The Dualism of Obedience

The Dualism of Obedience (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

anthrosub -> The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 3:08:18 PM)
I'm posting this under "Ask a Mistress" because that's the perspective from which I would like to discuss the topic. So please forgive me for skipping the General forum. For a long time I have been fascinated by the dualism within the lifestyle and feel obedience is a good point from which to start. This means I see it elsewhere. I'd like to hear what others have experienced in reflecting on the dynamics of dualism. When it comes to obedience, One might say it's to be expected as a willing act and yet there's also the aspect of enforcement. If it's willing, why would there need to be enforcement...if it's enforced, how can it rightfully be called a willing act? From here, you can start exploring the idea of what is a willing act and go on from there. Perhaps the resolution of this dichotomy is that a slave's will is "allowed" and metered by the Owner. In other words, the slave is given or instructed just how much intiative can be expressed without permission. But this seems like it would be a lot of work. Still, in my view it would provide for both "willing" obedience and enforcement. Whenever the subject exceeds the limitations while exercising will, that's when enforcement comes in. Perhaps this all goes hand in hand with sadomasochistic tendencies. I'm bringing this up because I've seen profiles and/or talked with Dominants who have no interest in enforcement (as in corporal punishment) and expect only willing obedience. I wonder how prevalent this view (only willing obedience) is and how rewarding it has been for those who practice it. anthrosub

MsKatHouston -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 5:09:22 PM)
If I am continually fighting with a submissive over the smallest things then I don't waste my time with them. My punishments are not fun for me or the slave. If I have to expend a lot of energy on punishments alone and get no satisfactory play and companionship, then they are not worth it to me. I think anyone who chooses to enter into a D/s relationship does so willingly and should do enough research and communication on the onset to ensure you are compatible with your desires and limits. I don't see enforcement as the same as punishment. I can enforce rules in a positive way to make the slave want to continue to obey. I can make it fulfilling for the slave as well, thus enforcing my will. We deal with humans...enforcement does not necessarily mean a slave is UNwilling imo

cloudboy -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 5:10:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub I wonder how prevalent this view (only willing obedience) is and how rewarding it has been for those who practice it. anthrosub Maybe I don't get you entirely, but this sounds like the UNPAID LABOR DOCTRINE. No Kink, no sex, all service, willingly given and with a smile. Put me squarely in the camp that "doesn't get it." BDSM should be sexy, fun, and worthwhile. It should open up new worlds, it should unearth people's primal natures, it should enhance intimacy. When you strip BDSM of its glory and make it all about unpaid service or willing sacrifice devoid of kink, I don't understand what's left. Too bad Veronicaofml is not still around to opine about it.

cloudboy -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 5:21:35 PM)
[sorry, a mispost.]

TeeGO -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 5:38:25 PM)
Thank you for the topic, very interesting to me. I'd like to add that when I think of obedience to a Dominant Woman within a D/s context. I think of willingly agreeing to obey, end of story. However obedience requires the mind to be in the submissive headspace. It is my thought one must be helped by the Domme to keep yourself in that headspace, be it through discipline, instruction, training, or whatever is needed. Am I right? Am I close to being right? Am I missing something? I would love to hear some opinions on this as well.

ladylexington -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 5:59:41 PM)
I don't use corporal punishment - largely because I sometimes play at a pretty intense level and I don't want submissives to confuse a heavy session as punishment. When I bruise, mark, or welt someone, they are probably turning me on. Everything I say from this point is an over simplification, but it may spark additional discussion. In my ideal dynamic, I motivate the submissive to obey my wishes (and hopefully anticipate them) by being the nuturing Domme that they seek. But, I must admit that my success has been limited. Here's how I handle a behavior problem with a submissive in most situations: 1) I point out the behavior and explain how it damages our dynamic. 2) I ask the submissive to adopt a new behavior, and provide controls and incentives as needed. 3) I reinforce the behavior I am seeking. If the submissive doesn't adapt, then we probably aren't a good fit. Either I am not motivating them submissive, or the submissive isn't willing to comply.

anthrosub -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 6:00:55 PM)
Note: This reply was written when cloudboy's post was the last in the thread, so those that follow it are not meant as being addressed. Hmmm...I guess what I'm talking about is the difference between those who enjoy enforcement via corporal punishment and feel it's necessary versus those who simply want peaceful, willing compliance. To me, the former opens up possibilities for a wider range of activities and experimentation in achieving the desired result whereas the latter would almost be like a non-event. Maybe what I'm pointing out without realizing it is the possible mismatch that can occur between a submissive or slave that needs to be controlled in tangible ways with a Dominant who doesn't enjoy the "hands on" approach of sculpting him into the person they want (like a piece of work). Instead, it would be more like expecting a slave to arrive "ready made." From a psychological level, where's the feeling of being Dominated if there's nothing challenging it consciously or subconsciously? Another way to think about all this is, "Where's the expression of Domination or submission if there's no tension?" By tension, I mean in the same way as the natural tension between opposites. anthrosub

Wickad -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 6:20:39 PM)
Anthrosub There seems to be an underlying current to your posts that you disdain those types of relationships that do not contain some form of corporal punishment. What are your thoughts on this topic? Wickad

anthrosub -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 6:41:41 PM)
Well, by my posts I'm not sure if you mean those within this thread alone or elsewhere but I'll answer as if it doesn't matter. I'm not a masochist by any stretch of the imagination. My reference to corporal punishment is to be taken as an example of the overt expression of Domination. It's also one of the more common activities engaged in, so I thought it would be a good medium for examples. What you're picking up on is my own attraction to Domination that's expressed in ways that go beyond the psychological. I'll give an example...about 5 years ago, I met a Dominant who expected obedience as an unspoken rule and without any enforcement on her part. After several weeks of interaction together, I began to feel like I was "Dominating" myself in the same manner people discipline themselves not to stay up too late or be frugal with their paychecks. I found myself inwardly asking, "Where's the Domination here?" Now I'm not saying I need to be given some sort of regular reminder of who's in charge. But I am saying that the complete absence of outward, tangible reinforcement (whatever the form may be) seems to be necessary to maintain my sense of the dynamic between us. Otherwise, it's like I'm having the whole experience in my head without any interaction with my partner. anthrosub

ladylexington -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 6:54:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub What you're picking up on is my own attraction to Domination that's expressed in ways that go beyond the psychological. I'll give an example...about 5 years ago, I met a Dominant who expected obedience as an unspoken rule and without any enforcement on her part. After several weeks of interaction together, I began to feel like I was "Dominating" myself in the same manner people discipline themselves not to stay up too late or be frugal with their paychecks. I found myself inwardly asking, "Where's the Domination here?" Now I'm not saying I need to be given some sort of regular reminder of who's in charge. But I am saying that the complete absence of outward, tangible reinforcement (whatever the form may be) seems to be necessary to maintain my sense of the dynamic between us. Otherwise, it's like I'm having the whole experience in my head without any interaction with my partner. anthrosub Now I think I see your point. If I understand you correctly, why be a submissive if you don't get the charge of being controlled? Doing the dishes is only hot if you know that your work will be inspected, or if you're chained to the drain pipe and have to ask for permission to be released. For me, the ideal sub will do the dishes because I say so, even if it isn't hot. Even if it's boring and tedious. Maybe I'm living in my own Domme fantasy land. I'd like to hear what others have to say about this topic.

thetammyjo -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 7:07:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub I wonder how prevalent this view (only willing obedience) is and how rewarding it has been for those who practice it. anthrosub Maybe I don't get you entirely, but this sounds like the UNPAID LABOR DOCTRINE. No Kink, no sex, all service, willingly given and with a smile. Put me squarely in the camp that "doesn't get it." BDSM should be sexy, fun, and worthwhile. It should open up new worlds, it should unearth people's primal natures, it should enhance intimacy. When you strip BDSM of its glory and make it all about unpaid service or willing sacrifice devoid of kink, I don't understand what's left. Too bad Veronicaofml is not still around to opine about it. How is having obedience and good service not having kink? Do you think I'd spend any of my time mummifying Fox or tying him up or the other things he enjoys if he needed me to force him to obey me? Not likely because he wouldn't be around here long enough to ever enjoy those fun parts of BDSM. Plus someone who is geared toward service (and in my opinion who makes a good slave) gets a great high from hearing "good boy" or "good slave" or "good pet" or whatever when a task or chore is done. Having work and energy recognized is an award in and of itself. This is why it is important to talk about expectations before you get into a relationship. cloudboy wouldn't like things in my house I think but he can have a great time with someone who shares his same beliefs about what BDSM should involved. But then again, I'm mostly interested in Ds not SM or BD.

anthrosub -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 7:12:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ladylexington quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub What you're picking up on is my own attraction to Domination that's expressed in ways that go beyond the psychological. I'll give an example...about 5 years ago, I met a Dominant who expected obedience as an unspoken rule and without any enforcement on her part. After several weeks of interaction together, I began to feel like I was "Dominating" myself in the same manner people discipline themselves not to stay up too late or be frugal with their paychecks. I found myself inwardly asking, "Where's the Domination here?" Now I'm not saying I need to be given some sort of regular reminder of who's in charge. But I am saying that the complete absence of outward, tangible reinforcement (whatever the form may be) seems to be necessary to maintain my sense of the dynamic between us. Otherwise, it's like I'm having the whole experience in my head without any interaction with my partner. anthrosub Now I think I see your point. If I understand you correctly, why be a submissive if you don't get the charge of being controlled? Doing the dishes is only hot if you know that your work will be inspected, or if you're chained to the drain pipe and have to ask for permission to be released. For me, the ideal sub will do the dishes because I say so, even if it isn't hot. Even if it's boring and tedious. Maybe I'm living in my own Domme fantasy land. I'd like to hear what others have to say about this topic. Sorry but you're reading too much into what I just described. But that's understandable here on the Internet with all the "do me" subs and others. This is a sincere discussion and I'm honestly talking about the inner dynamics that go on in people's heads (mine included). I was honestly answering the question posted...please be kind enough not to embelish. Thanks, anthrosub P.S. I'd also like to keep the thread from taking a detour if possible. Thanks again.

thetammyjo -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 7:13:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub Note: This reply was written when cloudboy's post was the last in the thread, so those that follow it are not meant as being addressed. Hmmm...I guess what I'm talking about is the difference between those who enjoy enforcement via corporal punishment and feel it's necessary versus those who simply want peaceful, willing compliance. To me, the former opens up possibilities for a wider range of activities and experimentation in achieving the desired result whereas the latter would almost be like a non-event. Maybe what I'm pointing out without realizing it is the possible mismatch that can occur between a submissive or slave that needs to be controlled in tangible ways with a Dominant who doesn't enjoy the "hands on" approach of sculpting him into the person they want (like a piece of work). Instead, it would be more like expecting a slave to arrive "ready made." From a psychological level, where's the feeling of being Dominated if there's nothing challenging it consciously or subconsciously? Another way to think about all this is, "Where's the expression of Domination or submission if there's no tension?" By tension, I mean in the same way as the natural tension between opposites. anthrosub Training someone before you own them or at the start of a relationship is quite a different thing than needing to enforce obedience once you in that relationship. How can someone be obedient unless they know the rules and the expectations? Tension? If I want tension, I'll go teach or go to my meeting with my chair on Wednesday or argue with my mate. Why would there be tension in an agreed upon hierachal relationship? A slave agrees to hand over authority, hopefully after taking serious time and thought. What's left to have tension about? How it plays out? Well, aren't we adults, we can't talk about and try things out, agree to put the work in that is necessary? And if not, then what relationship is there that is worth keeping?

thetammyjo -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 7:19:40 PM)
To get back to the OP, I think that the "enforcement" needs only come in the form of verbal reminders most of the time if the relationship is the type I want. In fact, with the slave's I've been honored to have, they are much better at punishing themselves than I could ever be. A look or a word from me could have one of these strong men almost crying because he failed. Fear of failure is a strong motivation and for service submissives and slaves it can be one of the greatest. I spend more of my time reassuring my slave that he can have desires and he does have needs than I do reminding him of mine. When he needs reminding, we have a talk and he is usually so horrified that he has failed that I'm needed to offer some way to make amends not to punish. I would never use physical beatings or other such things for the same reason that MsKatHouston mentioned -- I'm a sadist, I do not want to risk blurring the lines between what I do for fun and what I do for necessity.

anthrosub -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 7:31:43 PM)
Thanks for your thoughts, I can see the points you are making. Perhaps I'm cutting too fine a line in what my own thoughts are and they are coming across too broad when I try to describe them. If it helps at all, what I personally experience inwardly is a sort of "flip" of the dynamic between controlling and being controlled; hence, my reference to feeling like I'm "Dominating myself" that I described earlier. anthrosub

LadyHugs -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 7:43:43 PM)
Dear anthrosub, Ladies and Gentlemen; For me, I have no troubles in exacting discipline/punishment for a deed done that has been addressed as inappropriate. However, I need to bring up the use of corporal and or S&M. Today, I rarely see any dominant address anything but pleasure and or punishment. In my experiences, there was much more to using corporal and or S&M. I briefly addressed this on another thread however, I will list what was practiced in my day. Pleasure - To which the goal was to awake the senses and awake the sensual side of the slave. The Master/Mistress may wish to feed themselves as well as the slave. Maintenance - To keep the slave in touch with their slave heart/belly, by giving them doses of corporal/S&M. This is not a scene that is deemed as disciplinary/punishment but, a form of support for the feeding of the slave's needs to feel 'the whip' and or 'taste the whip.' Dominant or slave/submissive may initiate maintenance whipping. (It can include bondage or other kink) Educational - Not a scene but, surrendering to the whip as to show a technique, testing a whip and the mind is towards the showing for educational purposes and the body's reaction. Catharsis - This 'intent' to use the whip and or other forms at the disposal of the dominant, is to bring the slave to a state; as to purge themselves of emotions, to heal, to open up to the dominant, to break down barriers between dominant and slave/submissive. The affect/effect is for the slave to have a renewed feeling, being refreshed and new beginnings. Discipline/Punishment - To dispense with the adjudication of deeds done that causes the dominant to punish/discipline; as to compel the slave/submissive not to repeat the error in which will not be tolerated. It is not to exceed to the abusive side but, firm and painful enough to not be a pleasant experience. For those masochists, not having pain but a non-touch punishment, such as to have no dominant's hand and or whip applied but the body punishing itself; e.g. squat on bare feet on uncooked rice, nose to hold a dime against the wall as hands remain behind the neck, etc. It is my belief that the slave/submissive knows when either of these categories are used. As for obedience, it would be my hope that the slave/submissive is obedient to me, my wishes, my training, my rituals, ceremonies and protocols. I do hope they are obedient because they want to be and enjoy being obedient by their own will. In my mind's eye, if you aren't enjoying your service to me--be gone. If I am not enjoying your service then you will be released as, perhaps someone else might find the slave/submissive pleasing. But, as long as the slave/submissive is trying honestly, I'll be patient and invest in them. Hope this helps. Respectfully submitted for consideration, Lady Hugs

cloudboy -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 8:07:49 PM)
quote: How is having obedience and good service not having kink? Do you think I'd spend any of my time mummifying Fox or tying him up or the other things he enjoys if he needed me to force him to obey me? Not likely because he wouldn't be around here long enough to ever enjoy those fun parts of BDSM. Dear Tammjo, Under the Unpaid Labor Doctrine, there is NO KINK and there is NO SEX. You have KINK and I would infer, some sex. Kink may not be the reason Fox obeys you, and you may not use it to enforce his obedience, but it plays a key role in your M/S relationship --- so by my own definition, Fox is not subject to the UNPAID LABOR DOCTRINE. What Anthrosub is saying is perfectly valid. Giving orders, being a taskmaster, and expecting the sub to exert self discipline without kink or sex is not BDSM --- it is something else. I would say its part of the Unpaid Labor Doctrine or to be less generous, part of the Boss Some Guy Around Club. I'll take it one step further, BDSM stripped of kink or sex is simply Vanilla power exchange and or colorless manipulation. A service component only leaves subs wondering, "Why don't I just marry some bitchy woman instead?"

anthrosub -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 8:10:44 PM)
Thank you LadyHugs for your reply...it touches exactly on what I've tried to describe (albiet, not very successfully). The whole dynamic is ongoing and periodically needs an infusion or reminder if you will. As to my original post, the inner experience of obedience or better yet, my (or any other slave/sub's) experience of obedience is something one continually learns about. Tammyjo made a point that I forgot to address as well and that is the "plateau" that's eventually reached once the slave or submissive has been adequately trained and reached maintenance level. anthrosub

TeeGO -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 9:16:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: How is having obedience and good service not having kink? Do you think I'd spend any of my time mummifying Fox or tying him up or the other things he enjoys if he needed me to force him to obey me? Not likely because he wouldn't be around here long enough to ever enjoy those fun parts of BDSM. Dear Tammjo, Under the Unpaid Labor Doctrine, there is NO KINK and there is NO SEX. You have KINK and I would infer, some sex. Kink may not be the reason Fox obeys you, and you may not use it to enforce his obedience, but it plays a key role in your M/S relationship --- so by my own definition, Fox is not subject to the UNPAID LABOR DOCTRINE. What Anthrosub is saying is perfectly valid. Giving orders, being a taskmaster, and expecting the sub to exert self discipline without kink or sex is not BDSM --- it is something else. I would say its part of the Unpaid Labor Doctrine or to be less generous, part of the Boss Some Guy Around Club. I'll take it one step further, BDSM stripped of kink or sex is simply Vanilla power exchange and or colorless manipulation. A service component only leaves subs wondering, "Why don't I just marry some bitchy woman instead?" I agree with you completely cloudboy.

TeeGO -> RE: The Dualism of Obedience (6/19/2006 9:22:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHugs ...Maintenance - To keep the slave in touch with their slave heart/belly, by giving them doses of corporal/S&M. This is not a scene that is deemed as disciplinary/punishment but, a form of support for the feeding of the slave's needs to feel 'the whip' and or 'taste the whip.' Dominant or slave/submissive may initiate maintenance whipping. (It can include bondage or other kink)... Respectfully submitted for consideration, Lady Hugs That Lady Hugs is what I was talking about, which I think is similar to what anthrosub is saying. I am going through this right now, I am trying to keep my headspace in a submissive/obedient place without much, if any support, from my Domme. And the fact is I'm having a hard time with it and having been feeling very un-submissive of late. And I hate that. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not really submissive after all. But whatever the fact I'm having a hard time dominating myself for her, using anthrosub's line.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875