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  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 4:28:28 PM   
Estring


Posts: 3314
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		It's always all about the sub. You have just to look at the profiles and the demands of your average sub


That's why I prefer slaves.

_____________________________

Boycott Whales!

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 4:32:38 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline 		I BEG to disagree. And I am on my knees: it is not just about the sub, it is about the Dom/sub interraction (which can be very beautiful). I know little about the people who describel themselves as slaves, but since you prefer their company, and as they are around for your taking, enjoy them!

Life is a rich tapistry, blah blah blah.

_____________________________



(in reply to Estring)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 4:38:15 PM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline 		I love listening to those who deem submissives in control because of what they read in profiles.  Clearly the irony of that escapes them.

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 4:41:53 PM   
feastie


Posts: 1793
Joined: 6/4/2004
Status: offline 		Oh ye of tiny thought process, how limited art thou ways

Edited to add:  This comment is in no way directed to CrappyDom.  I just used Fast Reply.  It's a little challenging to warm butter in one hand and type with the other.

And just for reference, I'm making icing for a cake.

< Message edited by feastie -- 5/21/2006 4:49:38 PM >

_____________________________

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 CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 4:45:08 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		Estring, have you met any subs that did not have profiles? I mean the real time subs that have doms? The ones that go to munches or belong to associations? Or are you basing your judgment on profiles alone? Believe it or not, there are many subs in the world that do not find doms online and they do not write profiles .. I do not happen to be one of them..he he... but I have heard they really exist. (LOL)

(on edit I do date doms in the real world that I met online,...lol.. never been to a munch or such yet)

< Message edited by juliaoceania -- 5/21/2006 4:46:15 PM >

_____________________________

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 Estring)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 4:56:15 PM   
bandit25


Posts: 3029
Joined: 6/18/2005
Status: offline 		Demands?  What demands?  Oh, you mean preferences...well, yes, there are many subs that state their preferences...like no poly or no married men.  If those bother you, well then by all mean, you stick to slaves.  But, I believe that the smart slave will have picked a Master that shares his or her general outlook.  Thus a slave who does not care for poly will most likely pick a Master who doesn't share.  But that's different...or is it?

(in reply to Estring)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 5:04:05 PM   
Level


Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: feastie

Oh ye of tiny thought process, how limited art thou ways

Edited to add:  This comment is in no way directed to CrappyDom.  I just used Fast Reply.  It's a little challenging to warm butter in one hand and type with the other.

And just for reference, I'm making icing for a cake.


Ummmhmm, you can tell us what it's for, buttery one

(in reply to feastie)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 5:10:25 PM   
feastie


Posts: 1793
Joined: 6/4/2004
Status: offline 		A client giving a going away party to a couple of people in her Bible study group.  White/Vanilla cake, 100% pure Madagascar vanilla extract flavored buttercream, a white chocolate cross, a few buttercream roses and a Bible verse done in gold.

Or did you mean the comment?

_____________________________

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 Level)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 5:27:48 PM   
Estring


Posts: 3314
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		julia,
Yes I do know many wonderful subs and slaves in r/l. I do own a slave who I also married one year ago in July. I have nothing against subs. I was speaking as to what I prefer in a relationship. I believe that a sub in reality is the ultimate controller of the relationship. Many would differ with me and that is fine. But my personal preference would be a slave.

< Message edited by Estring -- 5/21/2006 5:28:44 PM >

_____________________________

Boycott Whales!

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 5:39:10 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		It just seems to me that it is a very individual thing, I am sure there are some that call themselves "slave" that are very manipulative and controlling... I am sure there are many that call themselves subs that love surrendering complete control to their owner. I see this as you stereotyping people based upon the labels they assign themselves. Many slaves started out as subs, many subs started out as slaves... It really IS just a self identifying label... and even subs and slaves cant decide the difference between themselves. And I will stop this post here before I tread on this becoming a slave v sub debate.. which is silly and overdone.

_____________________________

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 Estring)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 6:12:33 PM   
OhBeMyMind


Posts: 845
Joined: 11/19/2004
From: Panama City, Florida
Status: offline 		Very nicely said julia, thank you.


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

It just seems to me that it is a very individual thing, I am sure there are some that call themselves "slave" that are very manipulative and controlling... I am sure there are many that call themselves subs that love surrendering complete control to their owner. I see this as you stereotyping people based upon the labels they assign themselves. Many slaves started out as subs, many subs started out as slaves... It really IS just a self identifying label... and even subs and slaves cant decide the difference between themselves. And I will stop this post here before I tread on this becoming a slave v sub debate.. which is silly and overdone.


_____________________________

~oh

~*~I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not~*~

~she'll tease you, she'll unease you, all the better just to please you~ K.C

~Well would you look at that! My give-a-damn just broke~

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 6:16:54 PM   
Sabella


Posts: 265
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline 		Interesting topic!!!!

I'm not sure I agree 100% with the "Dom can't be a Dom without a sub" and vice versa. Sure they COULD by extending their influence in the work place, with friends, family, ect. I think the inherent nature of both (Dom and sub) probably manifests itself in many areas of their life, probably moreso if they don't have someone they can focus on in a relationship *taps teeth*

However hiding a submissive nature (or trying to) is probably more the norm for many subs to prevent being taken advantage of in casual relationships like with friends, family & work. But a dominate personality would and could manifest quite easily, and probably to their advantage in their casual relationships.

So with that being said....I've heard of several Dom/Dom relationships and they seem to get along pretty well, even if they have to get their "fix" outside the relationship. I've not heard of many sub/sub ones tho, except broken or miserable ones when the pair realized their desire for a more assertive partner was not being met. Whether statistically this is true I have no idea, just basing this on the folks *I* know about, vanilla & in the lifestyle.

I don't think it's the sole responsibility of anyone to meet every desire of the other party's....it would be sheer fantasy. They would be wanting perfection and happily nobody is perfect. But the NEEDS - well if you break that down we NEED air, food, water, shelter. Everything else is a luxury right? So satisfying all those desires (of both parties) may be a stretch. This is where compromise comes in. I personally don't think that a relationship can be successful if one is rock and the other is water, as in one has desires that MUST be met 100%. This is foolhardy and a recipe for failure, IMHO.

So I think it is the striving to meet those desires that makes the relationship, and depending on the couple - it may be 90/10, 70/30, 50/50 or some other crazy percentage most of the time, and yet that percentage can and will change daily depending on many factors. Initially one partner may exhibit more "desires" as "needs" until they are more comfortable with the relationship - but this too I think is normal and apt to change as the relationship continues.




_____________________________

“The giant Grof was hit in one eye by a stone,
and that eye turned inward so that it looked into his mind and he died of what he saw there.”
From The Forgotten Beasts of Eld, by Patricia A. McKillip

(in reply to RavenMuse)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/21/2006 6:19:17 PM   
slavejali


Posts: 2918
Status: offline 		I think it depends which angle you're looking from.

If your talking about relationship - its all about both people.

If you talking about who is taking control of the relationship - its all about the Dominant.

If you talking about what the submissive will or will not do..its all about the submissive.

All in all, life is all about "us"...well unless someone is an incredibly selfish individual..then its all about "me".

_____________________________

Freedom in Bondage

Different Strokes for Different Folks

"I'll always have a *soft spot* for Sadists"

(in reply to talibahh)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/22/2006 12:00:43 AM   
KnightofMists


Posts: 7149
Joined: 7/29/2005
Status: offline 		 
Your inherent contradiction seems to based on the universal thought process that

quote:


Subs have a need to serve……………. Doms have a need to control


This contradiction is based on a faulty premise.  You universal application that Subs need to serve and Doms need to control can be quickly discounted.  Just reading the thread, considering myself and my girls, these universal needs that you suggest are actually not so universal and any conclusions drawn from such faulty premise is going to have so many exceptions that the exceptions will be the rule.

One should consider what is a Need?  We have physiological needs, Such as clothing, food and shelter.   This doesn’t indicate the quality/type of clothing, food and/or shelter one may require.  IE;  person in the Tropics will required much different clothing than one in the Artic regions.  These basic physiological needs are required to allow us as an “individual” to live.  However, once our physiological needs have been met, improving the quality of the needs will not allow us to be any more alive than another.  However, we can live happier when we are improving the quality that our basic needs are being met.

The psychological needs of a person are not a lot different than our physiological needs.  We as human being have basic psychological needs that must be met if we are to maintain the self-motivation to live.  What are these basic needs?  Scholars and Scientists have had varying opinion and thoughts on the topic.  I personally find the thoughts and opinions of Dr Ryan and Dr Deci to be the most inviting.  It is their premise that we as humans required Competence, Relatedness and Autonomy to be met as an individual if we are to maintain our basic motivation to live and a desire to improve its quality.  Like our physiological needs, meeting our basic psychological needs do not make us more alive than the next person.  It is the improving the quality to which our needs are being met that will improve our quality of life and general Well-Being.

When one considers the ‘need to serve’ or the ‘need to control’, what one is really expressing is a higher quality of a more basic need being met.  Not much different than one who can live on hamburgers, improves the quality by having steak as a stable diet.  However, not everyone wants steak.  Many thoughts on improving the quality of meeting their basic needs could include more fruit or exotic foods such as caviar.  Not unlike improving the quality of meeting our basic physiological needs.  Many will choose many different aspects that will improve the quality of their basic psychological needs.  It is for this reason that we have such a array of interests, desires that bring each individual happiness.  It is my premise that we as a society will continue to have more divergent interests and desires the further we are from the minimal requirements of meeting our basic psychological and physiological needs.


Maslow Hierarchy of needs has been a fundamental view point on the needs of humans ever since he put forward is premise.  Thou many question the value of what he determined as the needs and the order of this hierarchy, his model of human needs being a hierarchy in my opinion has a lot of value.

quote:



…Subs have a need to serve, ……………

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


Considering this to be a contradiction is faulty because you are comparing a need for improving ones quality of life as compared to a lower hierarchy need of being “Happy”.   A great majority of humanity is driven to live a happy life.  For some, they find this happiness in devoting their skills, abilities and life to a cause or person.  Slaves, subs are not the only ones that serve another that find that this actually brings them an improved quality of life.  Religious persons would be another example.  What you put forward is not a contradiction.  But is evidence of one fulfilling a lower need in their personal needs hierarchy.  A Hierarchy that diverges from others as they improve on the fulfillment of their needs.


_____________________________

Knight of Mists

An Optimal relationship is achieved when the individuals do what is best for themselves and their relationship.

(in reply to RavenMuse)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/22/2006 12:08:06 AM   
Estring


Posts: 3314
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		I am not stereotyping anyone. I am stating my opinion and preference derived from my experiences, which works for me, but I certainly understand that others have their opinions that work for them. That is the beauty of these boards, right?

_____________________________

Boycott Whales!

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/22/2006 1:17:45 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		Yep. I stated my opinion which is the reason I prefer to be single and enjoy kink and don't take the idea of D/s relationships too seriously. However, not being into someone elses kink seems to mean you are somehow psychotic or psychologically deficient.

Or as crappydom puts it 'I love listening to those who deem submissives in control because of what they read in profiles.  Clearly the irony of that escapes them.' Intellectually challenged when I clearly wrote I had spoke to many subs in r/l (I go to many events) and pointed to profiles as a means to support what my r/l experiences have been.

(in reply to Estring)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/22/2006 1:20:32 AM   
becca333


Posts: 1050
Joined: 4/11/2006
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



Yep, it's all about ME!

Of course, I'm smart enough not to let him realise that.  So we're both happy.

(in reply to RavenMuse)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/22/2006 4:43:24 AM   
agirl


Posts: 4530
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline 		[
[/quote]

It is an equal exchange of needs and desires.  One needing to control, the other needing to submit.  One without the other is ....well a cake without icing?
 
piscess
[/quote]

It CAN be about an exchange of *needs* and *desires*......but not necessarily so. There are as many routes to deciding to live a certain way as there are people.

Deciding to bend your will to another person's differs slightly from *needing* to.

Sometimes things that are good for you; help you flourish as a person, be well, benefit you, are not things that you'd actually seek out, because they are uncomfortable.

There's a difference between aiming to satisfy a *need* and choosing an environment that you recognise, rationally, that you operate more productively in.

agirl

Edited for horrible mistype...lol









< Message edited by agirl -- 5/22/2006 5:19:16 AM >

(in reply to piscess)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/22/2006 7:13:58 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		To nobody in particular ...
 
I think it's important to remember that if you quit your job today and went out of your way to meet as many dominants, switches and submissives as you could ... in six months you would still probably be well under a 0.1% sample group.
 
This is an interesting discussion, but the sum total of our individual sample groups is still too small to form any conclusion past pure speculation.

(in reply to agirl)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? - 5/22/2006 8:06:13 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		I was stating my opinion that I felt you were stereotyping subs and slaves (and subs negatively I might add in that we are all in control over our doms). Now you can stereotype people all you like, it is your opinion which is as valid as my own. I WOULD recommend you do a search on the great sub v slave debate here and find out how silly it really is.


I do not know what you mean by "demands". My own profile has no demands on it other than stating I do not date married men and I am not poly or bi. That is not a demand on anyone, it is a statement of fact. A demand is if I stated that I require a dom to do XYZ in his first email to me. I do not do that. I state who I am and what I am looking for... there are no demands in my profile.

You see some of us think that we should be crystal clear as to what we want because otherwise some other dom is going to come on this board and whine about how we werent  clear enough.... plenty of those threads abound on this board. Personally I want a dom that has certain traits,... number one they should be into me and court me at first, because if they aren't, well lets just say I do not want to submit to someone who is wishy washy about me. I do want to give my power to the right dominant... alas.... that is definitely a hard find.

_____________________________

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 Estring)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.094