Padriag
Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline
|
Okay, let me see if I can make some replies to various points raised now that I’ve had a good nights rest.
quote:
The simple fact that each has a subtly different personality alters the control. Over the last 25 years I have dealt with a lot of girls. Whilst my approach and my own personality hasn't change 'that' much during that time, each and every one has had different reactions and needed subtle alterations to that approach. Certainly you can spot traits in common each time and that will clue you in to some things which have a higher probability of working and others that will likely have an adverse reaction, but you only know for certain once you begin working with the girl and begin to learn who SHE is and how she reacts.
I agree, just as each dominant has their own style of control, each submissive has their own style of submission. Each of these styles is the product of individual goals, they are methods of achieving those goals. Likewise we pursue differing forms of power exchange relationships (Dom/sub, Master/slave, Daddy/babygirl, etc.) based on individual goals for a relationship. In some cases a dominants goals for the relationship closely match the submissives and next thing you know they are "soul mates". The reality is a happy coincidence between two people who happen to have similar goals. Sometimes you have two people with very different goals, and that almost never works out. The most common situation is that we meet someone with similar goals, but not closely similar, and as a result we have to work out compromises until we reach some common goals for a functional relationship.
quote:
That to me is proper submission, it is what I want and hence what I set out to draw out of a girl. If I can't see the potential for that, if I can't see the beginnings of it, then it isn't someone who I am likely to collar. A lot of other things are optional and if I can't see it there at the beginning then I can seek to train for it at a later date, but submission stemming from a desire to please ME (Not just please 'anyone') is a baseline for me, a cornerstone on which I base everything else.
The catch here is this, that’s proper submission for you. And so long as applying the statement only to you, its true. The catch is that its not necessarily true of everyone. Not making an valuations about that, just pointing out a fact. Consider me a neutral observer in this.
What you are doing is making valuations about what works for you, whether a submissive you meet is a good prospect for you. That’s a very normal and in fact healthy thing to do. We all do that, submissives do it in evaluating potential dominants, dominants do it with submissives and I suppose switches do it with damn near everybody (that last bit sounded like a bad pun. LOL)
In a strict sense of the word, submission is only one thing 1) to yield to governance or authority, 2) to commit to the direction or judgement of another. There are no moral or ethical valuations attached to that word, there are no motives nor rationales attached to it. Those are all concepts we add later. Thus, when you say proper submission, you are adding an additional meaning to it, a personal one. However, when talking about things like control, domination, and submission in their purest sense we should be careful to strip away these additional meanings, or if we use them to careful identify them. In doing so we help avoid misunderstandings.
So, in its purest sense, submission means merely to yield to the authority of another. That may be out of fear, our of desire, out of avoidance of consequences, in seeking reward, or any of numerous combinations. We can make ethical valuations about these reasons, but when speaking of those reasons, we are not talking purely of submission or control any longer, we are making valuations and therefore, judgements. We are no longer talking about control and submission, but about what forms of control and submission we personal think is best.
That said, I’ll share a personal valuation of my own about both control and submission. Personally, I do prefer submission motivated by a desire to please me. I personally have no interest in a situation where she obeys from a basis of fear. However, I also realize that as a human being with some degree of self interest that will also be part of her motivation, she will obey because it benefits her in some way. I put an emphasis on usefulness in my style of control as a means of teaching a slave to be useful (and thus pleasing) to me, while at the same time providing a tangible means of valuation to the slave as a basis of her self worth and self esteem. But that’s simply what works for me, simply another style of control born of my own goals regarding a style of control, a style of relationship and a style of life.
quote:
It depends on what you mean by discipline. If I see a girl of mine doing something wrong, I actually enjoy sitting down, talking through the what, what and what next. Showing her, teaching her how to do it better. Whether that is just 'how to be a better girl for me' or (Even more enjoyable) how to correct something that is going wrong in her life, helping her to become more than she was. But as you will see, even in the discipline, I prefer the positive approach.
You are right about 'punishment' I dislike it. It should be unnecessary, but hey, this is the real world and people will be people. Sometimes it is the best course of action, occasionally it is the only option short of dismissal. I most certainly don't remove it from my 'arsenal' of methodology.
Discipline simply means correcting undesired behavior, what you describe is one valid form of discipline. You’re taking the approach of reasoning with the submissive, explaining what they did wrong, and what they need to do. There’s nothing wrong with that. However, I will point out one very possible complication to that method, a submissive who is being irrational. Attempting to reason with someone who is being irrational is generally an exercise in futility. When that occurs you need other methods of discipline that work, even on an irrational individual. There are many reasons why a submissive might become irrational: stress, anxiety, fear, confusion, misunderstandings all come to mind as possible causes and all are part of human existence.
I also think there needs to be a brief side discussion about punishment, first because you and I are using two different definitions and second because there appears to be a general misunderstanding about punishment. In one of my previous posts I gave some definitions of terms, particularly of punishment, punishers and aversive stimuli. I’ll repost that here for sake of easy reference.
There are three parts to the definition of punishment.
- A particular behavior occurs
- A consequence immediately follows the behavior
- As a result, the behavior is likely to occur again in the future. (The behavior is weakened)
A punisher (also called an aversive stimulus) is a consequence that makes a particular behavior less likely to occur in the future. A punisher is defined by its effect on the behavior it follows. A stimulus event is a punisher when it decreases the frequency of the behavior it follows.
There are two basic procedural variations of punishment: positive punishment and negative punishment. The difference between positive and negative punishment is determined by the consequence of the behavior. Positive punishment is defined as follows:
- The occurrence of a behavior
- Is followed by the presentation of an aversive stimulus
- And, as a result, the behavior is likely to occur in the future.
Negative punishment is defined as follows:
- The occurrence of a behavior
- Is followed by the removal of a reinforcing stimulus
And, as a result, the behavior is less likely to occur in the future.
What’s important to note is that there is nothing related to anger, vengeance, hostility, etc. in those definitions. Punishment has one purpose and one purpose only, to weaken and stop the occurrence of an undesired behavior. And, likewise, any process that weakens or stops the occurrence of an undesired behavior is a punishment.
There are a number of common misunderstandings about punishment, and all of them are based on ideas or images or experiences associated with it. For some, punishment is about anger because that is the experience they associate with it. For others punishment is only for children (and therefore childish) because that is the association they make. The reality is, all of us are punished throughout our lives, punishment is a natural part of life. We are punished by society through laws designed to control and modify our behavior. We are punished by friends, family and peer groups through disapproval and rejection to again control and modify our behavior in ways acceptable to those groups. We are punished by nature itself, whether it be getting burned for putting our hand in a fire or some broken bones as the result of trying some dumb stunt the laws of gravity didn’t "approve" of. And in all these cases the punishment weakens (makes less likely to occur again in the future) or stops the behavior, it controls and modifies our behavior. Punishment is not about anger, though some certainly do so out of anger. Punishment is not only for children, it is applied to all of us from the day we are born to the day we die.
There is the belief that it shouldn’t be necessary with adults, that presumably as rational mature adults some form of punishment should not be necessary to modify our behavior. And indeed sometimes it is not, sometimes a rational explanation of the consequences of our actions is all it takes. Alfred Adler wrote extensively on this and Dr Thomas Sweeney in his book "Adlerian Counseling: A Practitioner’s Approach, 4th Ed." devoted two full chapters to methods of teaching natural and logical consequences of our actions to individuals. But despite this, or perhaps in spite of it, people are not always rational or mature. Even normally rational and mature adults have moments when we simply aren’t. There are also those cases when a rational adult simply disagrees that the stated consequence will occur. Finally, there are those cases when a submissive simply has no rational control over a behavior. In short, reason is not always enough and in those moments we need stronger measures, we need averisive stimuli or punishers to correct, discipline and ultimately stop the behavior. I think its very important that this be understood, that this role of punishment in control be understood. It’s a tool, and like any tool it can be abused, but with knowledge of its effective use, it can be an effective tool. However, like any tool I do not see it as being inherently good or bad, its simply a tool that can be put to good or bad ends.
quote:
Not quite, though whether it could be labeled as punishment is debatable, it certainly is a negative stimuli though. The 'flash' of disapproval whether in a look, posture or tone of voice is most often more than sufficient to bring a girl who is getting into that grey area with action or attitude which is approaching unacceptable, up short and stop it dead in its tracks. That is by far the most common negative stimuli and most often totally avoids any behavior that would warrant more serious action by 'heading it off at the pass'. Prevention being better than cure.
In the more common usage of the term punishment I suppose it might be debatable. In behavior psychology it isn’t. That "flash" of disapproval is in fact a form of positive punishment. That is…
an undesired behavior occurs,
it is followed by a flash of disapproval,
the behavior is weakened or stopped.
That’s positive punishment. Removing your approval is a form of negative punishment, that is…
an undesired behavior occurs,
is followed by the removal of your approval,
the behavior is weakened or stopped.
Hopefully those examples will help anyone reading this better understand the terms and how each process works.
quote:
There is only one part of that where I will disagree with you and this could spark off a whole seperate discussion on its own!
I actually see the 'punishment' oriented adversarial method as being the one needing less effort! OK I maybe swinging my cane less often given 99.9% of the time I only use it for play, but can't knock a round peg into a square hole, they try to. Their method takes little account of who the girl is, whilst I am not just adjusting my tactics for each girl, but constantly. I have to be much more mentally alert, I have to know my girl much more, communicate more, be aware and to some extent more in control of her whole life, not just what she does when she is with me.
For you, most of the work should come at the beginning of the relationship, but beyond an initial period of establishment that work load should drop off. The reason is that you have a cooperative relationship with the submissive. Because she desires to be controlled, wants you to be in control, wants to give you control she should gradually begin to work with you towards her own control. Yes it does require more communication, but that communication also should come more easily. And while no, your style of control doesn’t permit you to knock a square peg into a round hole, neither do you try.
Conversely, going to the other end of the spectrum those who take a very forceful approach often end up in an adversarial relationship. The submissive may actually be fighting against being controlled and the dominant must work constantly to maintain control on their own with no help from the submissive. At not point does this work load drop off or reduce, unless the will of the submissive is also broken. But then at that point the submissive becomes placid, withdrawn, and less capable as a companion. The kind of interpersonal interaction you enjoy would no longer be possible. There are also ethical questions about "breaking the will" of a submissive, but here we’re getting back into ethical judgements. Suffice it to say, a very forceful style requires, not surprisingly, a great deal of force applied on a continual basis.
From here the discussion moves on towards styles of submission and the expectations submissives have regarding control and dominance. But I’ll save that for another post. This one has gotten long enough already! LOL
_____________________________
Padriag
A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer
|
RE: Control - 
Profile
) 
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