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

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



Message

leadership527 -> Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/9/2009 8:11:17 PM)

It's been roughly forever since I bothered to initiate a thread here myself, but I've been thinking a lot recently on what, exactly IS dominance. I know I spend a lot of time talking about it. But when I started to really ask myself what, exactly, IT was, I came up with clearly vague answers. So a bit more effort and searching various BDSM sites and still nothing. I searched and read various postings and came away dissatisfied with what I found. So I started doing some digging looking for... you know... real definitions (real here meaning something that was specific, clear, and hopefully commonly understood -- if possible rooted in science, not armchair psych. What I found was extremely interesting (at least to me, YMMV)

Before I get going though, I want to clarify that when I talk about "punishment" in this post, I'm not referring to kinky sex games. Nor am I referring to "funishment". Nope, I'm talking the real meal deal... full on punishment.

Dominance: 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> Moving on over to the field of animal behavior, we find a much more relevant definition. "Dominance is defined as a relationship between individual animals that is established by force/aggression and submission." (Bernstein, 1981)

Interesting. This fits nicely with BDSM. So dominance is tied to force and aggression which explains the focus on punishment that seems ubiquitous in the BDSM community. This need to punish or be punished has always been opaque to me -- I just didn't get it. Now I'm beginning to. So that got me to wondering if I even knew what punishment was. It turns out, "No, I didn't." This from Webster's:

Punishment: Suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution. a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure.

neat... but then I had to make sure I knew exactly what retribution was.

Retribution: Something given or exacted in recompense.

So putting this all together, we see that within this context, I might say that "dominance" is control established via the use of punishment. That fits pretty well with what I read here on Collarme in terms of how most people think about it. Put bluntly, it looks like this: "Do what I say or I'll hit you." I've always equated punishment to a training tool and it's not. It's actually more like vengeance than a training tool. There is no implication of negative incentive in it. It's merely, "you pissed me off so now I'm going to hit you."

Now, as some of you may guess based upon my nick here, I favor a leadership view on how I manage my marriage.

Leadership: The capacity to lead. The act or instance of leading.

Lead: 1 a: to guide on a way especially by going in advance b: to direct on a course or in a direction c: to serve as a channel for <a pipe leads water to the house>2: to go through : live <lead a quiet life>3 a (1): to direct the operations, activity, or performance of <lead an orchestra> (2): to have charge of <lead a campaign

I cannot tell you how happy I was that I did, in fact, understand the definition of leadership and it really does fit very closely with how I perceive my role in my marriage. Also, conveniently enough, it also does not mandate the use of force or aggression in the form of a punishment dynamic. We have no such dynamic in our relationship. But inescapably, as I put this all together, I was forced to conclude that I've been wrong all along. Dominance does not equal leadership. And, more significantly to me personally, that disjoint explains nicely why I've always felt weird here. It's because I'm really not doing the same thing -- not even remotely close actually. The fact that in both leadership and dominance, one person ends up calling the shots and others obey is only coincidental. The dynamics are vastly different. I suppose I'd have to say that I have a Leader/follower relationship and if anyone was curious, there were no boundaries on the commanding I do within that context.

Amusingly enough, it turns out that I really am not a "true dominant" *laughs*. There you go folks, possibly the first ever proper usage of the phrase "true dominant" here on collarme *laughs*.

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?



breatheasone -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/9/2009 8:25:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL:leadership527,

a) Do you see any issues with these definitions?


No, i don't guess i do. Other than whats the source? "Websters"?

quote:

b) In your personal relationship, do you want a punishment dynamic?


No, i don't, but its not my call.[:)]

quote:

c) In your opinion, is there an existing name/label/whatever for a leader/follower relationship?


We call it Our Creators design.



DesFIP -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/9/2009 8:35:22 PM)

I'd disagree that you aren't a true dominant. I imagine Carol will also.

But yeah, do what I say or I'll beat the crap out of you is what passes for domination mainly. What is missing in there is consent and self awareness. A baboon after being bitten and punched will do what it was forced to do as long as the biter/puncher is looking. The moment it isn't watching, they won't do it anymore.

The lack of consent and the ability to consent is why alpha chimpanzees actually get less sex than the betas. Everybody watches the alpha as he stands in front of the group showing off, but the betas are sneaking around getting some.

In good relationships constant punishment shouldn't be necessary. Myself I go more for a teacher/student dynamic. My oldest has a show horse. He doesn't get taught something once and then beaten for forgetting it. Neither does she. She's ridden for years and taken lessons all that time, the horse gets reminded during all those lessons of what he should be doing. Ballet dancers take classes daily no matter if they're the premier dancers in the troop. And so on.

The choreographer, and the riding trainer, also work on their skills by teaching.



leadership527 -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/9/2009 8:41:26 PM)

I had them in there, but to make it easier. All of the definitions came from the Merriam Webster online dictionary except for the dominance one. That came from the following citation which I am now too old to decode properly (help from you science types??)

Bernstein, I.S. 1981. Dominance: The baby and the bathwater. J Behav Brain Sci 4:419-57.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Des
I'd disagree that you aren't a true dominant. I imagine Carol will also.

*laughs* Well, first of all, I don't think Carol could give a rat's ass whether I'm dominant or not. To her, that's just some random word. And secondly, if dominance requires vengeance, then I think I'd be more offended if someone called me a true dominant than a false one.



LdyWintershade -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/9/2009 10:49:57 PM)

First of all, let me compliment you on your thoughtfulness in reflection of this particular topic...*applauding*   Having said that, I have no real issue with the definitions other than they are incomplete.  They are certainly accurate, I believe, yet they are definitions offered by a society that does not accept, nor understand the application of the BDSM lifestyle, nor did they intend to include such predilections when devising these definitions. 
My concern with the definition of 'punishment' is mostly the word 'judicial', which implies (from an western world view, admittedly) that there is some basis in procedural determination of guilt/innocence....that is not the case in BDSM, as the Dominant is judge, jury and proverbial executioner.
In my own practices I can only say that 'punishment', as used in this context, is something that I have used as a form of conditioning.  A method of behavior modification, if you will.  However, if I choose to inflict pain, suffering or loss because it pleases me, and/or pleases the slave....it is no longer punishment, in spite of the similar properties of each.  And, for my part, I absolutely NEVER strike my slaves in the moment of anger....in my opinion, it leads to corruption and abuse.
As for the matter of leader/follower; I believe it to be as true a form of Dominance and submission as any other method of BDSM.  That one is able to exert their will through sheer force of personality, or psychological manuevering, to me, is even more impressive than those who do so through physical means.
I hope my feedback is appreciated and taken in the spirit in which it was intended.  Feel free to let me know your reactions, as well. 



TreasureKY -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/9/2009 11:17:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

... In your opinion, is there an existing name/label/whatever for a leader/follower relationship?


lol... Yep.  I established that label almost a year ago.  It's called the F/t (Firmhand/treasure) relationship.  [;)]

And no, I do not want nor do I have a punishment dynamic.  Because of Firm's leadership, it isn't necessary.

In so far as the definitions you've provided and your conclusions go, I have only one disagreement.  It's my belief that you are, in fact, a true dominant.

Now, bear with me here as I try to qualify that statement...

Let's take the statement you borrowed with regard to the animal kingdom, "Dominance is defined as a relationship between individual animals that is established by force/aggression and submission."  Note the two words that I've bolded.  First, the slash (/) between the words "force" and "aggression" is an implication that there is a possible choice or combination of two separate characteristics or ideas... not that they are simply two words meaning the same thing.  The word "force" has interesting possible meanings... "to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means", "to impel" (which in itself means to incite to action or motion in any way), and "impose urgently, importunately, or inexorably".  While the noun form of the word "force" can be used to mean an act of aggression, it also means a powerful effect or influence.  All of those ideas of force can be held in distinction from the meaning of "agression" which is predominantly held to mean "violent action that is hostile and usually unprovoked" and "the act of initiating hostilities". 

In the case of the quote in question, I believe that the writer was conveying that dominance can be established either by force or agression on the part of the dominant.

With regard to the alternative word "submission", I believe that the writer was putting forth the idea that within a relationship, the act of submitting by one party (with or without the active dominance by force or agression of the other) still establishes the other party as the dominant.  Hence, no violence or punishment necessary.

In looking at your examination of the meaning of leadership, I want to point out that you missed elaborating the concept of just what a leader is... a person who rules or guides or inspires others.  If agressive coercion is not a necessary element for leadership, wouldn't you agree that a leader would at least need some method or skill to cause others to follow? 

And wouldn't you agree that in assuming a leadership role, that a leader could use that method or skill to (taken from the definitions of "force" above) cause to do through pressure or necessity, by ... moral or intellectual means", to impel, or impose urgently, importunately, or inexorably?  And by exercising leadership skills successfully, wouldn't that leader be said to have a powerful effect or influence?

If so, then it could be said that leadership fulfills one definition of force.

So, I submit to you, Jeff, that due to your leadership qualities (and secondarily by the deference that your powerful leadership effect and influence engenders in Carol) that you are indeed, a true dominant.   Like it or not.  [;)]



PyrotheClown -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/9/2009 11:18:49 PM)

A. Yes and no, while this makes for a very good definition for the common usage of the word, the english language is subject to the same thing that all languages are, and that this is usage. The word punk means a very different thing in jail then it does when going to a skids concert, and has a totally different connotation when referred to in old english. When referring to any word, your definition changes based on the perspective of the listener(reader), whether that is a "correct" definition or "incorrect" definition(as long as you aint on jeopardy).

B.Well, none at the moment, but no, by any definition(that I'm assuming we're referring to)

C.Yeah, I prefer to think of the "Dom" as a "ring leader" or "facilitator"(in a healthy Kink relationship, While I do understand that many "relationships" might more closely resemble the webster definition of "domination"...also, see Parasitism)



crouchingtigress -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/9/2009 11:56:57 PM)

I have always been partial to the word stewardship for defining my relationships.



NihilusZero -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 1:21:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

So putting this all together, we see that within this context, I might say that "dominance" is control established via the use of punishment.

I would say that it would be more accurate to say is it control "maintained via the use of punishment" (punishment which can be latent/passive). Punishment can really just mean the interactive altruistic forces in a caring relationship that motivate us. For many subs (obviously I cannot speak for Carol, but am curious how she would respond), for instance, the idea of a displeased reaction from their D-type upon (willingly or not) failing to follow a requirement is a preemptive punishment of its own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

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?


A) Despite my commentary above, this becomes a circular endeavor. After a while, most definitions of words and terms could be interpreted to apply to make the case for either "leadership" or "dominance" as being the proper term. But this gets away from the main point.

Let's presume your distinct definitions of dominance and leadership are correct. Many of the more personal interactions I've had with folks on this site (one-to-ones) have yielded conversational results that (contrary to what you seem to think) most people or at least many more than one would initially presume, would actually align themselves with the leadership description rather than the dominance description (even if they figure in a punishment dynamic into their relationship).

B) That's kind of a trick question. I don't "want" it....because obviously (most) everyone strives for a relationships where there is no need for it. I have used it before, though. However, it is not with the intent of retribution (although the concept of the perception of balance is more of a real aspect to relationships and not quite so malignant as how calling it "vengeance" makes it seem to be). When I've used punishment, it has been as a symbolic and cathartic way to open up the sub to the awareness of the degree to which the error was internally wounding. It is ideally intended to open up avenues of understanding. I also do not use it in lieu of discussion, but as a coupler to it.

This, however, doesn't change the fact that, keeping definitions otherwise the same, I'd still say more people would be apt to side with the leadership concept (afterward ticking the checkbox as to whether it's 'leadership w/ punishment' or 'leadership w/o').

C) I was already under the impression that that was a presumed sub-definition inherent to 'quality dominance'. But, that assessment is obviously totally subjective.



catize -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 1:25:49 AM)

quote:

 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? 


 Force is power and power is authority.  Force does not have to be blatant to be successful; in fact, subtle but consistent force can effect greater changes with less damage.  You have often mentioned that your dynamic is based on the premise that if Carol wishes to be your slave, she will obey you and if not, you will no longer lead her.  You won’t leave her, you won’t punish her, but you will no longer have the type relationship you have now.  Is that not a subtle and consistent force?
And don’t forget the third word in the definition of dominance—there must be submission.  I chose my sig line from a current novel, not from a great piece of literature; but it rang profound for me.  There are many dominants or leaders in this world in many different settings; from individual relationships, to social settings, to enterprises and politics.  But if I don’t recognize that person as having authority over me, they cannot dominate or lead me and I will not submit to them. 
 
No, I do not want or need punishment.  In fact, the only thing I would ‘learn’ from it is that I should leave the relationship.
 
I would guess that dominance was chosen as a blanket, “everyone will understand what we are talking about” word.  But there are many who don’t fit under that blanket and so they either make their own definition of what they mean by dominance or find a different word that fits them better. Bottom line?  If it is a relationship where someone calls the shots and someone else agrees to do what they are told, and they are both happy with the results, the label doesn’t matter so much.   



NihilusZero -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 1:33:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: catize

You won’t leave her, you won’t punish her, but you will no longer have the type relationship you have now.  Is that not a subtle and consistent force?

20 points.

In my previous example (where the thought of displeasing the D-type is a force of its own), even if we say that Jeff is uber-Zen-like and actually would not show (intentionally or not) any displeasure or disappointment in Carol "misbehaving" (I'm using the term loosely, but I think we get the idea)...that fact that it is a mutually understood thing that the transition to the L/f dynamic in their relationship has been a net positive for them...just the thought of compromising that step up is in and of itself (as written above) a consistent force.



stella41b -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 1:51:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

a) Do you see any issues with these definitions?



Not really. If it works for you and keeps you happy and together then it's all good. I gave up on definitions when it came to interpersonal relationships some time ago because you have two people who are individuals, and then the relationship between them which is also individual, and then you have change, circumstances and development.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

b) In your personal relationship, do you want a punishment dynamic?



In my personal relationship I'd like acceptance, understanding, and a significant degree of compatibility even before we start thinking of any sort of dynamic. It tends to be the aforementioned which influences the dynamic anyway. Years back a punishment dynamic was important, but having changed and developed and generally moved on from that point I have different priorities and to be honest I see any sort of punishment dynamic as way down on the list of priorities. However with the right person I will accept almost anything provided it isn't in some way detrimental to myself, the other person or the relationship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

c) In your opinion, is there an existing name/label/whatever for a leader/follower
relationship?



There probably is. In fact I'm almost sure that someone somewhere has thought about this and come up with a term or a definition.



Apocalypso -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 3:44:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
a) Do you see any issues with these definitions?

Only in the sense that I think dictionary definitions are limiting and are a good starting point rather than an end destination.
quote:

b) In your personal relationship, do you want a punishment dynamic?


Want is the wrong word.  Need is a more complicated question.  Not in the "do as I say or I'll hit you" sense you outline.  However, I have had to use stuff along the lines of "unless you actually get down to it and do three hours of revision for your exams we aren't going to be able to talk tomorrow" before.

quote:

c) In your opinion, is there an existing name/label/whatever for a leader/follower relationship?

Feudalism.  Using a modern conception of the word, it's arguably reasonably close to the kind of relationship you're describing.



lally2 -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 4:44:47 AM)

Dominance: 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> Moving on over to the field of animal behavior, we find a much more relevant definition. "Dominance is defined as a relationship between individual animals that is established by force/aggression and submission." (Bernstein, 1981)

i might have this totally wrong, but to concentrate Dominance down into force and aggression is way too much of a small umbrella to cover all situations and people involved in them.  beating someone into submission isnt dominance, its coercion at best and bullying at its worst.

i have to disagree with Bernstein.  herds/packs/pods all have a pecking order.  all of these groups are led by an alpha that has earned the trust and role of leadership through proving themselves to be calm in a crises and capable of taking care of their group.  horses for instance avoid bullys because the potential for damage impinges on their instinct to survive.  it is always the calm leader horse that the others follow.  body language amongst animals abound.  usually a gesture is used long before violence is resorted to.  horses use body language all of the time, they rarely get into a fight over something and will always move away from the dominant animal if 'pushed' through gesture and posture.  any animal off the top of my head will always back down from the leader animal because they rely on the leader for survival.

my view of dominance is one of earned and respected authority used to varying degrees, much like the animal kingdom.  it is a tacit understanding that when balanced need never lead to punishment or violence of any sort.  its only when that authority is challenged in some way that retribution may occur.  retribution in of itself is not a mark of dominance, its merely a tool to be used when pushed to do so.



Missokyst -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 6:29:48 AM)

I am not sure if I would assign websters definitions to a kink catagory.  Words evolve over time, bad can equal good, cool and hot are often interchanged, gurl, grrl, and phat.. well those words just bug me.  In this case dominant and domineering fit the same definition, using force to get their way. 

Punishment for me has worked on limited occasions.  My cutting for instance, was stopped for several years because of punishment by my first partner.  He didn't hit me, beat me, torture me to end it.. that would have been fun.  What he did was have me cut him and I am someone who finds it very difficult to hurt someone I love.  I am sadistic but that was not fun.

As for what I think about labels now.. I am glad I started doing this before I knew there were labels.  I am submissive only within a relationship; and then it is just what happens to my personality because I need to be needed by my mate.  I don't call my mate sir, master, et al.. he would be honey, his name, or some grunt if I cannot bring words up from my lips.  My title is not sub, slave, slut or whore, I am simply andie, andrea, or some term of endearment.  I don't need to label myself because unless I am intimate with someone or trying to get there, it does not matter.
I use the term personal dynamics to point out what I do.  It is my dynamic to want my mate call the shots and to do everything in my power to make his life easier along the way.  Being needed.  That is what is important to me.
Kyst



RCdc -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 6:45:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
a) Do you see any issues with these definitions?


I don't like any of it.  It reeks of negative abuse.  But then it is using websters.  Honestly, don't go there.[;)]
Back on topic mind, I don't like this -
quote:

merely, "you pissed me off so now I'm going to hit you."

 
To me, that's kind of fucked up.  Retribution is a justly deserved penelty, not an unjust one.  Just because you may piss a person off doesn't make it ok for them to lash out.  Retribution isn't vengance, it's justice.

quote:

b) In your personal relationship, do you want a punishment dynamic?


It would not be up to me.  However I see little point in behaving in a way that would end up in punishment.  It would be a disrespect that I am not prepared to be a part of.

quote:

c) In your opinion, is there an existing name/label/whatever for a leader/follower relationship?


Yes, a partnership.  A healthy realtionship.
 
the.dark.



SimplyMichael -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 7:34:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

It's been roughly forever since I bothered to initiate a thread here myself, but I've been thinking a lot recently on what, exactly IS dominance. I know I spend a lot of time talking about it. But when I started to really ask myself what, exactly, IT was, I came up with clearly vague answers.


Jeff, two questions, if it is a "bother" to initiate a thread, why bother?

Why do you feel so compelled to set yourself apart all while setting yourself at the top of the pile?

I love you dude but there is something going on there that you need to look at.  I mean clearly, most of the better posters here are decent human beings who have decent relationships, so why not embrace that rather than on one hand saying your "leadership" is great but decrying BDSM and dominance by the lowest common denominator.

I mean we could look at what passes for "leadership" in the corporate world and watch three major automakers who received floods of money and still went belly up, we could look at the financial institutions that did the same, lots of "leaders" there who are clearly fuck ups.

Embrace the dark side Luke, I mean Jeff!



SimplyMichael -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 7:38:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crouchingtigress

I have always been partial to the word stewardship for defining my relationships.


Woman, it is good to see you posting again!  Thanks again for your words of wisdom at SouthWest, they meant a lot.  Oh, and I like Stewardship...



agirl -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 7:38:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527


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?



a) Yes, they are too literal and too limiting if you try to apply them to relationships. The words *dominant* and *submissive* have always been a nod in the general direction of understanding when speaking to others that are in the same *sphere*, as far as I'm concerned.

b)
So putting this all together, we see that within this context, I might say that "dominance" is control established via the use of punishment. That fits pretty well with what I read here on Collarme in terms of how most people think about it. Put bluntly, it looks like this: "Do what I say or I'll hit you." I've always equated punishment to a training tool and it's not. It's actually more like vengeance than a training tool. There is no implication of negative incentive in it. It's merely, "you pissed me off so now I'm going to hit you."

I don't particularly want it, no......but I do accept that the penalty system we have, works for us. It's not unduly harsh , it's not unfair, it's not bullying and it's not something that's sprung upon me when the fancy takes him. His control and authority isn't established through it at all. It's quite simply a case of using the best tools for the job and it most certainly bears NO resemblence to '' you pissed me off so now I'm going to hit you''.

c) I've no idea if there's an existing term for leader/follower....there are plenty of people in similar relationships that just say *D/s*. There's not a *term* to describe my relationship in it's entirety.....some parts are a bit like other people's and a lot of it isn't.

agirl




CreativeDominant -> RE: Dominance? Huh? What the heck is THAT? (6/10/2009 7:40:50 AM)

My thoughts tend along the lines of NZ (well-stated, NZ [:)]). 

It almost seems as if you...Jeff... were working backwards from a pre-determined conclusion.  While that is a tendency that most folks have, it leaves out room...however small it may be...for full objectivity.  You prefer to be seen as a leader rather than a dominant and have stated that on many threads.  Therefore, you look at the definitions of dominance, punishment, retribution in the the negative manner that can be read into the definitions.  But as NZ and a couple of others pointed out, force is not necessarily physical...it can be mental and emotional too, just as the knowledge of "when Carol no longer wants to follow, then I will no longer lead" is both an emotional and mental means of force.  However subtle, peaceful, quiet, non-coercive it is, it...the force...is still there.
When someone has committed a crime and they go through a trial and are sentenced and sent away to complete their sentenced, they are being punished.  But while a certain amount...admittedly arguable...may be for "vengeance", may be likened to "you pissed society off and now society is going to hit you back", the major reasoning behind punishment in society's case is to protect society, to better the relationship between the offender and society and to, hopefully, teach the offender something worthwhile.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875