|
Focus50 -> RE: Dommes and Doggy-style. (6/6/2011 3:22:18 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ElanSubdued
Focus,
quote:
Focus50:
Well yeah, but I'm not going to get bogged down with what I called "newbie dynamics" in response to LadyConstanze, when she virtually tried to reinvent the D/s wheel on "choices". Me, if I'm having sex with my sub, we're in a committed relationship rather than being some Dom and sub who just met. That means we've worked through most of the basic personal and D/s relationship framework about limits, likes and dislikes etc. So she really only has a choice to leave; to end the relationship. There are many other things she won't be in a position of having to choose because I won't put her there - because we've taken the time to build a mutually fulfilling relationship. So no, she doesn't make ongoing choices per se'; that if I wanna bend her over for doggie sex, for example, her "permission" is always implied virtue of her choosing to be in a greater D/s relationship with me. I'm no bush lawyer; I don't try and trap her with her own words. If she or we are having problems, we default to equal adults and work it out.
I'd have called this out as being unworkable, but your last two sentences saved the day. Absolutes like "so she really only has a choice to leave; to end the relationship" might sound great theoretically and, indeed, some relationships do get to this point when fundamental incompatibilities collide. However, outside fundamental breaches and fundamental incompatibilities there is a range of normal conflict that occurs in relationships and I'd hope there were better resolution mechanisms in place than "lump it or leave". Such an approach tends to drive toward resentment and failure. A good example of this is accidents. Accidents happen during play, even when each partner knows the other well and clearly negotiated, time-tested dynamics are in place.
During a period when I tried my hand at dominance, I once made the mistake of doing a takedown on my submissive when her head wasn't in the right place. Now it's true that taking her whenever I wanted was part of our D/s dynamics and I'd done this many times and we both enjoyed this. However, on one particular day, she was emotionally in the wrong place. She explained this, however, I misread what she said, thought she was being playfully bratty, and took her anyway. Oops. Big mistake. This damaged her emotionally and it damaged the relationship. I apologized and admitted my mistake. We each made choices and the largest of these was to communicate, to acknowledge one another, and to figure out what went wrong. It took multiple discussions and follow-throughs to repair the damage.
People grow and change, and D/s relationships are subject to these changes. Thus, though a slave may consent to "being a slave", in fact, as life moves forward and partners experience together and navigate the normal ebbs and flows that occur during any relationship, choice are continually being made. In a D/s context, whether overt or not, this means partners continually assert their commitment to their roles and responsibilities in the relationship and they do so as new information comes in. Sometimes, due to circumstances in life, responsibilities must change. Thus, I think a model that purports "the tenets are in place and thus partners only have a choice to stay or leave" is a vast oversimplification of the dynamics and choices people make as D/s relationship progress.
Dunno about "saving the day" because I'd like to think that "committed relationship" should be enough for reasonable and mature adults to glean that a difference of opinion or even a heated argument isn't gonna finish or even damage the greater relationship. That I shouldn't have to fill the page adnauseam with disclaimers, exceptions and qualifiers etc - not even in *this* thread.
Same with dominating my girl; just because I'm physically able to as well as empowered to do so, doesn't mean I'd just bend her over and have my way if she was in a bad physical, mental or emotional place. While the dynamic means I can and will objectify her during play or even just to remind her of her place, that I'm in a greater relationship with her means I'd *never* intentionally hurt or damage who is, afterall, the woman I also love and care for.
quote:
quote:
Focus50:
All I ever wanted to know was how Dommes overcame that physically disadvantaged position. LadynTrainer was particularly insightful and (given what's ultimately unfolded) while I can understand how the average male/sub has been reluctant to post what would be a similar perspective, it is interesting that you don't see a (physical) power position at all and focus on what pleases your overall dominant partner.
Perhaps I should read the OP again. I didn't realize the crux of your question comes from the "physical strength" angle. Granted, I'm not going to say physical strength doesn't play a factor in the duties people take on, but in consensual BDSM relationships (and in regard to doggie style sex in consensual relationships), strength is irrelevant. I've had dominant, female partners who were physically stronger than me, though much of the time I'm usually physically stronger than my partner. The point is that it's what connects the people intellectually in the relationship that drives the power dynamics, not strength. When you bend your submissive over and take her doggie style, it's not your strength that allows this to happen. Rather, it's the commitment each of you have to one another and to the roles and responsibilities you've agreed on. Strength doesn't enter the equation and this is no different when the dominant is female and possibly of lesser strength than her submissive.
In an animal and primal sense, gender and physical size/strength is a factor. Off the top of my head, I can't think of another species that has face-to-face sex (though I'm sure someone will be along), which makes human doggie-sex very primal and animal. Primal and animal - these are not concepts we integrate, even desire, within BDSM?
quote:
Are you suggesting, Focus, that you subdue your submissive only with physical strength and that this is the nature of your dominance over her? I don't think so. Your submissive willingly submits just as you willingly take her. The fact you happen to be stronger than her and could hold her in place is irrelevant.
"Only with physical strength"..... I've been dealing with this crock throughout the thread. Many a male/sub has posted (over the years) that they enjoy being physically overpowered by their Domme, even though it generally includes a little "co-operation" from the usually bigger/stronger male. The fact that I don't require such co-operation from my fem/sub (though she should resist the temptation to gouge out an eye or kick me in the nuts... lol) happens to be an advantage most Doms have over Dommes, and that's been somewhat threatening for a few too many Dommes (and some others) in here. So they defensibly dismiss and diminish me as not being capable of so-called "mental" domination. I've been posting at CM for some 7 years and most know damned well I'm not in the lifestyle to just physically throw my weight (and strength) around.
quote:
The power dynamics that control the act are, in fact, EXACTLY the same, regardless of the genders, physical strengths, and physical positions involved. This isn't melee tactics in warfare. A female dominant enjoying doggie style sex isn't in a physically disadvantaged position and is, in fact, in exactly the physical position she wants to be in, using her command and submissive as suits her desire.
We're gonna have to disagree here. This is what began my topic; that while I never doubted Dommes would ultimately be in control during primal and animal doggie-sex, it isn't a physical control in the animal sense. The fact is, if a male rapist (for eg) wants to take a female from behind, there's not a lot she can do about it. But no female rapist is gonna be taken from behind without the male's co-operation - which kinda renders "rapist" a bit silly here. While your female dominant isn't necessarily disadvantaged, she still requires the male's co-operation.
Physical, primal and animal (think: prison) - gender matters (re control) as does size and strength. In our world, Dommes need other means to overcome that - and so I asked....
Cheers,
Focus.
|
|
|
|
