at least not what we know of him, despite his being an exceptional leader. To be a good Master / Dominant requires those extra qualities of being able to inspire that "primal" response, of being able to use controlled violence to display strength, and so forth.

But again, let me stress... what I just said isn't universally true. For example, someone submissives will respond better to a very charismatic personality, some will respond best to someone very accomplished, and so forth. That again is all part of the complexity of this sub culture.

_____________________________

Padriag

A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer

(in reply to Andalusite)

Profile

Post #: 81

RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? - 6/11/2009 11:39:29 AM

gypsygrl

Posts: 1471
Joined: 10/8/2005
From: new york state
Status: offline

quote:

Interestingly, Merriam Webster has no definition of dominance which pertains to people. The closest is: commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others <the dominant culture> b: very important, powerful, or successful <a dominant theme> <a dominant industry>

These definitions of "dominance" actually work for me and I've used similar ideas when explaining my idea of the d-part of D/s. Its an idea of dominance common in the social sciences and political theory. I don't see dominance as being inherantly tied to force and agression because, like, you know, humans are very different animals from the other animals in the animal kingdom. The velvet glove can be as effective as the iron hand and, in our contemporary culture, is usually more effective. Leaders are, almost by definition, dominants, though they probably won't use force and aggression to establish their position. I don't see any reason to make a firm and fast dividing line between a leader and a dominant.

Anyway, to answer your question, Sir and I don't have a punishment dynamic. Sometimes I forget to do what I'm supposed to do, and he reminds me and I put my head to remembering the next time. He doesn't usually even get upset and when he does, its because something else is going on that has him a little edgy. This is a good thing. I don't operate very well in a climate of fear and fear of pissing him off (or displeasing him, or whatever) isn't a big part of our interactions.

Yeah, I think there's an existing name/lable/whatever for a leader/follower relationship. Its "leader/follower relationship." I'm really not sure what you're asking here and read your question a couple times over.

_____________________________

“To be happy is to be able to become aware of oneself without fright.” ~Walter Benjamin

(in reply to leadership527)

Profile

Post #: 82

RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? - 6/11/2009 3:56:18 PM

SlyStone

Posts: 398
Joined: 12/23/2006
From: Chicago
Status: offline

quote:

I don't see dominance as being inherantly tied to force and agression because, like, you know, humans are very different animals from the other animals in the animal kingdom. The velvet glove can be as effective as the iron hand and, in our contemporary culture, is usually more effective. Leaders are, almost by definition, dominants, though they probably won't use force and aggression to establish their position.

The dividing like is always gray when we try to define these things but I think you CAN go so far as to say that aggression is the major difference between a leader and a dominant for no other reason than I cannot imagine a passive dominant, using the BDSM definition or any definition for that matter, but surely leadership can and often does exist in a passive state.

While they can both be situational it seems to me that dominance requires interpersonal interaction between a dominant and a submissive and one cannot exist without the other. Leadership on the other hand can exist simply by setting a certain example or living a certain kind of life.

Obviously it would not be true of all situations, some things just are, but one could argue that leadership is often a situational skill or state based on need and dominance is often a situational skill or state based on aggression.

_____________________________

Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.

Anais Nin

(in reply to gypsygrl)

Profile

Post #: 83

RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? - 6/14/2009 11:29:55 AM

Andalusite

Posts: 2492
Joined: 1/25/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag
The irony is that it the effect plays on those basic desires to feel safe and protected... it does it by playing on that base impulse to respond to strength, and one of the most common displays of strength is physical violence. ... But again, let me stress... what I just said isn't universally true. For example, someone submissives will respond better to a very charismatic personality, some will respond best to someone very accomplished, and so forth.

Yup, when I was looking, I specifically wanted someone who was strong enough to help me practice my gymnastics moves, pick me up, and hold me down even when I was struggling at full-force (but without dirty tactics or necessarily fighting back). Since I enjoy that type of play, it made sense to me to want someone who can engage in it with me. I like sharing the gymnastics stuff with my partner - I think that most guys enjoy it, and would want me to do so, and it's nice being able to get some extra work in between formal practices. I think you may be right that part of it is feeling more protected, but it also plays into a lot of other emotional stuff that's very difficult to put into coherent, logical terms.

I've seen a lot of people (mostly women) say that they can't "give" their submission to someone unless he's more intelligent than they are, or a particular height, or very financially successful, or whatever. To me, I won't *act* on my submissive feelings toward someone if we are clearly unsuitable, but I don't have a checklist that they can fulfil - no matter how suitable they may seem on paper, most of it boils down to the way we react to each other.

(in reply to Padriag)

Profile

Post #: 84