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

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



Message

sunshinemiss -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 6:58:56 PM)

quote:

Nobody can tell you about that melty look in a submissives eyes, they way they surrender just for you.


I think you should try.

I think that'd be hot.

I'm ready to be edumicated.

[sm=popcorn.gif]



SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 7:02:43 PM)

quote:


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.


I didn't say that dominants have submissive traits nor that submissives have dominant traits. I just said that both groups of traits can ba caused by insecurity.
However there are also natural dominants (who I also described) and natural submissives (who I failed to describe, because they seemed too mysterious to me)

BTW, I am very eager to experience some things in  real life, but I don't have much chance yet, given the country in which I live. But I can assure you that I am very eager to experience things.



WinsomeDefiance -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 7:08:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss

quote:

Nobody can tell you about that melty look in a submissives eyes, they way they surrender just for you.


I think you should try.

I think that'd be hot.

I'm ready to be edumicated.

[sm=popcorn.gif]


Sign me up for that course too!



leadership527 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 7:12:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot
Finally someone understands me. This is exactly what I wanted to say when I said that "natural alpha men" don't need to dominate. They are so assured of their power and dominance that they don't need to use BDSM or some other types of formal domination in order to prove their dominance.

Agreed.

quote:

That's why they are most likely in vanilla relationships, not D/s. Most natural leaders fall into this category.

Incorrect. Most "natural leaders" fall into this category because they either haven't run into BDSM or aren't interested in it for god only knows what reasons. Let's just assume that roughly 10% of the populace is into BDSM. I'd assume that 10% of the natural leaders are also. I see absolutely no relationship between a person's dom or sub personality and their likelihood of getting into a formal D/s or M/s relationship.

quote:

They are so assured of their dominance that they wouldn't bother even to submit to a woman for a while.

or forever. I've made no bones about it on these boards. I could quite easily submit to Carol if that's what was needed to make her happy. It wouldn't affect my dominance at all. I could obey her day in and day out in the truest of slave fashions and do so from an entirely dominant mindset.

quote:

Quite often such alpha men treated their ladies with utter love and respect.
I doubt it. I think things like one's standards for treating the people in their lives are totally separated from one's d/s personality profile.

My own opinion is that you continually get way too much wrapped up in [social] dominance and submission. Look... in very simple terms... dominance is giving orders and submission is obeying them. Actually, not simple terms... that's it.. period. Anything that doesn't directly relate to leading or following has zero to do with it. Kink based d/s is an entirely different thing and very complex as all human sexuality is.



SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 7:18:53 PM)

Jeff I am beginning to like you. I like your way of thinking and when you tell me in which things I am wrong I tend to believe you.

And the thing that you would submit to Carol if that would make her happy, really stirred my feelings.

The most fascinating part was your claim of being able to "submit forever in completely slavish fashion with completely dominant mindset"

I think I know exactly what you mean by these words, but I would like you to elaborate them, because I am not sure if I am right.



Silence8 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 7:24:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

quote:

this slave disagrees with your theory that submission is a result of conditioning...but dominance, on the other hand, is either "natural" OR "conditioned".


Not only conditioning, but also internalization of negative attitudes of people from your environment.
Even this does not have to be the case. There are seven different types of pleasure that submissives derive. Maybe you have just a strong affinity for some of these seven types of pleasure.



have you considered the possibility that just like some have a "natural" dominant personality, some have a "natural" submissive personality?

that it could have absolutely nothing to do with fear of rejection, internalizing negativity or the seven types of pleasure you allude to?

what makes you think dominance can be the only "natural" role in D/s?



I tend to agree with Beth's assessment, although I'd probably phrase it a little differently.

Also, I think, Socrates, you're over-simplifying the processes involved in 'fetish', one which cannot simply be reduced to conditioning and represents something as complicated as D/s itself -- not to mention the relation between d/s and fetish, as well as to being as subject/ object.

Still, you're the only one lately posting anything of any significance, for which I commend you.







sunshinemiss -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 7:27:38 PM)

quote:

Still, you're the only one lately posting anything of any significance, for which I commend you.


Nonsense.

Wordy does not equal significant. Wisdom is everywhere. I, for one, would prefer not to have to sift through a pile of stuff to find the essence, the beauty, the wisdom... if it exists in the pile of stuff at all.



SocratesNot -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 7:30:09 PM)

quote:

Nonsense.

Wordy does not equal significant. Wisdom is everywhere. I, for one, would prefer not to have to sift through a pile of stuff to find the essence, the beauty, the wisdom... if it exists in the pile of stuff at all.


So you think that The Brothers Karamazov, War and Peace, The Magic Mountain are just nonsense and piles of crap?



thishereboi -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 7:37:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

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



Your accountant agrees!


Good, that means I don't have to read it either...have a good night everyone[:)]



Rule -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 7:38:27 PM)

I haven't read them.



LadyPact -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 7:39:08 PM)

I will say this.  The thread has only made Me more anxious to come see you all in June.



Firebirdseeking -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 7:39:58 PM)

Ya know, I have to blow off some steam here.  I have now watched 5 decades of womenhood being defined by the media, by men - by everyone but us women. Now we have men here telling us who and what a submissive is and is not. How about this: WE get to decide whether or not we are submissive, and someone either likes and accepts our definition of ourselves, and our submissiveness, or not.  I have had men tell me I am not a sub because I will not answer insulting question or do degrading things; I have had men expect me to hand over submission up front just because he defines himself as a master or a dominant.

How about listening to what we say about ourselves??

(In response to no one in particular, but in particular to those men who say if we are X then we are submissive, and if we are Y then we are not.  Hssssssssss!) 



Rule -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 7:43:31 PM)

If you are XY, you are male - usually.



Silence8 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 7:51:02 PM)



Socrates, I don't think you got everything right, yet, but you're already leagues ahead of understanding than the ostensibly 'experienced' simply by trying to understand, by taking that first step. (Ugh... I hope to death I find someone who ISN'T too experienced... honestly, gross.)


People are threatened by individuals with the will (and time) to think. Nietzsche has a wonderful quote at the end of the Genealogy of Morals -- which I would highly recommend that you read; for a philosophical text, it deals directly with dominance, submission, natural tendencies, master versus slave morality, etc. etc. etc. -- where he says that individuals would rather will nothingness than will nothing at all.

Willing nothingness, unfortunately, is the standard mode of operation on this website, so you have to wade through mountains of garbage before getting to the thoughtful responses.


Anything, back to the point:


Socrates -- are you familiar with the idea of a simulacrum? Basically, to paraphrase the philosopher Alain Badiou, a simulacrum references a greater universality (and the creation of eventful truth) while still ultimately upholding the principles of a given particularity.

I think that D/s tends to work this way; yet I also think, along with Nietzsche, that there's a fundamental will to power that sadism (the joy in inflicting pain) instantiates. So I'm still thinking about it, basically; maybe both are true?

In terms of simulacrum -- I think that BDSM relationships create a microcosm of a macrocosm (to use the terms from above, a macrocosm is that 'given particularity'). So, a 'Dominant', ordinarily a object of the macrocosm (this includes bosses and even CEOs) creates a microcosm, his or her D/s relationship, so that he or she can experience the observe of being an object, that is, becoming a subject.

Simultaneously, a 'Submissive', also necessarily an object of the macrocosm (the macrocosm has no true 'Subject', notably), becomes an object of the microcosm (that is, the simulacrum). Why, though? Well, I think that the macrocosm is such that its objects are forced to act as if they are subjects; there's a philosopher John Gray who says something to this effect, that in civilization not only are you not free, but you're forced to act as if you're free. For the 'Submissive', then, the appeal of the microcosm is that, for once, appearances match reality; he or she is an object, both in name and reality.



Silence8 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 7:55:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Firebirdseeking

Ya know, I have to blow off some steam here.  I have now watched 5 decades of womenhood being defined by the media, by men - by everyone but us women. Now we have men here telling us who and what a submissive is and is not. How about this: WE get to decide whether or not we are submissive, and someone either likes and accepts our definition of ourselves, and our submissiveness, or not.  I have had men tell me I am not a sub because I will not answer insulting question or do degrading things; I have had men expect me to hand over submission up front just because he defines himself as a master or a dominant.

How about listening to what we say about ourselves??

(In response to no one in particular, but in particular to those men who say if we are X then we are submissive, and if we are Y then we are not.  Hssssssssss!) 


This is neither here nor there. Men can (and, if they're intellectuals, should) have theories of women, and women of men.

No thought is off-bounds. Period.




Hawkwindblues -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 7:56:23 PM)

quote:

Wordy does not equal significant.


Yes!

For Silence8 and Sokrates look up Haiku to understand some of the deeper meanings of precise and condensed/compact way with words.



WyldHrt -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 7:56:40 PM)

quote:

If you are XY, you are male - usually.

[:D][:D][:D]



Rochsub2009 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 8:11:58 PM)

Okay, i just read the ENTIRE OP, as well as all of the pages of comments that followed (i still can't believe i did that).  And having done that, i have to admit that i have to side with SocratesNot on this one. 

Don't get me wrong.  i don't agree with his theory (though i respect him for trying to formulate one).  But rather, what i like about him is that he's been honest since he's been here, and people seem to miss that.

By his own admission, SN has NO EXPERIENCE in BDSM.  But he's been honest about that.  He's young, and he's a bit of a nerd, but he's trying to learn about something that has captured his interest.  i suggest that everyone recognize that about him, and respond accordingly. 

While i agree with all of those who have suggested that "experience is the best teacher", i do think that we have been a bit hard on SN.  i think if we all looked at him as what he really is, a newbie seeking to learn a bit, then we'd treat him differently.

There's no need to tell him that his theory is not based upon sound science.  Duh!  Even he knows that.  Moreover, he admitted as much in the beginning of his OP.

i believe SN truly wants to learn, and he needs teachers, rather than critics.  In fact, i had a pretty good discussion with him in the "Service Subs" thread, and i realized that he is actually absorbing some of what is being said, and his perspective is evolving.

The fact that he approaches his search for knowledge by lecturing and postulating theories probably doesn't help his cause.  But he's basically a harmless kid seeking to learn.

Having said all that, here are some thoughts for you, SocratesNot:
-Lecture less, and listen more.  Don't give rebuttals to every response that you receive.  Instead, see if there is a perspective in the response that you hadn't thought of.  If so, ruminate on it.  Digest it.  Try to understand it.  But DON'T debate it.  You don't have to accept every opinion that is offered.  Eat the meat, and spit out the bones.  But remember, you're here to learn, not to teach.

-i disagree with your comment that you don't need to experience a thing in order to understand it.  There's an old saying that goes "Some things are better felt than tellt".  Sure, you can gain a tangential understanding simply by reading.  But reading about sorrow is not the same as losing a loved one.

-Even the most experienced person on here will probably tell you that they don't fully understand BDSM.  It's just too diverse, and people are too varied.  So if those with 20, 30, or even 40 years in the lifestyle don't understand it, what makes you think that you "get it" after a few weeks on CM?  You're trying to take the most illogical thing in the world (human behavior), and translate it into a series of logical equations.  That's never going to work. 

-You're 22 years old.  Log off the computer and go find someone to play with.  Even if it's a pro Domme (in fact, based on your obvious negative opinions about pro Dommes, i strongly suggest that you see a pro).  But get some experience.  i guarantee you it will be more valuable than any theory you can formulate.  [;)]

(BTW, sorry for the long reply, but i was trying to respond to a long OP and 9 pages of replies in a single message).



LadyHibiscus -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 8:33:36 PM)

Hats off to you, Rochsub. You DID catch the parts where we give him the same advice, in thread after thread after thread? He's not listening.



leadership527 -> RE: An interesting theory of D/s (my own) (5/26/2010 8:35:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot
Mercnbeth, I agree with you that there is a possibility that natural submissives exist. However such possibility is quite slim, because having completely submissive personality does not have many evolutionary advantages.

some may argue... What I really meant to say is that pretty much ALL sociologists would argue. The bottom line is that by the numbers, it is the alpha mindset which is the minority. By the numbers (life expectance, etc.) it is the alpha mindset which is maladjusted.

quote:

So, I think naturally submissive people do exist, and thank you for pointing this to me. This was one of the flaws of my theory, and this is where the theory has to be changed.

See, once again you've gotten too much wrapped up in dominance and submission that doesn't belong there. Here's a tip. MOST humans could reasonably be described as submissive. Anyone who's ever tried to hire for managers knows this to be true. Finding good leaders is freakin hard. What IS maladjusted is a lack of wisdeom. Carol has a naturally submissive viewpoint, but she is reasonably able to extract herself from situations before they become too detrimental to her. It was a given that she would submit to whoever she married... but she didn't marry just anyone. I might point out that unwise dominants are probably more harmful to themselves than unwise submissives.

quote:

I just think that there is not many such, completely naturally submissive people. Maybe you are one of the lucky ones who found the fulfillment with your Master, as a natural submissive. Carol may be another example.

When in actuality, it's a pretty safe bet that there is a bell curve and the curve is skewed towards the submissive end somewhat. What is probably true is that there are damned few people at either pointy end of the bell curve. But that doesn't make those people maladjusted in some way. It just means they are rarer than the more neutral people on the d/s scale.

quote:

Yes, I really need to introduce this category into my theory - natural submissives. I will try to describe them based on experiences of people like you, Carol, and others.
See above... there is no category for "natural" submissives. Or, more analytically, you might look at the percentage of instances throughout a standard day in which a person approaches the situation from a submissive vs. a dominant stance. Theoretically, you could come up with some ratio. I suppose, arbitrarily, you might say something like people who are 90% or better submissive are "natural" submissives. But it's important to remember that the line in the sand is arbitrary.

If you want some advice (since I've been down this road myself), you need to go back to square one and get a solid understanding of what, EXACTLY you mean when you say "submissive" or "dominant". Start at individual situations then build your theory out from there.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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