|
Icarys -> RE: Doormats (2/28/2010 9:40:07 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Whiplashsmile4
quote:
ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Overcoming the "Disease to Please"
The construct of this angle is still iffy.
It's like saying excessive trust is inherently a bad thing. The only thing that gives it a negative flavor is the degree to which a percentage of the rest of humanity assholes.
Obviously not everything that this sort of doormat would do would fall into the realm of "unhealthy" simply on the grounds that it's being done by a doormat.
How socially "bad" a doormat is is actually a reflection of his/her environment.
What is interesting is the morale of said doormats, I've been reading a number of articles that cover this. A number of elements that are indeed considered negatives in a BDSM D/s or M/s realtionship. Clearly some issues with boundaries in regards to being of sevice to many people. Perhaps, one could call a an Onwerless slave or a submissive without a dominant? There is much to be said regarding the self-esteem levels and the status of their own personal view of self. As somebody pointed out that perhaps the motivation should come into question here. However, clearly there is a problem in the establishment of heathly boundaries. The primary aim of such doormats is the establishment of Boundaries and the management of such. Hence the discipline aspects I mentioned previously, be this self discpline or the discpline of a D/s dynamic that is established and enforced. Still one must also call into question the motivations behind submission. To submitt out of Fear of displeasing or to submit out of desire to please. A negative motivation or a positive motivation.
With that said, perhaps this might explain why positive reinforcement works best for some D/s relationship and negative reinforcement works best for others? Perhaps with a certain degree mixed state motivation in submission, comes along with it mix of both positive and negative reinforcement. Then again, perhaps the opposite for what I just expressed holds true. However, is something to take into consideration. I have not empirical basis to draw any conclusions upon one way or another.
However, what is clear that in regards to one that has "Doormat Syndrom" there is a set of undesirables that are not considered nor generally deemed healthy for a D/s relationship.
This is why I expressed that a Doormat of this nature has the potential to become a beatiful submissive/slave. However, there are a set of negatives involved that must be properly addressed and dealt with.
None the less, the Doormat Syndrome/issue has been established, there are books and articles and lectures and etc.. things that can not be refuted that factor into the Doormat label and it's application here in BDSM land. If we are to embrace the term Doormat, we much embrace the full set of possible meanings and their implications. To be able to be effective in communicating difference and common meanings.
Still none the less, Ad Nausa to list of negatives. In order to over turn so many negatives, one would have to reshape the whole meaning of Doormat to be a positive thing. Including it's use when addressing Bullying and even in terms of Womens Liberations and many forces, movements and organizations.
At best we could seperate things as "Happy to be a Doormat" vs. "UnHappy to be a Doormat" such a concept could be established. In regards to Slavery, what sperates it from a negative is consensual vs. none consensual. This has given the society we live in a clear speration of how the word is used. However, there is no such distinction to made regarding doormat. In part this is due the passive nature of Doormats, the very same attribute that leads to passive aggressive behavior.
I would tend to say that the words slave or submissive should suffice, in expressing what the orientation of a person is in BDSM. However, with sub labels such as little girls and such being adopted. Perhaps, the adoptation of Doormats should be allowed. However unlike "Little Girls" (which adds a negative when people think of sexual age play, not to be confused with regressive age play, which is not to be confused with Daddy/littlegirl D/s dynamics). There is enough confusion regarding "little Girls" and "Daddy" that abides. The more labels that are adopted the more complex things will become, even rightly when the labels themselves carry strong negative connotations. Plus, unlike "little girls", "Doormat" as questionable ramifications regarding dehumanization if allowed inside the context of D/s relationships as opposed to an activitity? Should we elevate dehumanization into to a D/s dynamic itself?
At the moment dehumanization, for the most part is engaged at the activitity level, at least so it appears as such, based on limited empirical knowledge). It's not widely condoned for people to treat their partners as dehumanized Objects in the constructs of a D/s or M/s relationship. If anything it's more widely condoned to treat partners on a humanistic level. Remove the humanism from it and what do we risk?
I'm simply banging out these thoughts as they enter my head, stream of consious thought at the moment. Trying to be somewhat careful in thought, so that I can express what's going through my mind. However, I'm trying to be somewhat rational, logical and even objective or whatever label you wish to call it.
It's not my intention to add deflection or redirection, but rather provoke thoughts that challenge this issue, as I precieve it. To express exactly whatever is on my mind at the time I think it.
I appreciate this post. Although you have stated in previous posts that you see the other side and possibilities..It seemed short lived.
This post takes into consideration the multitude of variations that are possible..unless I'm so inebriated that I'm not reading the essence what it is saying correctly[:D]
Spell check is my friend...Do they have software for sentence structure lol?
|
|
|
|
