Leggo my ego*! (Full Version)

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



Message

BitaTruble -> Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 1:54:17 AM)

If, as a dominant, you are interested in removal/reduction of your submissive partners ego, what are the steps you take to remove/lessen the ego of your submissive while allowing them to maintain uniqueness? How do you feel stripping away the 'reality' part of the mind helps/hurts the structure of your dynamic? Does control of the Id outweigh your propensity to have the desire to strip or lessen the ego or super-ego?

Freud wrote "... the installation of the super-ego can be described as a successful instance of identification with the parental agency..."

Do you, as a dominant, feel that you take the place of your submissives super-ego? What experiences are you willing to share if you have 'superceded' the super-ego of your submissive? Do you believe that the take-over of your submissives super-ego can be reversed and what process do you think would need to be put into place to reintroduce super-ego into a submissive who has transfered that influence to you?

As a submissive interested in removal/reduction of your ego, what techniques would work to allow you to achieve such a result? Do you feel that stripping your super-ego is necessary for a successful D/s or M/s relationship? How would or does that effect your daily interactions with your partner? How does that impact on your interactions with others outside of your personal dynamic?

eta: Question for switches.. (and feel free to answer any of the above as the mood strikes you!) - how does being a switch temper any motivation (if it does) to reduce/remove ego, control id or supercede your partners super-ego? I would love to see the answer to this question in conjunction with some of the others. (I'm nosy that way!)

* feel free to use standard dictionary definitions of id, ego and super-ego or to explain what you would mean by an alternative definition so we can all stay on the same page and understand one another




ARIES83 -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 2:34:04 AM)

It's all very interesting bita, I can't say I've ever
thought about it in that way. Not sure I can add
much either except to say I can't reconcile Freud's
logic with my own self exploration, so without going
into a huge essay about my childhood, i'll just point
out something I find funny.

-Wiki
The super-ego acts as the conscience,
maintaining our sense of morality and
proscription from taboos.-

A Dominant as I understand it would almost certainly
have well developed super-ego yet how do you
reconcile the above with BDSM, doesn't it at least
imply there are some holes in Freud's models?

-ARIES



BitaTruble -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 2:57:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ARIES83

-Wiki
The super-ego acts as the conscience,
maintaining our sense of morality and
proscription from taboos.-

A Dominant as I understand it would almost certainly
have well developed super-ego yet how do you
reconcile the above with BDSM, doesn't it at least
imply there are some holes in Freud's models?

-ARIES

An interesting premise. Are morals flexible through the agency of a D/s or M/s dynamic? My gut almost says they would have to be with a great big butt attached to it..

but..

I would think that a compatible partnership would render the question moot. A partnership which is less than compatible may lead to instances where a submissive would be required to discard their own morals in favor of those of the dominant and that could go either way. A submissive with high morals and standards might not be willing to cede their super-ego to someone with a lessor standard or whom they percieve as having a lessor standard while a submissive with lessor morals or standards might actually thrive having their own super-ego reduced, muffled or even eliminated.

As a model, it may very well be flawed, but I'm more interested in the discussion about the mechanics of the idea, how it plays out in the mind cavity and how to twist and turn it to ones advantage (or disadvantage!) and how to recover or reintroduce the super-ego if it has been stripped for the advantage of either the relationship as a whole or for individual gain (for the pleasure of the dominant and/or the growth of the submissive as an example).



ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 5:13:30 AM)

Wow, most interesting discussion, Bita.

I see submission as a giving up of the ego. To be a good submissive you HAVE to give up your ego to a certain extent, b/c good submission requires you to do things like place your dominant's wants and needs above your own, obey your dominant even when you think he/she is wrong, make pleasing your dominant a priority, learn to anticipate your dominant's needs and wants.

All of these things require a giving up of the s-types ego in some ways.

As far as the dominant taking the place of the sub's super ego, no way. I'm sure it's possible for a person to do that, but not to a person with a healthy ego. And the person wanting or needing to do that has to have some screws loose as well (JMO).

The question then becomes, as you put it: what are the steps you take to remove/lessen the ego of your submissive while allowing them to maintain uniqueness?


I take absolutely no steps to lessen the ego. I take steps to inspire submission, the lessening of the ego occurs naturally.

I *do* think a dominant has to walk a tightrope of maintaining control on one side, and allowing the s-type a degree of autonomy on the other.

Healthy people, subs included, need to have a healthy ego and a good degree of personal autonomy.

So how do you have a healthy ego and inspire that lessening of the ego, since those two things appear to be counter-intuitive?

I think the dominant first does anything and every thing they can to build the sub's ego in areas where they need it. Second, they give a sharp (but brief) tug on the proverbial leash when the sub is getting too "uppity." Third, they let unimportant ego displays roll off their back, and remember the only thing that is really important is that the sub obey.

They don't have to LIKE it.

Patience and a steady hold on the reins of control take care of the ego issue naturally.





crazyml -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 5:14:55 AM)

Hmm. Very interesting.

Firstly, I have to admit to the fact that I don't think that "ego" and "super-ego" are well enough distinguished. Also, "super-ego" isn't solely about parental influence - It's about "influence" generally. All of that oedipus bullshit tells us far more about how fucked up Freud was than it does the human psyche (I say that as someone who is absolutely not an expert in Freud..)

I'm sure that there are Dominant people who would wish to have a dominating impact on their sub's super-ego - Although, surely, a Freudian would have a fucking field day with that desire.

Personally, I'd expect to have an influence (ideally a positive one) on my partner's super-ego, but I'd have no desire whatsoever to supplant it. And the kind of sub who wanted her super-ego to be somehow replaced by me wouldn't be a very attractive proposition (to me).

This kind of links to the hypnotism thread recently - I find it hard to "get" dominants who want that level of control over someone's psyche, or subs who would want to give up that level of control. This isn't judging, it's just not my thang.



needlesandpins -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 6:24:06 AM)

it is an interesting topic, and shows me why i'd be a crap sub/slave in anything but the bedroom. i fought for years to be my own person instead of being controlled by someone else. i'm not giving that up for anyone anymore.

i'd say that it's a very dodgy area to be messing about with really. the ego is a strange thing, and it can damage us in horrid ways if not handled correctly. i think we have enough Dom/me people out there doing a shit job of it without giving them another area to screw over. i guess it's assumed that the person applying the ego take over already knows what they are doing, but in actual fact i'm betting very few people even get what the topic is actually about. let alone being able to do it without just emotionally hurting/damaging the person involved.

i shall watch the thread with interest though.

needles



JeffBC -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 6:51:29 AM)

It's kind of hard for me to understand what you're really asking given that you've asked the question clothed in musty psych terminology that doesn't conform to any pattern of human behavior I've ever seen. I do think, however, that I could point to any number of pragmatic example threads here to demonstrate that the VAST majority of submissives do not even consider giving up control of the super-ego and the vast majority of dominants do not even consider the possibility of assuming that position... who wants to strip in the restaurant other than agirl?



JanahX -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 6:55:54 AM)

Im glad you brought this subject up Bita.

It brings to mind what I see many Master/Dom(me) profiles advertise - Looking for a sub/slave to "break down - so they can build them back up" -
When I read that kind of thing, I do my famous "eye-roll". I wonder, how and why someone would even think or WANT to find someone to do that to, is beyond me. Let alone think that it is something that they could accomplish outside of giving that individual stockholm syndrome. Why would someone want someone just to "change" that person? When I in the past have been attracted to someone, its because I really like that person the way *they already are.*

I suppose that the sub/slave could and would want to keep the Master/Dom(me) in their world as to go so far as to do or say things that they normally wouldnt do so outside of that person - but I believe that is done out of fear that if they dont, that person is going to leave them.

As Needles mentioned in her post - I too would make a lousy submissive outside the bedroom, and is why if I were to label myself, I would consider myself a bottom.
I, myself am much more prone to accepting authority if I have genuine admiration and respect for the other person. And that is usually because I have a general sense that, that person has a better sense of navigating the world better than I do. Also I like people that "push me" a little into doing things that I would put on a shelf and just not get done. I am the forever and a day procrastinator.

As for someone changing my value system - Ive been with people that wanted me to participate in things that I wasnt into. I will think about what it is that they want, consider the consequences -and the reasons why I balk at it in the first place. I guess there is a certain line that I wont cross for anyone. Ive been too independent for too long - and got that way because Ive made hard decisions throughout my life that have kept me out of trouble especially with my own conscience.
I also feel that if I ever actually did do something that crossed that line, I would be angry at myself let alone really resent that other person. Resent them to the point, that whatever relationship I had going with them, would be dramatically changed for the worse.



OttersSwim -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 7:19:24 AM)

You ever see one of those old Walgreen's pharmacy buildings that they have converted to a church? We have them all over Colorado.

They look silly. They did not have the structure of a church to begin with, and trying to make them into a church just really does not work with the foundation and structure of the building. Not making any judgement on what goes on inside - all good with the Lord and all that.

But their "church" looks silly and out of place for its building type.

I view submission the same way. You have to have enough of that natural willingness to remove your own ego in preference to another, and sort of be doing it already in ways in your life - the foundation and structure.

If you don't have it, then you end up like those Walgreen Churches, and your new purpose does not fit the core of who you are.

So, in 5 paragraphs, I think that submission of ego has to already be there. [:)]

I think the next question is "How far down that particular rabbit hole do you want to go?"

I firmly believe that as humans, we must never lose our ability to act and think autonomously. While we would like these relationships to last forever, what happens to the sub/slave who you have stripped of all ego after you decide you no longer want him/her? When you stop providing that ego in their lives, that direction, etc. Along with that stripping of ego usually comes other things - financial control, emotional dependence, mental subservience, potential co-dependence, etc.

How far are you willing to go to strip the ego away, and -how far are you willing to go to rebuild that person into an autonomous self supporting individual again- once you are done with them?

I have been told that I "have a slave heart". That's great and all, but my brain will not let me go that far. I know that "till death do us part" is not likely to happen in most cases, and so I can only let myself go so far down that rabbit hole before my own sense of self survival kicks in.

And so to sum up my opinion. You gotta have the foundation and structure that suits submission in the first place, and you have to ask yourself how far are you willing to go? How much do you trust that person you are with to do the right thing by you if the relationship ever ends knowing that your ability to rebuild yourself may be compromised by the relationship you have created with this person who now wants you gone?



DesFIP -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 7:42:17 AM)

The problem with lessening their sense of self is the risk of lowering self esteem. He spent several years trying to strengthen my self esteem. I don't think he would consciously decide to reverse that now.



topcat -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 8:50:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

Freud wrote "... the installation of the super-ego can be described as a successful instance of identification with the parental agency..."

* feel free to use standard dictionary definitions of id, ego and super-ego or to explain what you would mean by an alternative definition so we can all stay on the same page and understand one another



For me, the key definition here is not for id/ego/superego- it's *identification*.

To my mind, what Dr Freud was talking about was not the substitution of the others super-ego with one's own, but rather, it becoming a guiding element in the formation, or to our discussion, the re-shaping of the Subjects super-ego.



quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

The problem with lessening their sense of self is the risk of lowering self esteem. He spent several years trying to strengthen my self esteem. I don't think he would consciously decide to reverse that now.


To use this handy example, The M.'s notion of her worth has altered the subjects self worth- a portion of the subjects self worth is no doubt bound up with her M.'s opinion of her value. It hasn't replaced her super-ego- but it profoundly affects (effects?) it.


Here, as is common in our culture, it seems a given that one's ego is a thing to cherish. I've spent a good part of my life trying to destroy my ego, including the time I spent as a US Marine, and as a Buddhist. Indeed, I am fairly sure that 'ego' as the term is commonly interpreted is a myth.



JeffBC -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 9:00:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: topcat
Here, as is common in our culture, it seems a given that one's ego is a thing to cherish. I've spent a good part of my life trying to destroy my ego, including the time I spent as a US Marine, and as a Buddhist. Indeed, I am fairly sure that 'ego' as the term is commonly interpreted is a myth.

I kinda heart your whole post. But this last part was exactly something I was thinking about in response to this. I'm just not all that impressed with "me". I find that the vast majority of my happiness, joy, fulfillment, and sense of completeness flows from "us". The parts of "me" which interfere with that are tossed overboard like the useless baggage they are. Both Carol and I are like that... at my demand LOL.



littlewonder -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 12:29:57 PM)

For the most part Master is usually trying to help me build up my ego since I really don't have one. I never have and I've always found that to be a good thing.

However, there are times when my ego will get just a tad bit big, and not even really ego I guess, but my pride. During those times Master solves this pretty easily....he reminds me.

He reminds me that I am a slave, his slave. He reminds me of our faith and where ego and pride can lead you. That's all it really takes for me to start kicking myself and say to myself, "damn....thwarted again!". lol



LadyHibiscus -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 1:04:20 PM)

This thread has been rolling around in my mind since I read it this morning, and I am still having a hard time forming a cogent response.

I see a lot of (mostly male) doms talk about the molding/breaking/rebuilding stuff that Janah mentioned, and it does indeed give me an eyeroll. Then I thought of so many of Jeff's posts where he talks about "changing Carol's mind" (and that just makes my blood run cold...) and I am still unsure.

I look for people who *share* my essential values, and are strong enough in them that they wouldn't just change to please someone. I don't see that as egotistical, I see it as having *character*.

Thanks, Bita, you always bring the thinky thoughts!



kalikshama -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 1:06:23 PM)

quote:

It brings to mind what I see many Master/Dom(me) profiles advertise - Looking for a sub/slave to "break down - so they can build them back up" -

When I read that kind of thing, I do my famous "eye-roll". I wonder, how and why someone would even think or WANT to find someone to do that to, is beyond me. Let alone think that it is something that they could accomplish outside of giving that individual stockholm syndrome. Why would someone want someone just to "change" that person? When I in the past have been attracted to someone, its because I really like that person the way *they already are.*


Apparently some branches of the military seek or sought to do this as well, which is partially why I chose the Air Force, which doesn't.

[image]http://content7.flixster.com/question/36/59/16/3659165_std.jpg[/image]



GotSteel -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 1:06:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
Freud wrote "... the installation of the super-ego can be described as a successful instance of identification with the parental agency..."


Freud was a quack, he misappropriately applied his very personal issues to society at large. I strongly advise that you not try to apply his ideas and instead go with modern theories.



kalikshama -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 1:07:32 PM)

For example?



BitaTruble -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 1:51:39 PM)

Good lord.. what an amazing array of answers. Thank you so much to everyone for providing such meaty quality to the thread. You don't know how much I appreciate it.

I'm going to respond further but quickly wanted to say to Jeff and GS that the man, Freud, and the definitions are simply jumping off points for the ideas. It's the mechanics that revolve around the ego that is the topic and why I left the definitions rather open so if you care to call any part of the ego by another term, please do feel free to do so. For example.. maybe you would like to replace 'id' with instinct which would include both pleasure (libido) and survival (food, clothing) etc. and I see no problems on that front. Or perhaps you'd feel more comfortable using morals/ethics/reason/logic in place of super-ego, that's fine as well. The field is open and I can't wait to cogitate more on the answers already present.

I'll be back. [;)]



ARIES83 -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 1:54:30 PM)

The same example that people always give... The Oedipus complex.
it's probably the most damaging thing Frued did PR wise, i'm not
going to call him a quack, I think that would be stupid, you have to
reconize the contribution he made.



JanahX -> RE: Leggo my ego*! (7/19/2012 1:56:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus

Thanks, Bita, you always bring the thinky thoughts!


She DOES have thinky thoughts!! I LOVE that!!!!



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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