RE: Social Dominance

RE: Social Dominance (Full Version)

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

Message

LadyPact -> RE: Social Dominance (4/12/2012 2:10:42 AM)
Awareness, it is good to see you back. I was wondering about you just this morning. Now I'll give you credit where it is due. From time to time, I have compared My sadism to others because I have often found that sadism is a great equalizer. There are some men who I identify more on a sadistic level. It is not because they are men, but rather because they are sadists. I know that I feel what they feel in expressing it. In My own head, I separate Dominance and sadism. Not all that long ago, I was not a sadist, but pretty much, a protocol D. Power appealed to Me, but not pain. Sadism came much later. Perhaps I can see what you mean about online bravado. Again, this is why I choose to pick on Jeff. Not only have we discussed this in great detail, we have had the in person experience to see that we don't have to do that. I would be greatly surprised if he saw Me as "female" at all. Rather, just another D.

Awareness -> RE: Social Dominance (4/12/2012 2:20:15 AM)
Oh, they'll probably get rid of me again, soon enough - one of the mods is running a personal vendetta. From my perspective, the assumption of Dominant characteristics is a turn towards masculinity. In much the same way in which women who compete in the corporate world assume male characteristics in doing so and find their femininity impacted. Consequently, men are more likely to see you as a competitor than an object of desire. So in that sense, you're probably right, although I suspect we vary on our assessment of the reasons why. The competitive sadism thing is fairly obvious, although I have no idea if it also occurs in the kink social space. I suspect it does although it might take a sharp observer to realise it.

LadyPact -> RE: Social Dominance (4/12/2012 2:21:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC My "consent" doesn't matter. So now who's dominant here? Look, I really had no desire to get into this, but if you're going to toss this out there, I'll tell you. She is. As I've mentioned before, you're a service top. She controls the relationship - that much is very clear from your posts and the fact that you can't even release her is clear evidence of such. You'd better serve yourself by realising the reality of your situation instead of inventing complex explanations for why your particular brand of dominance is 'different'. It's not different, it's just not what you think it is. No, she's really not. I've seen it. Yes, Jeff would happily be a service top to the 'relationship' if that was what was needed. However, when it's time to call the shots, he really is in charge. It wasn't even him who showed Me this. It was Carol. Probably one of the best demonstrations of M/s in My time.

LadyPact -> RE: Social Dominance (4/12/2012 2:31:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Oh, they'll probably get rid of me again, soon enough - one of the mods is running a personal vendetta. From my perspective, the assumption of Dominant characteristics is a turn towards masculinity. In much the same way in which women who compete in the corporate world assume male characteristics in doing so and find their femininity impacted. Consequently, men are more likely to see you as a competitor than an object of desire. So in that sense, you're probably right, although I suspect we vary on our assessment of the reasons why. The competitive sadism thing is fairly obvious, although I have no idea if it also occurs in the kink social space. I suspect it does although it might take a sharp observer to realise it. Hmmm... Odd. Actually, I would say dick slamming about sadism is terribly apparent in social venues. Quite easy to spot, really. I don't know especially about the masculine quality thing. I've always felt feminine in Dominance.

Awareness -> RE: Social Dominance (4/12/2012 2:33:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact No, she's really not. I've seen it. Yes, Jeff would happily be a service top to the 'relationship' if that was what was needed. However, when it's time to call the shots, he really is in charge. It wasn't even him who showed Me this. It was Carol. Probably one of the best demonstrations of M/s in My time. Yeah, 'relationship' is a proxy name for Carol's will. You misunderstand. As a service top, he controls the execution of play. The bottom who's topping controls the direction of 'the relationship'. He controls short-term, she controls long-term. He'll release her if she wants him to, not otherwise. If she wants to be cut, he becomes a sadist. If she decides she wants him to fuck men, he'll turn bi. At every turn, this term 'the relationship' and supposed concern for the health thereof is used as a driving force for the execution of her will. It's adroitly done and I'd be interested to meet her because she's really pulled a neat trick, but his self-testimony makes it patently obvious. I must confess to being curious about what techniques she's used.

RedMagic1 -> RE: Social Dominance (4/12/2012 6:10:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness As a service top, he controls the execution of play. The bottom who's topping controls the direction of 'the relationship'. He controls short-term, she controls long-term. He'll release her if she wants him to, not otherwise. Sure, it's clear that she internally enslaved him to become the master in the relationship. But once you land on Fantasy Island, does it really matter if you took a boat or a plane, or who drove the vehicle or bought the tickets? I think you are correct, and I think LadyPact is correct too. She is discussing how Jeff and Carol cavort through the palm trees; you are discussing how they arrived at the island in the first place, and why they stay there. Where you and I part ways is that you assign a certain moralism, and gender-specificity, to dominance versus submission. I don't. In fact, I think questions like, "Am I dominating or being a service top?" are a waste of my mental energy. What I think about are questions like, "Am I doing something that makes me, and the ones I care for, healthy and fulfilled?"

JeffBC -> RE: Social Dominance (4/12/2012 9:34:39 AM)
~fast reply Red, LP, and Awareness~ LP: I see you as a person, not a dominant. I'd only see you as a dominant in some moment where that mattered. In general, yes, I did toss that out there and I'm certainly not offended at Awareness taking it up. I personally find it fascinating. In the end though, I think the part that is being missed here is that the entire conversation makes no sense. Carol's and my hopes, wishes, needs, and desires are so tightly intertwined that it doesn't really make sense to use transitive verbs like "command". I'm not sure we have the two people required for one to command and one to obey in general terms. In fact, the "releasing" of her clearly indicates how it works for us. This all occurred at a time when we were angry, frustrated, and hurt by each other. Accordingly, this is some of our worst relationship behavior (barring really short-term periods like an hour or two to get angry). Generally, we are much more in sync than this. On the very rare occasions when we're not on the same page, our thoughts are more towards getting on the same page than winning. I wanted to release Carol because I was unwilling to compromise on what I meant by "mine" and aspects of that were bad for her. She wanted to stay "mine" because she thought it was good for me. I dug inside myself and started reworking the part of me that loves owning her. She dug inside and removed the cognitive dissonances that was making it bad for her. Having done so and convinced me of same, what would be the point of sticking with the "release her" option? It was no longer bad for her. Divorce, is simply not one of the options on the table right now and that would be the only way I could enforce the command "stop obeying me." Hence, she ends up not-released. By the way, had I beat her to the finish line then she would've been released. The moment I could honestly tell her that I didn't want to own her any more then she would "consent" to being released. None of that story sounds much like anything I read here which is the source of the question, "So who's really dominant?" In the BDSM-sense in which Awareness thinks of it, the answer is neither one of us. In the social sense that I think of it, it's clearly me and anyone who met us both would agree. In the sexual sense it's undefined. I'm not sure either of us cares about that enough to sort it out. We like lots of skin touching lots of our partner's skin.

CarolBC -> RE: Social Dominance (4/12/2012 10:29:24 AM)
Fast Reply: It's rather odd to be the object of this much attention! For the record, Jeff's in charge. When we were about to be married, I asked my mom if she had any advice - at that time she had been married to Pop for about 55 years (they made it to 69 1/2 before he died)...she thought, and said, "Well, you just have to dismiss a lot." I've heeded that and added to it the things I learned from Buddhism, mainly: don't hold so tightly to your ego. So... if Jeff wants something that makes me uncomfortable, I go to those two thoughts. And... YES, he has asked for things that make me uncomfortable, usually big things, like revising my limits of what's appropriate in public. Or exposing more of my private life than I would have EVER done (HELLO! Everyone here friggin' knows a LOT about me!). Fundamentally, Jeff likes this ownership business and I like pleasing him and I like how our relationship feels when we're all gushy in love. Awareness, I feel that the words 'masculinity' and 'dominance' are wound together too tightly in your assessments, but that may be semantics. Lady Pact, I am flattered that you find my relationship with Jeff one of the 'best demonstrations' of M/s you've seen! It's been hard work! Thank you.

LaTigresse -> RE: Social Dominance (4/12/2012 11:51:03 AM)
I think that there are people, and Awareness seems to be one, that have a very rigid view of 'how it should be'. There are also people, who have a relationship, that appears to work fabulously for THEM. Most often, those two sets of people will not agree on 'how it should be'. For ME, I often see relationships that I would not define as those it in do. For ME, that doesn't matter. I am not IN that relationship. It all comes down to a serious lack of give a damn. What matters is that whatever it is, however it works, it's working for them. It doesn't have to fit MY definition of their description or labels. It doesn't have to fit anyone's labels but their own and how that fits with what fulfills them. I know that an awful lot of people get hung up on descriptives and labels. To a small degree I get it. But the reality is that, most of the time, it doesn't really matter. Only if it directly affects me and my life, does it matter. If it doesn't, what do I care if Jeff wants to call himself a purple people eater and Carol wants to call herself a pink dinner. If it works for THEM, then it's working. And to be honest, that's a helluva lot more than a lot of people on here seem to be able to say about their own labels, their own relationships (usually lack thereof). And as an aside, how the hell does personal relationship dynamics have ANYTHING to do with the social dominance I thought this thread was about?

JanahX -> RE: Social Dominance (4/12/2012 11:54:31 AM)
been wondering where youve been -

JeffBC -> RE: Social Dominance (4/12/2012 12:11:06 PM)
For the record, these two responses from Carol and I are SOOO typical laughs. Carol is Miss experiential girl. So for her, the reality is, "I tell her to do shit and she does whether or not she thinks it's a good thing to do." I tend to be more conceptual and I like to look at things a few layers deep. So while her experience in a day to day situation is certainly correct, my thinking is peeking below that surface layer and looking at what's "really" going on. The joke there, of course, is it's only "really" to me. "Really" to her is "Oh crap, he really just posted my face and my breasts in public on the internet where my family can find them."

JeffBC -> RE: Social Dominance (4/12/2012 2:24:05 PM)
Actually, LaT, for me at least this is one of the only useful "label" threads I've ever read. I'm intrigued by it because in tiny little bits it's digging at the mystery behind that word "dominance" that we all use so glibly. It's not that there's a right or wrong here. But there is a breadth of viewpoint that I'm liking. To answer your question about how did social dominance get into relationship dynamics, I think it's because both Myself and LadyPact see it that way despite our otherwise vast differences. Just to show solidarity, I even capitalized "myself" in that sentence :)

LaTigresse -> RE: Social Dominance (4/12/2012 2:42:23 PM)
I understand. I do think that the word 'dominance' gets lent so much more importance, big picture, than it deserves. Within the D/s and M/s, and even separately there, I think there are so many facets within the meanings of the word, we tend to get lost in it. I see on here, people that identify as submissive, writing in such a manner than is more dominant in feel than many of the people that identify as a D or M type. How that plays out within their social interactions, that's hard to tell but I have to assume that some of the personality traits expressed via words do bleed into our, in person, personalities. And THEN, we could go off on a whole other tangent on what exactly defines a person being dominant in nature, in person. If it is a gregarious social butterfly, I know s-types that are far more so than many dominant types. Is it a take charge behaviour....then again, many s-types very likely do, especially in a social situation because of their desire to serve and have things be perfect for others. I am just not sure where all of these invisible boundaries are supposed to be for others. Now if someone says something about that certain something, a quality that just exists, without words, actions, bravado.......I actually get that. And then as I said before, in MY experience socially, most of the domineering personalities are actually not strong people and good leaders. They tend to be weak and insecure, over compensating. Some of the people I know, for a fact, are leading their relationships and/or businesses, are too busy with things they feel are more important to behave in any sort of dominant way socially. Unless of course they feel it is absolutely necessary. The reality, they would rather assign others to take care of the stuff for them so they can either focus elsewhere, or sit back and visit with guests. So, it's just all very undefinable for me, to try and mix relationship modes with social modes.

LunaM -> RE: Social Dominance (4/12/2012 3:01:54 PM)
I agree LaTigresse. I personally am a very out-going friendly person in social situations, but very submissive with Master, even in social situations. My Master is very laid back, quiet, he observes, and he doesn't generally interfere with anything unless a topic is brought up that quips his interest or he thinks I am being disrespected. We both have fair sized egos that make us who we are and comfortable enough in our own skin to stand on our own two feet apart but we flow together in unison when we are together. It's natural for us. However, our definition of Master/slave may differ greatly or little from someone else. It is incredibly hard to pin down meanings when there is such a wide variety of personalities, thoughts, and thought patterns. I do believe that discussions like this gives us insight to other's way of viewing things and perhaps, along the way, some see their opinions and definitions do not differ as grandly as once thought.

Awareness -> RE: Social Dominance (4/12/2012 11:56:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Sure, it's clear that she internally enslaved him to become the master in the relationship. But once you land on Fantasy Island, does it really matter if you took a boat or a plane, or who drove the vehicle or bought the tickets? I think you are correct, and I think LadyPact is correct too. She is discussing how Jeff and Carol cavort through the palm trees; you are discussing how they arrived at the island in the first place, and why they stay there. It's possible to argue it's all semantics, and if I were perfectly honest, I'd admit to having been fairly irritated in the past by Jeff's apparent denial of what seemed so obvious to me. That irritation is pretty much my own problem and so I'm attempting to discuss this in a way which avoids condemnation. quote: Where you and I part ways is that you assign a certain moralism, and gender-specificity, to dominance versus submission. I don't. In fact, I think questions like, "Am I dominating or being a service top?" are a waste of my mental energy. What I think about are questions like, "Am I doing something that makes me, and the ones I care for, healthy and fulfilled?" That's a valid viewpoint and it probably helps to understand where my founding principles lie. In my world, each gender has archetypes which represent aspirational goals. Consequently, dominance is one of a number of implicitly masculine traits. The finest aspirational goal for many men is the possession of power, women, things and reputation. Similarly there are aspirational goals and a gender archetype for women. The issue many people have with that is the idea that this forms a prohibitive instruction on how to live and what to aim for. They point to those who don't seek such things and state that consequently, gender archetypes are arbitrary because they're not fully inclusive. My response to that is fairly brutal. The reason some people don't aim for gender archetypes is because they can't. It's the nature of the Bell curve. In life, some people are always going to be the losers. In my world, that's those who fail to aspire successfully toward their gender archetype. Point is, no matter what measure of success you use, whether it be gender archetypes or any other, there are ALWAYS losers and no aspirational model can include them all. The typical response to this is to state that everyone should decide their own path. At which point, I call bollocks, point out we all live in shared societies and so models of success and failure will always exist. There will always be losers. Reframing your notion of success to avoid being one of them is a complex form of self-deception. Unless you plan to live in isolation, your society's response to you will always be a clear indicator of your measure of success. Anyway. The practical upshot of all this is that I have the personality type which always aims for the clearest possible understanding of subjective reality. When people debate semantics, they often confuse the issue. An example of this is whenever anyone asks "What is a Dom?" and we get a bunch of 'twue Dom' responses which tries to pretend it's a uniquely personal definition. This, of course, is abject nonsense. One of the things Wittgenstein clearly demonstrated was that words have no functional definition which you can reason your way into. Words have a definition which is reached by consensus within the community in which they are utilised. They find utility because of that shared definition. Consequently the correct answer to "What is a Dom" is "Hang around and find out." - because ultimately, it's the conversations in which the word is used which impart its true meaning to those who are asking the question. So the question "Is someone a Dom or are they a Service Top?" has value because it refines, clarifies and contributes to the shared understanding of what those two things actually mean - even though that definition may be impossible to describe fully in words.

Awareness -> RE: Social Dominance (4/13/2012 12:12:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CarolBC It's rather odd to be the object of this much attention! It's in the abstract rather than the personal. quote: Awareness, I feel that the words 'masculinity' and 'dominance' are wound together too tightly in your assessments, but that may be semantics. To me, dominance is a masculine advantage, yes.

Bhruic -> RE: Social Dominance (4/13/2012 5:42:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness My response to that is fairly brutal. The reason some people don't aim for gender archetypes is because they can't. It's the nature of the Bell curve. In life, some people are always going to be the losers. In my world, that's those who fail to aspire successfully toward their gender archetype. That's a breathtakingly narrow view! You seem like an intelligent person (judging by your ability to write at least) so it surprises me that you would adopt a view so narrow that it perfectly simulates ignorance.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

7.421875E-02