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

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



Message

ReginaMirus -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 4:10:26 PM)

Your dancing very close to the "TWUE" department, here. And this is the danger inherant in creating stereotypes, as no one can identify with the pigeonholes you've created for them.

Example...

Your previous assertion was that only the ALPHA dominants that don't "need" a relationship. So apparently, I must fit in the "natural dominant" slot.
I haven't the slightest inkling to feminize my subs, and I am not sexually attracted to effeminate men. I like my men to BE men, and to LOOK LIKE MEN, ergo, I MUST be "insecure".
Overall, I'm not a cruel mistress in my play, and have no desire to break my toys OR my submissives. I want his submission to come from a willing heart. Therefore, I'm not so "insecure", after all.
I'm not so big on high protocol, either. Hhmm...must be a "natural dominant".
I do like doling out pain, but on my own terms, when I'm in the mood to just reach out and beat someone. Some could view that as cruel, so maybe I am insecure.

Do you see what I am getting at, here?

We are all as unique as snowflakes. Trying to box people into neat, tiny little categories and the negative implications that you assert within your self-realized categories will only serve to further confuse and piss off the masses.

It's a losing battle. Honestly. By the time you document and report on all the variations to your "rule" your theory is going to more resemble the NYC phonebook.






SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 4:16:51 PM)

WinesomeDefience, I already said that I changed my mind. I will try to defend this theory. This theory is completely open, changeable, and unfinished.

When I firstly said that I will not defend it, I said it out of indignation, because the first reactions were quite negative.

Now, I agree that the theory should be reanalyzed, defended, challenged, etc.

WinesomeDefience, you also seem to be the third one who falls into category of natural submissives, (usually slaves) beside Carol and Mercenbeth.
I must admit that this category is hardest for me to understand.
Also, I must tell you that I also have visceral reaction to the situation that you described, and not the pleasant one. I think I will start the thread on this topic.



SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 4:25:19 PM)

quote:

Your dancing very close to the "TWUE" department, here. And this is the danger inherant in creating stereotypes, as no one can identify with the pigeonholes you've created for them.

Example...

Your previous assertion was that only the ALPHA dominants that don't "need" a relationship. So apparently, I must fit in the "natural dominant" slot.
I haven't the slightest inkling to feminize my subs, and I am not sexually attracted to effeminate men. I like my men to BE men, and to LOOK LIKE MEN, ergo, I MUST be "insecure".
Overall, I'm not a cruel mistress in my play, and have no desire to break my toys OR my submissives. I want his submission to come from a willing heart. Therefore, I'm not so "insecure", after all.
I'm not so big on high protocol, either. Hhmm...must be a "natural dominant".
I do like doling out pain, but on my own terms, when I'm in the mood to just reach out and beat someone. Some could view that as cruel, so maybe I am insecure.

Do you see what I am getting at, here?

We are all as unique as snowflakes. Trying to box people into neat, tiny little categories and the negative implications that you assert within your self-realized categories will only serve to further confuse and piss off the masses.

It's a losing battle. Honestly. By the time you document and report on all the variations to your "rule" your theory is going to more resemble the NYC phonebook.


Regina I understand this. No one fits perfectly into any category. But, some categorization is not that awfully bad.
Categorization does not only serve to put people into tiny little boxes, but also, to describe them, and also to explain some mechanism.

I think that LadyPact may be nearer to the insecure type than you are. You are probably some mix of the two types.

My theory is bullshit as much as any other personality theory is bullshit. For example Jung's theory. There are 16 basic personality types. This is also putting people neatly into boxes. And of course that in most people there are present traits of more than one type.
However, this does not make the entire theory completely flawed.
Errors and lack of precision is inevitable part of any theory in humanistic sciences.
This does not mean that people should stop theorizing whatsoever.



WinsomeDefiance -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 4:26:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

WinesomeDefience, I already said that I changed my mind. I will try to defend this theory. This theory is completely open, changeable, and unfinished.

.....

WinesomeDefience, you also seem to be the third one who falls into category of natural submissives,


I should have noted that my reply was done before I'd read all of the responses. Thank you for bringing to my attention that you had already processed much of that. I hope my post wasn't too redundant, after the fact.[;)]

As for me being a 'natural' submissive. There are MANY who know me very well who would argue that, and just as many who would agree. Probably why I list myself as a switch. I'm just honoring the consensus.



SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 4:30:02 PM)

OK, I don't know you personally WinesomeDefience. From your description it seemed to me that you are more of a natural submissive, because you accepted this part about losing identity (even with tears you accepted it). About you, I'm not really sure. I gotta learn a lot.



ackitten -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 5:06:33 PM)

that is exactly where i am on the issue.  i feel that i am a natural submissive, for no reason other than that is who i am and who i have always been, even as a small child.  my main goal in life is to follow someone stronger than i am and to please them in any way i can, not just a sexual one.



LadyPact -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 5:18:32 PM)

Yes, I do find it offensive based on the fact that it isn't true.  I think it is very rude of you to throw these accusations around about people and address them by name.  If I were to state that you were thief, you wouldn't like that very much, would you? 

In your theory, you are incorrect, at least in My case.  I prefer My D/s or M/s interactions to be based on obedience, pure and simple.  I honestly don't care about type or how that male appears to others.  It honestly isn't about challenge and that stuff about breaking somebody has never been a part of My dynamics.  When I say submission, that means willingly chose to submit to Me.  I don't do power struggles.  It's a simple matter of being the final authority in the dynamic.

Sadism, which is something different than being dynamic based, should not be confused with cruelty.  I enjoy hurting people.  It turns Me on.  It's fun.  I'm very fortunate that I achieve top space easily via sadism in many forms.  Most of the time, I want the bottom/masochist to be having fun, too, but there are absolutely times that I'm specifically doing the very things that I know they hate.  I derive pleasure from this.  The bottom in either scenario is a consensual participant for one of two reasons.  That person is either getting their own pleasure out of it or they are doing it because they want to please Me in some way, which in turn is gratifying to them.

As much as I enjoy these things, I am very pragmatic.  It really isn't a need to Me.  Yes, it's a very strong want that I feel very passionate about, but I can be just as content without it.  The only thing that I would miss would be the people that I've met through the lifestyle and the friends that I've made.  The rest of it could be compared to an amusement park.  (Do they have those in Bosnia?)  I love the adrenaline rush of the roller coasters, the laughing, the excitement, the thrill of the moment, the fun, and all of those things that are brought in through the senses.  If I honestly never got to go to one again, I'd be disappointed, but it wouldn't necessarily rock My world.  Since it is an option, I'm going to keep on enjoying My roller coasters.  There's no reason why I shouldn't.

So, while I know you really don't listen, OP, you have, yet again, another person on your thread to tell you that your theory is wrong and the reason that you don't understand is because you haven't experienced it yet.



SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 5:33:55 PM)

quote:

but there are absolutely times that I'm specifically doing the very things that I know they hate.  I derive pleasure from this.


Isn't that cruel?
In the context of BDSM cruel is not bad. I don't know why are you offended.
I can also be cruel sometimes.
Everyone can be cruel.
Only if they permanently harm people, or if they do something without consent of other people, only in this case they are bad people.
You are not a bad person, and I don't know why are you offended.

You said that the BDSM is a strong want for you.
There is not much difference between strong want and need. Are you sure you don't need it? You would really know only after a longer period of abstinence form this.
Even if you need it, this is not bad. Smokers need cigarettes, this doesn't make them bad people, this just make them, you know, smokers.

Also I perfectly agree that my theory is not a perfect description of you, maybe not even close.
However if you are still offended, you can call me an asshole.



WinsomeDefiance -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 5:37:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Hey!...does anyone wanna hear how I masturbate?


I do! I promise not to giggle this time!



LadyHibiscus -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 5:41:15 PM)

Good luck, he tried to make me pay him! Mercenary creatures, anteaters.



LadyPact -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 5:59:41 PM)

I am ever so tempted. 

It's not cruel.  Many people with certain kinks want to engage in them, even if they don't like them.  They can feel satisfaction from being able to endure a certain thing.  They can feel fulfilled in connecting with certain emotions in a controlled environment.  They may have a willingness to do it to resonate deeper in their submission.  They may want the activity (even though they dislike it) because they know it brings them a catharsis.  They might just plain love hating it.  They might get their enjoyment just out of the fact that I am enjoying Myself so much and they are the ones who, because I'm doing these activities to them, therefore, they are making sure My sadist wants are quenched.

While a strong want and a need may seem like they are close, they aren't the same thing.  The smoker in your example isn't going to die for the lack of a cigarette.  Sure, the withdraws suck, but you're also talking about a temporary physical dependency.  If it really were a need, there wouldn't be any ex-smokers.



SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 6:06:52 PM)

I have new evidence in support of my claim that submissiveness can be induced by internalization of the negative judgments of the environment.

LNT is a dominant. She said, if 20 people called me an ass I would start to wonder if I am really an ass.
This is called internalization, and even dominants are susceptible to this.

Second example is myself. Many people called me an asshole, and now I use this word to describe myself on forum.

You see how simple this is . The only problem is that internalized negative judgments aren't always accurate. Children can be very cruel and there are many bullies both in primary and in high school. The bullied child can easily internalize negative judgments, which can lead to submissive behavior.

Now you wonder, where the hell is connection between internalization of negative judgments and being submissive.
Well you see, even admitting that you are an asshole is a small act of submission. Years of being negatively judged can really be a cause of submissiveness.
And you know what. My mother was quite strict and dominant, my school emphasized strict moral values, and also I was sometimes bullied, not too often but I was.
And yes, I do have submissive tendencies. You see. This CAN happen this way but doesn't have to.
My theory never claimed to be perfectly accurate for everyone.



WyldHrt -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 6:18:55 PM)

quote:

However, you should also note that the fact that need to dominate is based on insecurity does not make you a bad person.

quote:

I think that LadyPact may be nearer to the insecure type than you are.

[sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif]Thanks for the laugh!
You see, I know LadyP in meatlife, and have been under her hand (and dragon's tongue) for real. For anyone who knows her, and that's lots of us, the above quotes only serve to underline her point that you really can't understand some things, or even some people, unless you experience them. The fact that you keep trying to shove LadyP into the little 'insecure' box simply proves the point.




SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 6:21:42 PM)

OK Lady Pact, I don't think you have any greater need for BDSM then smokers have for cigarettes.
Some smokers claim to need it, some don't, no one is going to die if they stop smoking or engaging in BDSM,
but there is quite a great chance that they will be very pissed off.

If you define need only in terms of dying if you stop doing something, then I agree that you don't need BDSM.
My own definition of "need" tends to be a little more flexible. But according to your definition, you absolutely don't need BDSM.
Maybe I should have put a glossary in the beginning of my articled so that people know exactly what I mean by using any word.

When it comes to cruelty, I think the main misunderstanding between us is not in factual things about you being cruel or not, but also in the definition of the word "cruel".
I tend to think that "deriving pleasure from something that they hate, specifically because they hate it" is still somewhat cruel. But if they love hating it, then they maybe don't actually hate it in the literal sense, because "loving to hate" is different from "simply hating"

So if you provide them with things they love to hate, it isn't the same as if you just provided them with things they hate, so your first statement wasn't true.
And in this case you are not cruel.
But even if they love to hate it some people might argue that this is still cruel, because you know, definitions are flexible, and it also matters how much of these things they love to hate you provide them. One amount may cause catharsis, just a little more may cause serious suffering.

By the way, why is it so important for you not to be cruel. Many people in the world of kink take pride in being cruel. Simply their cruelty is measured, administered in safe environment, consensually received, fulfills subs, and does not cause any permanent harm? What is so wrong about being cruel in this sense?



WinsomeDefiance -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 6:33:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt

quote:

However, you should also note that the fact that need to dominate is based on insecurity does not make you a bad person.

quote:

I think that LadyPact may be nearer to the insecure type than you are.

[sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif]Thanks for the laugh!



Just for emphasis.....

[sm=rofl.gif]



SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 6:41:44 PM)

If I needed to emphasize that I am or that I am not something, and if I was easily offended, I would consider myself insecure.
This is actually the thing that happens quite often in my life, especially if I am around people whose opinion is important to me.
If someone told me something that is offensive to me, I would start to defend myself and to deny it.
This is probably because of my inner insecurity, because if I was so sure that what they are saying is not true, I wouldn't need so much
to defend myself, I would just be cool and ignore them.
And I do defend myself, because I am not always sure about some of my traits and characteristics.
And I am an insecure person.
So what? Does this make me bad? No.



Rule -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 6:42:28 PM)

That was a horrendously long opening post that also exceeded the width of my screen. You are not a considerate person.

I have not read your opening post. But this is my reply: some people are born with blue eyes, some people are born gay, some people are born dominant, some people are born as natural slaves, and some people are born as submissives - and other people are born with other characteristics.



WyldHrt -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 6:50:38 PM)

quote:

So what? Does this make me bad? No.

You completely missed my point. That said, having read the rest of the thread (and not being blessed with the patience some others here have), I'm not going to try to explain it to someone who obviously isn't listening to anything he doesn't want to hear.



Darkfeather -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 6:52:44 PM)

The quest for knowledge is a wonderful thing.  Especially when it is for something one enjoys.  When that quest becomes an obsession however, it can turn ugly.  Why this ferocious need to assign terms to everything?  Believe me, when you challenge someone's perception of what they believe themself to be, they will take offense.  And trying to shoe-horn everyone in this lifestyle into ready-made categories just cannot be done.  For instance, I can say from experience that a Domme can under the right circumstances, concider going submissive, as I have had the offer myself.  Was she a switch?  Did she have repressed sub tendancies?  No, she just concidered it with me and only me.  These are intensely personal situations and choices, and unique to the indivual.  You cannot make cookie-cutter generalizations.



Shadow-tiger -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 6:54:21 PM)

This is like trying to watch a bad high school drama that just won't end. I get the impression you're attempting to psychoanalyze people, but there's one slight problem. To truly understand some things you have to experience them. It's a visceral thing, like getting laid.

Nobody can tell you about that melty look in a submissives eyes, they way they surrender just for you. I can write books and books, but you'd never understand it unless you've experienced it from one side or the other. Even then it's going to be different for most people, life is like that.

Some people put a lot of time, effort and thought into what they do, how they play, what it is that they do. Others just take life as it comes, do what comes naturally and screw the psychobabble.

Dominants have submissive traits? Gosh, really? OMG! Submissives have dominant traits? Now you're pulling my leg! Seriously, get out in the world, meet some people, whip your dick out and get some experience. It will do wonders for your perspective, I guarantee.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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