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

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



Message

Phoenixpower -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:22:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

On the advice of my attorny and mod, I do not read posts that long.


dito, though I have an idea what you are talking about regarding internal and external....though doesn't mean that we see it the same way as for that I would still have to read it...let me try again tomorrow...[8|]



SpiritofaSub -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:29:48 AM)



SocratesNot
I actually read your whole op. As you began it, you stated this is only a theory, so I will not expect you to be thinking all this information is scientific or factual. Theory means a whole different thing.

I also wanted to comment that I took your advice in the beginning about reading your theory, "Don't take it too seriously, this is just my attempt to explain D/s logically". I did not take your thesis seriously at all.

Perhaps it is at my young tender age of 99, but when anyone tries to look at human nature logically, they tend to be missing the mark...living. To tear apart every angle for clarification of what is logical and what is not, only leads a person down a very long mucky road.

With that said, voicing your opinion is fine and in any length you wish is fine. I do applaud you for telling the reader in the beginning this is only a theory and to relax when reading it. It is nice to know you aren't trying to sell a bill of goods.

Human nature cannot be so cut and dry, and that is the beauty of life.




leadership527 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:31:00 AM)

I'd say you nailed me at least in the "alpha dominant men" category including the "don't need to dominate in any way" category, although that's a bit slippery since my viewpoint is that of someone who is in control of any situation, even if it appears that I am submitting. The way I express it is that the same way I say it about Carol's submissiveness. It is just such a core part of how we see the world that it is not something to be desired, needed or wanted. It simply IS.

In my own experience, there is another kind of pleasure. I struggle with words for this. I find it deeply fulfilling to own a female. Not fulfilling because it's sexy. It's a kind of pleasure which stands on it's own, not on the shoulders of sexuality -- although clearly there are overlaps since I happen to be a straight guy *chuckles*. This element is why carol is my slave -- my owned property -- not simply the woman who obeys me. There is no pragmatic reason to go to all the effort to rethink our worlviews and self images (and it's a ton of work to do so). We do it to serve this pleasure of mine.

And I agree with Beth, you missed out on the subs. LuckyAlbatross has given me some good words for the concepts I've been struggling with. Consider that there are submissive personalities (people like Carol who just approach the world submissively) and then there are submissive orientations (people who are not submissive by their nature, but choose to submit for reasons of secondary gain -- reasons sufficient and adequate to them and hugely varied, don't even try to break this down into groups). In both cases, it is going to be a question of integrity, strength, commitment and similar words that determines the quality of what is offered. For me, at least, my top-most categorization on self-identified submissives is bottoms, submissive personalities, submissive orientations. The first of these I don't actually count as submission. I just am unable to see any sort of act, no matter how extreme, as a submissive act. I include it because it does, in fact, account for the vast majority of self-identified submissives and "slaves"

In my own head, the jury's is out on whether or not submission and slavery/tpe/call-it-whatever-you-want are the same thing just matter of degrees or not. It's hard to see how they are different. On the other hand, as Carol once said, there is a world of difference between 99% and 100%. Think in terms of temperatures. Water held at 1c is cold water. Drop it down to 0c and you have ice. On one hand, it was just one degree, no biggie. On the other hand, it took a vast amount of heat loss to cover that one degree and the observable water became radically different.

Unlike others, I'm fine with your post overall. I can see my earlier self in what you are doing. Yes, I too struggled to understand and so I made categories and boxes and labels ... I still do. A word to the wise though. Nowadays I'm a lot more savvy to how slippery those categories are. For instance, although the difference between personality and orientation is critical to me (I don't register orientation people as submissive at all.. they just don't ping on my radar), I am acutely aware that the real world is not that simple. There are going to be people that are some of both. There are going to be other people that defy both of those two boxes. My biggest advice is that even as you seek understanding, do not start mistaking your theory for reality. A theory is and can only ever be a rough approximation of reality. It will never be 100% correct. It will never account for all possibilities. You must still approach each individual and see them for what they actually are, not try to fit them into your theory.



porcelaine -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:31:50 AM)

SocratesNot,

quote:

In the same way, external cause of submissiveness can be explained by experiencing or witnessing sexually arousing situation in which you are powerless or in which you identify with someone who is powerless. This causes you to associate sexual arousal with feelings of powerlessness and submission, and later it leads to development of fetish for submission.


Perhaps for some. I simply went rummaging through my mother's closet and found a storehouse of books. Like any adolescent going through puberty I read them and delighted in their content. As a matter of fact, a lot of my fetishes sprang from that closet.

How you explain those that have equal interests in both aspects? Where do switches fall?

quote:

The very same scene witnessed by two different people can cause them to develop different D/s inclinations. For example, in the rape scene, if one identifies with the rapist he is likely to develop dominant tendencies. If one identifies with the victim, he or she is likely to develop submissive tendencies.


It depends on the perpetrator in all honesty. It can go either way with me.

quote:

When it comes to internal causes, the causes of dominance and submission are somewhat different, but both can be caused by feelings of inferiority or insecurity. However, there are natural alpha men and women, and in their case, the dominance is not caused by feelings of insecurity.


People who lead don't usually sit around discussing how they're an alpha this or that. They're too busy making things happen. Sorry, I'm not buying. I think most that spin that line are alpha's in their head.

quote:

So, basically, the basic motive for submission is a fear of rejection.


I like the mental gymnastics. Being submissive exposes you to multiple opportunities for rejection. You get it on the other side but definitely in a different context.

Interesting ideas. But there's a lot of supposition and theory thrown in. Are you balancing that with actual experience or it is merely a stream of thought you're running with at this point?

~porcelaine



Meliai -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:33:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

You don't have to experience something yourself in order to understand it.



One day, you will look back and laugh at this.

There *are* things that you need to experience to understand. Everyone had a 'first time', and those of us who read about D/s before that first experience had formulated thoughts of our own on what it might be like, or why we were wired certain ways, etc.

A year and a half into my first D/s relationship, and I can tell you honestly that there is very little that I thought I knew going in that holds true to my current views.

You'll see....once you get out there and live it.



porcelaine -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:35:37 AM)

leadership527,

quote:

For instance, although the difference between personality and orientation is critical to me (I don't register orientation people as submissive at all.. they just don't ping on my radar)


Care to expound? You've piqued my curiosity.

~porcelaine



LadyNTrainer -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:36:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot
You don't have to experience something yourself in order to understand it.


I must respectfully and very strongly disagree.  If you lack a basic foundation of factual knowledge and understanding, you are poorly equipped to draw conclusions based on flawed or limited evidence. 

This is one of the crucial differences between actual science and bad amateur philosophy that attempts to invoke the authority of science and fact.  The former requires observable facts and replicable experiments before a valid hypothesis can be formulated, let alone an actual theory.  The latter is aimless mental masturbation, blathering meaninglessly into the wind, or blowing donkey ass if you prefer to phrase it that way.  If it sounds erudite and learned, it may pass muster even if it has absolutely no basis in observable reality and in fact contradicts observable reality in many areas, because the person doing the talking has not actually done much observing.  And maybe it's fun to blather around and sound erudite and learned when in fact you are not.  That's why it's called mental masturbation. Expect to be called on it if you do it in public.


quote:

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.


I did.  It doesn't. 

Your fundamental premise is flawed because you are missing some crucial information as well as pretty much all of the demographic data that you would need to even begin to draw these kinds of conclusions.  Your assumptions about the BDSM community and lifestyles, for the most part, are factually incorrect.  Proceeding from those assumptions isn't getting you accurate or meaningful results.  In effect you're spouting nonsense, or at best, conjectures based on mostly bad or incomplete data. 


quote:

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.


What tends to annoy people is the notion that there is a universal truth to discover, which is not always the case.  What is correct for person A may be completely inapplicable to person B, and insisting that this is not true and that you can categorize and pigeonhole them according to certain characteristics is not just factually incorrect, but potentially offensive. 

It's bad science, SN.  It's factually wrong.  Your data is flawed and your conclusions premature and irresponsible to jump to.  It's hard to personally offend me, as I tend not to have much emotional investment in discussions of fact.  But bad science makes my head hurt. 

Remember what I suggested about owning your own feelings and beliefs and opinions rather than trying to pass judgment about universal truths or truths for other people?  You seem to have already forgotten. 



lucylucy -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:37:52 AM)

What is your theory based on? Reading, experiences, observations?

I think some of what you said about submissives applies to me, but I don't feel inferior to anyone, so the idea that "on the most basic level they may feel inferior" just doesn't resonate at all with me. I also never had an "inability to form meaningful romantic relationships." I don't believe I'm "not good enough." It seems you really think that an inferiority complex is part of being submissive and I seriously question that--or maybe I'm not a twue submissive.

Finally, you say "the basic motive for submission is a fear of rejection." This is almost true for me, but I think it is MUCH more appropriate to say that my basic motive is the flip side of that--a desire for acceptance. Not in general, but in my relationship. Much of my work success is based on not giving a shit if I'm accepted or not.




UniqueRaven -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:46:34 AM)

quote:


However, natural alpha men rarely need to dominate. They are secure enough in any relationship that they
simply don't need to dominate in any way. They have natural authority and commanding presence. Very rarely they
enter formal D/s relationships.


i just want to jump in here and say that this bit isn't accurate.  In my experience natural alpha men often are actually driven even more to Own and control a woman - it is that sense that they are "Masters of their own Universe."

i've met many amazing alpha men over the years who are also wonderful Masters and Owners, and they really are the best sort because it comes naturally to them - it is their fundamental essence to be so. 

And if you want some examples of natural alpha men who are also Masters, simply head to the Gor board, or Politics and Religion - you'll find them in spades.  [;)]

i didn't read the rest of your post - just skimmed it - but i will say as a degreed behaviorist your attempt to simplify human behavior and sexuality by your observance of external and internal factors is, while commendable, really just not that simple.  Humans, and their behavior, is much more complex than you think.  Don't forget we are animals, and you've left basically the entire argument about simple biological physiology out of your discussion - and that's just one of many complex factors.  But since you said it's just your attempt, i hope you had fun with it.  [:)]



Kana -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:49:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot


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.



1-Any attempt to apply broad labels to something as unique and complex as a human being is bound to fail. That's the main reason I used such a strong term.
2-I actually had added a note saying nothing personal against the OP, but he had stated that this wasn't to be taken to seriously on the original post so I withdrew the comment. Nothing personal my man-I wasn't taking a knock at you, just against the tendency of folks to dovetail and label.
3-Labeling something is NOT science. I can label you a Betelgeuse pan galactic gargle blaster-that doesn't make you one. Now take a hypothesis, punch it through the scientific method a few hundred thousand times examining for weakness (using pesky things like demonstrable physical proof), let it get peer reviewed and smacked around some more, stand the test of time-then maybe we can call it science. Right now, you are engaging in something closer to a shaman reading tea leaves trying to make accurate predictions-just flat out tom-foolery.

Examples:
"As an open minded and assertive women, more often than
not, they happen to like it, so they become dommes. Or, in an alternative case, as a open minded and curious women,
they happen to discover the kink on their own, and to like it.
The core reason for the assertiveness and pronounced sexuality of such women is probably somewhat higher level of
testosterone than women usually have.
That's why they are quite often lesbians."

Say what? I am shocked no one has called you out on this.

Or how about
"Natural alpha men probably never had any major psychological issues. They are assertive, secure, they have a lot of
self-esteem and self confidence, they know who they are and what they want."

Dude, I know scores of alpha males who have all sorts of issues, alcoholism, addiction, communication problems. Hell, I'm an alpha male and I have issues. That doesn't make me any less alpha, what it does is show that I am human.

or this chestnut
"Society never demanded of women to be dominant,"

My man, read your history-there have been plenty of matriarchal cultures in the era of man.

I could go on, but there's way to much ammunition and I don't want to be accused of piling on. You get my point.

I tend to think that most models of the type you are discussing are overly simplified and ignore a confluence of contributing factors as well as the fact that, well shit, some of us are the way we are because that's the way we are. The base problem is that we still have so little knowledge of the mind, of the elements that create personalities-at this stage we are basically stumbling in the dark, especially when it comes to levels of the erotic the public tends to not want to deal with..
But then again, that's just MHO.



leadership527 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 10:55:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: porcelaine
Care to expound? You've piqued my curiosity.
Sure, with the full warning that we are talking about me and me only... my tastes, my perceptions, what floats my boat. Anyone who reads this as any sort of opinion beyond "Jeff likes vanilla, not chocolate" is reading it incorrectly.

I tend to very much want to get to the root of things. So someone who is submissive by nature looks like a submissive to me. Someone who is submissive by orientation looks like a dominant who is submitting. That equates to someone playing a role... putting on a face for me to see. Granted, they may be playing it very, very well. In fact, the mask may never come off and to all outwards signs they would behave as a slave. Their "reasons of secondary gain" may be well thought out and laudable in all respects by my own value systems. But I'd always be wondering, why the square peg and round hole? Why not just go ahead and be dominant if that's what you are by nature? I think there'd be a part of me that would be wanting to FIX them (and we all know how well that's going to work *laughs*).

I just prefer the stark simplicity of a submissive nature who is submitting. For me, there is a thrill in watching someone bend to my will without any conscious thought on their part... with no command or obedience... no nothing. I can and do take pleasure in very simple things like, "I wanted to talk about X and so I steered the conversation in that way and she followed".

There is another aspect I am much less certain about. I suspect that there is a limit to how far a dominant personality can actually submit and have it still be healthy for that personality. I suspect a dominant personality, for instance, would not be able to give over their value-system. Carol, at least, presents no such limits. That means the limits that are there are my own... how trustworthy can I be? How responsible can I be? etc. That means she is an infinitely high bar for me to jump over... a never-ending test of my own self.

Of course, the ultimate truth here is that if I was looking for a partner and found someone lovable for whatever reasons, I am certain that I would love their personality also.. including whatever way they expressed D/s (or not).



laurell3 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 11:00:00 AM)

I don't think that's so uncommon Jeff. Contrary to the OP's premise, I am a very assertive and open-minded woman who thrives on being submissive to the right person and it's not unusual for D types to have a hard time understanding how that can be possible. As Kana pointed out though, rather astutely, some of us are the way we are, just because that's the way we are.



SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 11:00:23 AM)

Kana, of course that some alpha men have psychological issues. That doesn't even have to be questioned. But NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE ALPHA MEN.
That's just coincidence. Anyone can have issues. What I meant is that they have no issues caused by them being alpha men. And I still think it's true.

When it comes to dominant women, every science article will tell you that they usually have more testosterone. With more testosteron there is increased it's more likely that they will be attracted to feminized men or other women.

When it comes to matriarchal cultures, you should better read a Wikipedia article on that. There is no known, proven matriarchal society, not now, not even in the past.



LadyNTrainer -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 11:05:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot
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.


No.  What you are doing is not science, not even baby science.  It is *bad science*, anti-science, pseudoscience, fake science, pretend science, otherwise known as a large steaming pile of horse manure that someone is trying to pass off as a chocolate cake.   It's not a chocolate cake.  It's not even in the same category as a chocolate cake.  It will give you results diametrically opposite to a chocolate cake if you mistake it for one and attempt to treat it as one.

I don't know how to be much clearer on this subject.  This is demonstrably not the way to go about accomplishing anything, proving anything, or even beginning to do so.  It does exactly the opposite by muddying the waters and confusing fact with falsity or fiction.  You will not get good results from it.

It would be a lot smarter, and saner, if you were willing to stop making bold pronouncements about what you think is real and start learning what actually is real.  But apparently you are not.  I don't forsee good results for you if you cannot or will not change this pattern. 



SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 11:07:06 AM)

Jeff I really enjoyed reading both of your posts, and I must admit that you fall outside of my theory.
So basic desire to own a female as you express is very strange to me, so I simply forgot to include it in theory because it's very alien to me.
But I do understand you and I really can relate to it somehow. I can imagine how you thrive on it, and there is definitely a lot of pleasure that
you can derive from it. It simply isn't very close to how I understand the world. But on the most basic level I think that I understand you at least a little bit.



UniqueRaven -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 11:08:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot
When it comes to matriarchal cultures, you should better read a Wikipedia article on that.

Because Wikipedia is always accurate. [;)]



SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 11:12:35 AM)

LNT, I appreciate your opinion a lot, and actually you are one of my favorite posters here.
I know this is not science. It was my overreaction when someone said that this is "blowing donkey ass".

I put the disclaimer on the beginning so that people don't take it too seriously. I still think that it was a good attempt to understand some things.
And in some points maybe even true. I don't know why you need a theory too be 100% true in order to appreciate.
By some posts I think some posters would be comfortable with total elimination of psychology as science.



UniqueRaven -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 11:19:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot
By some posts I think some posters would be comfortable with total elimination of psychology as science.


You do know that Psychology isn't universally accepted as science, yes?  Or was this just a tongue in cheek comment?

There are many arguments that Psychology isn't science. 

Just like your essay isn't science, even though it is a commendable effort of thought.



laurell3 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 11:19:26 AM)

This isn't psychology, this is your badly written disjointed theories all pulled together in one hard to understand mass of stereotype. People are repeatedly asking what your source is, but you keep ignoring it....if this your own theories, on what did you base them? What evidence? What studies, what observations and where? What other sources do you rely on, where are their citations?



porcelaine -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 11:20:13 AM)

leadership527,

quote:

So someone who is submissive by nature looks like a submissive to me. Someone who is submissive by orientation looks like a dominant who is submitting.


Interesting contrasts. I don't fit into the first category.

quote:

Granted, they may be playing it very, very well. In fact, the mask may never come off and to all outwards signs they would behave as a slave.


I respect your ideas as you know. But I think this is why a lot girls have very conflicting issues on this subject. The idea is promoted that if she isn't "naturally" submissive then her desire to yield is suspect. And for what it's worth, I've met more than my share of natural girls that aren't very surrendered. The two don't always go hand in hand.

quote:

But I'd always be wondering, why the square peg and round hole? Why not just go ahead and be dominant if that's what you are by nature? I think there'd be a part of me that would be wanting to FIX them (and we all know how well that's going to work *laughs*).


I think it's an easier idea for many men to wrap their mind around in all truth. And some are threatened by it as well. They feel she's harder to control.

quote:

I just prefer the stark simplicity of a submissive nature who is submitting.


But you've never been a submissive. Much like the op you're relying on observation and theory. You haven't had the practical experience to realize that it can come in different containers and be just as genuine. Her pliability has more to do with who she was entering the kneel and the impact your ownership has upon her.

quote:

There is another aspect I am much less certain about. I suspect that there is a limit to how far a dominant personality can actually submit and have it still be healthy for that personality. I suspect a dominant personality, for instance, would not be able to give over their value-system.


Interesting. I've cast everything away just for this. Things I would have never dreamed of doing in the past are simply no longer an impediment. But in my mind it's worth it.

Can everyone bring me to heel? Absolutely not. But I'd eagerly wind myself around his fingertip if he told me to do so. I don't have the desire to do the same for others. It doesn't change my generosity or grace, but I'm not yielded to them in that manner. Any display of such is at the behest of my owner or a demonstration of the command he holds.

quote:

That means she is an infinitely high bar for me to jump over... a never-ending test of my own self.


I scale his bar and I love doing so. It is because I am who I am that I don't run away from the height or challenge. I may fall short at times. But every pole vaulter does. I'll always come back for another go round. I do it for him and us.

~porcelaine



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

Valid CSS!




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