RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s?

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 5:35:05 AM

talibahh

Posts: 389
Joined: 4/9/2006
From: NSW Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reflectivesoul

quote:

ORIGINAL: RavenMuse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reflectivesoul
<edited to add> oh lord lets not discuss the train wrecks again Raven *chuckles n passes out popcorn* ( oh and before anyone gets the wrong idea... I'm talking about another thread entirely...)

You get the popcorn, I'll grab the cokes. Meet ya in the lobby

I'm already there lol just waitin for Ms I to catch up with Us lol lol oh and we have ta bring tali *grins* she's just too cute to leave behind, plus she lets me paddle her hiney *winks*

giggles and wiggles her tali-feather (as opposed to tail-feather) at RS

... thanks...i'll be right over too

... i love popcorn

_____________________________

"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time" ~ Sir Winston Churchill

in giving You my freedom, i gain the freedom to be me ...
~ tali ~

(in reply to Reflectivesoul)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 5:37:37 AM

Reflectivesoul

Posts: 1777
Joined: 4/25/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: talibahh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reflectivesoul

quote:

ORIGINAL: RavenMuse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reflectivesoul
<edited to add> oh lord lets not discuss the train wrecks again Raven *chuckles n passes out popcorn* ( oh and before anyone gets the wrong idea... I'm talking about another thread entirely...)

You get the popcorn, I'll grab the cokes. Meet ya in the lobby

I'm already there lol just waitin for Ms I to catch up with Us lol lol oh and we have ta bring tali *grins* she's just too cute to leave behind, plus she lets me paddle her hiney *winks*

giggles and wiggles her tali-feather (as opposed to tail-feather) at RS ... thanks...i'll be right over too ... i love popcorn

heh I know the song *pats the sofa cushion next to me n grins*

( on a side note I dont think Raven thought you to be disrespectful, I think He was trying to let you know that He agrees with your stance hun *hugs* )

(in reply to talibahh)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 5:42:25 AM

MHOO314

Posts: 3628
Joined: 9/26/2004
Status: offline

I had to walk away and think about this one, funny that it appears as I am addressing this subject with a student--I think it is all about T/them--when I refer to the dance of the dynamic, I use the Yin/Yang symbols and meaning a lot---and if you have studied them, there are times when the Yang has actually rotated the position of strength---as has been said--a Dominant without a complementing submissive is simply another person seeking--and vice versa---but when things match, it is the (IMHEO) YinYang---a submissive comes to the table with wants, needs and desires--you cannot expect them not to, they are human with emotions, they aren't robotrons-- and Dominants, well we KNOW have wants, needs and desires. In the beginning, it may be all about Me or all about you but as the relationship develops and grows, there is an agreement how the YinYang will work and flow--it is about the relationship, the give and the take--yes the Dominant takes on "more responsibility" BUT only if the submissive allows that to happen. And at any given moment One or the other may be in control--<smiles> a topic for a different thread I'd think.

_____________________________

SLUTS: Southern Ladies Under Tremendous Stress...

Mistress Hathor

(in reply to RavenMuse)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 5:42:37 AM

talibahh

Posts: 389
Joined: 4/9/2006
From: NSW Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reflectivesoul

quote:

ORIGINAL: talibahh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reflectivesoul

quote:

ORIGINAL: RavenMuse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reflectivesoul

I'm already there lol just waitin for Ms I to catch up with Us lol lol oh and we have ta bring tali *grins* she's just too cute to leave behind, plus she lets me paddle her hiney *winks*

giggles and wiggles her tali-feather (as opposed to tail-feather) at RS ... thanks...i'll be right over too ... i love popcorn

heh I know the song *pats the sofa cushion next to me n grins*

( on a side note I dont think Raven thought you to be disrespectful, I think He was trying to let you know that He agrees with your stance hun *hugs* )

Thanks... and plonks her tali-feather down next to ya... and shuts up, to watch quietly, so as not to hi-jack the thread anymore than she already has

_____________________________

"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time" ~ Sir Winston Churchill

in giving You my freedom, i gain the freedom to be me ...
~ tali ~

(in reply to Reflectivesoul)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 5:42:48 AM

feastie

Posts: 1793
Joined: 6/4/2004
Status: offline

The D/s dynamic is really not much different than a plain ol' vanilla dynamic. Two people meet, find the other attractive and voila!, a relationship is born. One of the partners controls the relationship to a larger degree than the other. It's just how the two people function.

The good thing about a D/s relationship, is that the two people involved understand the power exchange dynamic and embrace it, where the vanilla couple probably don't even think about it. The D/s couple, in the realization of their power exchange, "should" share more and be more honest about things than the vanilla couple would be. The D/s couple takes their relationship deeper than the vanilla couple. Not saying that a vanilla couple cannot have a very deep, loving and connected relationship, it's just somehow different.

If they are interested in S&M activities, they add those to the mix, but not every D/s couple does. Some vanilla couples enjoy a little kink in their bedrooms too.

The main difference is whether the dynamic is recognized and embraced. An example, my sister and her husband have been married for nearly 14 years. They are the epitome of the vanilla couple. TMI (and geez, I wish she wouldn't share this stuff with me) my brother-in-law doesn't enjoy a blow job. They have very straight, vanilla sex. However, he makes all the decisions and she calls him Sir. He decided they would not have more children (she has severe fertility problems) and decided that she would go ahead with her hysterectomy. They need a new telephone, but she isn't allowed to choose one, he has to be present to make the decision. In their 14 years of marriage, they've purchased two pieces of furniture. A couch and a loveseat, which are now 12 years old and showing their age. Everything else in their home is a hand-me down piece or a gift. He's a partner in a CPA firm, he has the money to furnish their home comfortably. But he has not decided that it's time to get a real kitchen table with real chairs, rather than an old hand-me-down piece with folding chairs. He is still using his chest-of-drawers from childhood. They are still white, yellow and blue. They coordinate very well with the spanish style bedroom set that had belonged to my parents for 30 years. He decided to purchase a laptop for her use. She was not allowed any choice in what he purchased and she is not allowed to install software on it. She must wait for him to do it, although he is NOT a computer guru. (In fact, he's pretty computer stupid).

He would be shocked if anyone ever suggested to him that his lifestyle could be considered D/s (once we explained that one to him) and even more shocked to learn that most people who live a D/s lifestyle practice S&M. He'd probably turn white and sweat at the idea of being called Master, but she may as well, as he's made her pretty much a slave. She'd die to think that's what she is, though his clothing comes from expensive stores and hers from Wal-Mart.

But, they are happy.

After all that ramble, (forgive me, it's early), the point I'm driving at is that everyone is searching for someone that meets their needs, even if they can put a name to those needs or not. There is no contradiction in D/s, it's more of a fallacy that has been perpetrated within the lifestyle. Each person has his/her own needs. In order for both to be happy, those needs must be fulfilled. Symbiosis. Yin and Yang. Bread and butter

_____________________________

Snarky and loving it.

Disclaimer: Any views expressed in any post are my opinions only. They may or may not be yours.

(in reply to LadyMedhbh)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 5:58:15 AM

RavenMuse

Posts: 4030
Joined: 1/23/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: talibahh
Forgive me please RavenMuse, i meant no disrespect by my remarks... i have read many of Your posts and admire You as a Dom, as (i believe) i can see You are not a Dom who wouldnt care for His girl, i was merely stating how i see things, and not questioning You or Your remarks as such. i got and understood Your drift

As mentioned dear, I didn't think you where being disrespectful in the least. Mearly pointing out what had origionated the thought.

And even if you had been questioning.... nothing wrong in that at all, it is something I would expect a girl of my own to do if she was puzzled by something I said, let alone anyone else. If someone doesn't understand but they don't question then no-one is going to realise they need an explination.

_____________________________

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Owner of metalmiss

(in reply to talibahh)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 6:56:01 AM

cloudboy

Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

So, what you are trying to say is that she's stuck in the eternal, college-boy, hand-me-down, furniture nightmare.

(in reply to feastie)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 6:59:16 AM

thetammyjo

Posts: 6322
Joined: 9/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RavenMuse

OK so Subs have a need to serve, yes, to focus on the needs of their Dom, to bring pleasure to their Master, make his life easier in any way they can.

But it is a need of theirs, fullfilling it makes THEM happy, so doesn't that make it "About" the sub?

Doms have a need to control, direct, do things their way, take up the responcibility for the relationship.

But doesn't that responcibility mean ensuring both sets of needs are met. Given they should have already identified most of their own needs, doesn't that mean a lot of their focus and attention is on finding and learning the subs needs? Again, doesn't that make it "About" the sub?

Just a wayward thought on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
It maybe "My way" but it is ABOUT both of us

Couldn't you say this about almost anything human beings do?

I mean, even the old person who committs suicide so the nomadic tribe won't have to carry them or feed them food is also freeing themselves from feeling like a burden or worrying about things or dying at another time and place not of their choosing.

_____________________________

Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips & Chains,

TammyJo

Check out my website at http://www.thetammyjo.com Or www.tammyjoeckhart.com

And my LJ where I post fiction in progress if you "friend" me at http://thetammyjo.livejournal.com/

(in reply to RavenMuse)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 7:03:19 AM

cloudboy

Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

I wouldn't worry about it as there is no bitterness in it, it is just an observation. Any bitterness you see in my post is merely a projection on your part. I'm not after a sub so sleep easy, I've never been after a sub because I don't want to accommodate one in my life nor modify my behaviour for one. I do not want to be ruled by someone's fantasy. That is not bitterness, it's an intellectual decision.

Sorry, I think Darq's barking up the right tree. Although you may not be "bitter," you're definitely somewhat jaded.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 5/21/2006 7:04:35 AM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 7:21:38 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

I can go along with jaded. The willingness to put all the effort into maintaining a relationship is just not there but then one has to love or be infatuated with someone to be energised into putting the effort in, certainly for me at least. The thought of controling a woman just for the sake of kinky sex or because some need in me to boss someone around or be in charge of them, just doesn't rock my boat. I can't get my head round seeking someone out for such a dynamic, well not if sex isn't involved. Why lie about that? You just have to read peoples profiles and to me, the sexes seem clearly divided. Woman wants relationship, man wants sex. If being aware of that is jaded, I'm certainly jaded.

(in reply to cloudboy)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 7:39:30 AM

TeeGO

Posts: 451
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sharainks

To me its kind of a symbiotic relationship. Both require the other half to have it work. The dom without a sub has no one to dominate while the sub without a dom has no one to submit to. Both people fill the other's needs. If this were not so both people would be looking elsewhere.

I've always thought the term submissive was a misnomer. Submissives can be very aggressive in seeking someone that is able to meet their need for dominance. Notice that I use the word need. Not want, not desire, but need. If this is an emotional need in the way that air, water, etc. is a physical need then you do what you have to to get that need met.

Submissives will weed out those who are not capable of meeting their needs in the same way doms weed out those who aren't capable of serving them in the way they need.

I agree completely with this. In the search both will easily weed out those they do not find compatible. The right connection is the key. It's always "all about the Dom/me and their needs" when the connection is made. For when the connection is made the Dom/me's needs and wants ARE the driving force for the sub.
The cart must be before the horse. First the connection, then the Dom/me's needs, then the sub's needs fulfilled in service.

(in reply to sharainks)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 8:17:26 AM

catize

Posts: 3020
Joined: 3/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RavenMuse

OK so Subs have a need to serve, yes, to focus on the needs of their Dom, to bring pleasure to their Master, make his life easier in any way they can.

But it is a need of theirs, fullfilling it makes THEM happy, so doesn't that make it "About" the sub?

Doms have a need to control, direct, do things their way, take up the responcibility for the relationship.

But doesn't that responcibility mean ensuring both sets of needs are met. Given they should have already identified most of their own needs, doesn't that mean a lot of their focus and attention is on finding and learning the subs needs? Again, doesn't that make it "About" the sub?

Just a wayward thought on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
It maybe "My way" but it is ABOUT both of us

We all do what we do because we 'get' something from it. I work because I get a paycheck every 2 weeks; does that mean the job is all about me? I clean my house, not because I enjoy it, but because I enjoy the results.
I am in agreement here, it is not ALL about the dominant or the submissive. It takes work from both sides of the D/s coin to keep the relationship going.
I have met dominants who had no interest in fulfilling my masochistic desires. That is no reflection on his dominance or on my submissiveness. It just means we moved on to find what we each wanted.
I often wonder about the dominants who complain that a submissive 'dare' state what they want or need. Would that dominant prefer a disgruntled unhappy submissive?

_____________________________

"Power is real. But it's a lot less real if it's not perceived as power."
Robert Parker, Stranger in Paradise

(in reply to RavenMuse)

Profile

Post #: 32

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 8:50:01 AM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

It's always all about the sub. You have just to look at the profiles and the demands of your average sub. They are looking for someone who can service them to their requirements. The often stated need of the sub which many state as 'the need to serve' is a nonsense if you analyse the dynamic going on.

They are not applying for a position such as a job where the Dom/boss has the power of choice and the sub/employee is paid in money or kind for their services. The sub has the power of contract over the Dom or simply moves on. Just an observation.

This power dynamic between male dom and female sub is just the same as the power dynamic between men and women in vanilla relationships and has nothing to do with kink though it is dressed up that way. This is why I've always thought that the labels dom and sub are misnomers. The fact that a sub temporarily gives up power within the negotiated perameters of a relationship is irrelevent.

This is why I can't take D/s relationships overly serious and just prefer to indulge in kink because if everyone is consenting, it means everyone has an equal say in the model of the relationship.

Yes it is all about me before I submit to someone else...I live my life for myself, I get up for myself, I work on me for me, I go to work for me. I put a profile up on websites for me, I wrote my profile here for me.

I get off on serving someone I submit to, and yes I love the feeling of giving to people. If I didn't enjoy this I wouldnt do it. I find your attitude surprising since I have read you several times state you do not want a D/s relationship, yet bemoan here that subs are out for themselves. Since you obviously have no desire to own a sub, why would any of us serve you?

I suppose some still have this idea that submissives should be submissive to anyone that identifies themselves as a dominant... well this one doesnt... if that makes me "unsubmissive", well I can live with that. I am submissive only to the dominant I serve, no one else. If I serve someone else because my dominant tells me to, I am still serving him.

As to the OP, well lets just say it is a paradox as much as a contridiction. I serve my dom because I want to serve him, he enjoys my service and wants to dominate me. I give my power to him, and he returns it in the form of energy back to me... That is why I love the term power exchange because that's what it is, an exchange. Just because the submissive chooses the role on the bottom (and if we are SSC then of course the sub has a choice), it does not mean she gives without receiving anything back.

Someone once told me "I play nice with my toy, if I do not play nice with my toy I will lose or break it... And then I will not have a toy anymore"... That pretty much says it all for me.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 33

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 8:53:20 AM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

meatcleaver,

YOU may just want sex and you may have only met women who want relationships, but the real world is a lot bigger than that. I could have all the sex I want now that I am single with a very wide range of women, but I choose not to. There are lots of women perfectly willing to "just" have sex with me. I have had very few partners despite many opportunities, preferring long term monogamous relationships instead.

Believe me, I am not alone in this, many men enjoy relationships and there are many women who just want sex. The world was not built with a cookie cutter.

As for D/s, I believe it is like ballroom dance, one follows, one leads. To dance well, both must listen intently to their partner in order to dance beautifully and gracefully together. It may look to the casual observer like nobody is in charge, but the two know exactly who is leading and who is following.

As for needs, anyone who believes it is ALL about the dominant is living in some chatroom fantasy. That is a far cry from saying it is all about the submissive either. A dominant makes it clear he is looking for a submissive who's needs fit his. A dominant who loves very formal service isn't going to be happy with a social butterfly. I do not use floggers and single tails, (partly because they DO reek of service to me) so I am not likely to form a bond with a submissive who lives for them, but someone who likes deep intense emotional play and loves a man who can get inside her mind is going to find me hard to resist.

So, I end up with women who's needs fit mine and if things work out, we dance the night away, her following, me leading, both of us moving beautifully and gracefully through life together.

(in reply to catize)

Profile

Post #: 34

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 8:59:30 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

I am not bemoaning the fact that subs are in it for themselves. I am merely stating the obvious which inherently contradicts the idea behind D/s. The OP post highlights this contradiction and I was commenting on it. Power exchange doesn't really exist in a consenting relationship, it is merely fantasy acted out, even though it appears to be taken largely as reality by many people.

I pointed out I'm not interested in participating or spending my time on such a fantasy as it doesn't do anything for me but prefer instead, to just enjoy kink for itself.

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Profile

Post #: 35

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 9:06:07 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

Obviously I'm upsetting many people's views of the world, not that that bothers me. I think my main point was that the terms dom and sub are misnomers and that people are really indulging in a very equal relationship. Both partners in the relationship are fastened to the leash and it is pretty irrelevent who is being led and who is leading.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Profile

Post #: 36

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 9:17:59 AM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

I don't see the contradiction. It's "about" BOTH. The sub is fulfilled by being submissive. The dom is fulfilled by being dominant. Why doesn't it work? I thought it worked...

(in reply to RavenMuse)

Profile

Post #: 37

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 9:19:46 AM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

A man who claims all women want to be in relationships and all men want is sex is claiming OTHERS are living in a fantasy world? Now THAT is pretty rich. As for upsetting my or any others world view, you have yet to show the intellectual horsepower to be anything other than an amusing foil for others thoughts

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 38

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 9:23:58 AM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

YOU may just want sex and you may have only met women who want relationships, but the real world is a lot bigger than that. I could have all the sex I want now that I am single with a very wide range of women, but I choose not to. There are lots of women perfectly willing to "just" have sex with me. I have had very few partners despite many opportunities, preferring long term monogamous relationships instead.

Believe me, I am not alone in this, many men enjoy relationships and there are many women who just want sex. The world was not built with a cookie cutter.

As for D/s, I believe it is like ballroom dance, one follows, one leads. To dance well, both must listen intently to their partner in order to dance beautifully and gracefully together. It may look to the casual observer like nobody is in charge, but the two know exactly who is leading and who is following.

As for needs, anyone who believes it is ALL about the dominant is living in some chatroom fantasy. That is a far cry from saying it is all about the submissive either. A dominant makes it clear he is looking for a submissive who's needs fit his. A dominant who loves very formal service isn't going to be happy with a social butterfly. I do not use floggers and single tails, (partly because they DO reek of service to me) so I am not likely to form a bond with a submissive who lives for them, but someone who likes deep intense emotional play and loves a man who can get inside her mind is going to find me hard to resist.

So, I end up with women who's needs fit mine and if things work out, we dance the night away, her following, me leading, both of us moving beautifully and gracefully through life together.

One of the best posts I've seen to date on the forum.

FHky

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Profile

Post #: 39

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 9:29:20 AM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

Hello A/all,

I identify very strongly with the Asian philosophy of Taoism. This came about as somewhat of a response to Confucianism's rigid heirarchy.

The symbol of The Tao, or what westerners call the Yin/Yang symbol, appear to be ocean waves, one light, one dark, crashing against each other. Each wave has an eye. The eye is the essence of what makes up it's complement. What is curious about westerner's insistence on calling it the Yin/Yang symbol is that the Tao (loosely translates into The Way) is actually the circle, dynamic, or principle surrounding the Yin and the Yang.

The eye is symbolic of the fact that polar complements (people call them opposites, but this is incorrect, they each contain what comprises the other) cannot exist without their other half.

To get back to your inherent contradiction. Taoism teaches that opposition and conflict is inevitable and expected. To find enlightenment is to be disengaged from either side in the conflict and seek the principle which binds them.

I would say that the closest response to what I feel was the person who posted "It is all about U/us." To me, the dynamic created by the Dominant and the submissive is what it is all about. Each side of the complement finds what it needs in the dynamic.

Just me, could be wrong, yadda yadda yadda.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to talibahh)

Profile

Post #: 40