RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own)

RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (Full Version)

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

Message

MarcEsadrian -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:30:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot OK, you can relax. I'm not going to say that dominants are bullies or that submissives are spineless doormats. These are just stereotypes which are completely wrong in most cases. I think that most dominants and submissives are normal lovely people. However, I have an interesting theory on the possible origins of dominance and submission, and the types of pleasure dominants and submissives derive from sessions, the theory which is somewhat based on evolution theory and classical conditioning. Don't take it too seriously, this is just my attempt to explain D/s logically. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, I would like to say that there are two main causes of both dominance and submission: exteral and internal. External causes can be explained by classical conditioning. Internal causes can be explained by theory of evolution. I've read most of this post. Interesting thoughts, and astute for some circumstances, but as others have inferred, you do need an editor. One observation I'll leave here is that we as humans cannot be divided into internal and external / secure and insecure; we are all varyingly complex combinations of both, and more. Further, what is a "natural alpha man"? Usage of such terms as given absolutes is somewhat misleading, and treads within the swamp of weasel wordology.

laurell3 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:30:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer sigh Let's say I'm a first year pre-medical student who doesn't actually know much about medicine and has never seen it being practiced. Should I really be writing a paper trying to explain everything about the human genome? How about focusing your resources on listening and learning, not on making up long and elaborate guesses based on horribly incomplete information? If your foundation is faulty, your conclusion will be faulty, and your foundation here is very faulty indeed. What she said. Wait, did you copy and paste this from somewhere? What is the source? Logic cannot possibly explain the complex intricacies that make up human beings and relationships. You're again attempting to solve the nature vs. nuture debate and paint everything into a black and white picture that fits for you. It doesn't work. Stop trying to put people in a box and figure YOU out and find someone that fits with you. Personally, I don't fit in either of the two opening premises at all, nor do I ever consider a partner inferior or superior. A couple of the categories you list for pleasure apply to me, but that list is nowhere near complete in my personal experience. There is no way to say submissive can only derive pleasure in a relationship in seven different ways.

youngandjaded1 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:30:59 AM)
Well I was able to read it. Of course its a lot to digest and takes longer than 2 minutes to read it. My question to the OP is, even if what you wrote is true (which I think some of it isn't too far off the mark), there isn't much you could do about it. I really don't know what there is to discuss.

AAkasha -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:31:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot quote: No. If you want people to read it, you will make it easier to read. Granted, I could do it Myself, for Myself. Yet, that doesn't change the formatting for everybody. You are the creator of the post. You are the one who has the ability to edit the original so that people are more likely to read it and comment on it. I am not willing to put Myself in the place of responsibility for your post that is your creation. OK, I'll try it. But formating is really not very easy. Can you state at the top of the post: 1 ) how many years in a BDSM relationship (romantic) you have had personally 2) how many different topping/bottoming relationships (S&M) you have had. Thanks! Akasha

Darkfeather -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:33:58 AM)
Wow, just... wow. You know, one of the hardest things to do in this world is to define the human psyche. We can't even map the so-called "normal" brain, so why do people think it is even possible to define the addled or psychotic or yes even kinky. Just as there are no two faces or hands or smiles exactly the same, there are no two kinks the same. One dominant is never exactly the same as another, one submissive is never the same as another. This is why I abhor our vehement need to slap labels on people in this lifestyle. I would hate to see what a standardized badge would look like trying to fit Top-swtich-bi-crossdressing-insecure-Domme all on a 1 inch by 2 inch card. Theories aside, each origin is a personal experience. It is this diversity that makes each contribution to the ever expanding BDSM genre interesting.

SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:34:32 AM)
Editing finished.

LadyPact -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:38:22 AM)
I believe you may want to check that again. I'm still seeing it as not formatted to the size of the thread. It still needs to have all of the content within the box, rather than causing the reader to use the extension bar.

SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:41:25 AM)
Oh, I see, that was a little error But, only dashed line is outside the box. By the way I am not allowed to edit it any more, the edit button disappeard.

LadyPact -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:42:58 AM)
In that case I will wish you well. Have a good day.

Kana -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:47:14 AM)
"There is no think young Jedi, there is only do. " P.S.: Labels and broad generalizations blow donkey ass.

SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:50:33 AM)
quote: P.S.: Labels and broad generalizations blow donkey ass. This is actually called science. Baby science, weak science, immature science. Science that needs to be developed, but still science. Every science is based on some sort of speculation and hypothesis, especially in its early phases. Later hypotheses are evaluated, proven or rejected etc.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:53:48 AM)
It's obvious from his pattern that he just wants to read fem subs making long romantical posts about their deep emotions and kinky experiences which he can then butter and praise up the yahoo to feel like he's doing some Amazing Work. Until you stop trying to wring those great ideas from the few pebbles you have to work with, you're just going to keep slamming against a wall. I know you THINK you're being the cool outside thinker, but you're really just continuing to prove you don't know what you're talking about and don't have any serious ideas about what's really going on.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:55:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross Until you stop trying to wring those great ideas from the few pebbles you have to work with, you're just going to keep slamming against a wall. I know you THINK you're being the cool outside thinker, but you're really just continuing to prove you don't know what you're talking about and don't have any serious ideas about what's really going on. This, seconded. The foundational flaws in the essay are too numerous to even begin addressing. I'm sorry, but it's basically worthless output because you started with extremely limited and flawed input. I suggest you talk less and listen more, and do at least a few more years of research before attempting to draw any conclusions.

laurell3 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:56:56 AM)
"Science" implies impirical evidence from studies that you have conducted. As I believe you stated you have NO experience whatsoever, unless you consider your threads here as studies (which would be a gigantic stretch as you seem to discard any information that doesn't fit your theory of the moment), it isn't remotely close to being "science". What it is, is you fumbling around trying to make the illogical, emotional, unique, varied and interpersonal relationships and characteristics of individuals fit a package that allows you to be comfortable. Nice try, but it isn't going to work. Figure YOU out and what you want and need. Stop labeling and defining everyone else.

myotherself -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 9:58:12 AM)
~FR~ I read it, particularly the parts which refer to subs and masochists. I read those bits several times, and sadly I still can't find anything I can agree with that fits my particular situation/life/whatever. Pop psychology about a person is rarely correct. Pop psychology about many thousands of people ... well, you get my drift.

SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:01:35 AM)
quote: "Science" implies impirical evidence from studies that you have conducted. As I believe you stated you have NO experience whatsoever, unless you consider your threads here as studies (which would be a gigantic stretch as you seem to discard any information that doesn't fit your theory of the moment), it isn't remotely close to being "science". What it is, is you fumbling around trying to make the illogical, emotional, unique, varied and interpersonal relationships and characteristics of individuals fit a package that allows you to be comfortable. Nice try, but it isn't going to work. Figure YOU out and what you want and need. Stop labeling and defining everyone else. You don't have to experience something yourself in order to understand it. If this is not actual science (which it really probably isn't, I was just provoked by comment about "blowing donkey ass" so I responded in that way) then this is at least an honest attempt to understand something and to share your thoughts with others. I'm not going to defend my theory. There are possibly some parts of this theory that are wrong. Some others are true. Take what you like and what you think is true. Leave the rest. Simple as that. Instead of confronting me, it would be better to read it without prejudice and to try to see if it makes any sense to you. P.S. Whenever someone tries to make ANY theory about ANY type of human behavior, some people will be offended. This is simply impossible to avoid if you want to make a theory that aspires to reveal some truth.

foreverkinky2 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:02:10 AM)
Geez, I thought SocratesNot elaborate description was insightful and intelligent whether I agreed with it or not. I think your effort in trying to explain this subject is a waste of time to those who complain it wasn't "formatted" to ther liking or bitch it was too long to read.

laurell3 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:15:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot this is at least an honest attempt to understand something and to share your thoughts with others. No, it isn't....there is no YOU in that...it's all about putting others in safe boxes. An honest attempt would be something more like.... I'm hesitant about this lifestyle because I cannot see myself in a position to do x or y, but yet I am drawn to it. Did anyone else have these hesitations starting out? How did you resolve them? Try it, put YOU in the equation without judging or stereotyping everyone else and see what happens.

SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:18:42 AM)
I will tell you something laurell3. If I have any submissive tendencies I think they are caused by the very same reasons as those that I described in my theory. If I have any dominant tendencies I think they are caused by the very same reasons as those that I described in my theory. And I do have some submissive tendencies. And I do have some dominant tendencies. I am not outside of it. I am just open about it.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:20:13 AM)
So, really, you only want validation from us, not a true explanation of how WE, the experienced ones, got to where we are. Good luck with that. Maybe you should start a blog.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875