RE: Dispositional Dissonance

RE: Dispositional Dissonance (Full Version)

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

Message

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/7/2016 4:44:17 PM)
quote: where the extra weight he has taken on as HoH Part of that extra weight is to recognize and accept that I am both better educated, and intrinsically smarter then he is, so a major part of my "duties" as a sub is to advise him; and he usually heeds my advise for the aforementioned reasons.

Greta75 -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/7/2016 7:33:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre What are the philosophical contradictions you hold with respect to BDSM, S/m, M/s, kink, lifestyle, etc? Are there principles that you hold closely in your mind which are antithetical to each other? How do you deal with them? I feel extreme guilt when I enjoy rape play, and I enjoy it quite violent and with alot of humiliation play included into it. Although the obvious rationalization is that, it's consensual, so it's not the same and it's seriously super fun for me when it's consensual. But still, sometimes what I enjoy would be the equivalent of horrifying terrible experience for other women who were forced to do the same against their will. It's often very difficult to understand why I enjoy it. But I guess it's the same as vanilla penetrative sex. It's not fun when it's not consensual, but fun when it's consensual. I still carry heavy guilt for enjoying it, as I imagine the same thing to be extremely horrifying for a different woman who didn't do it consensually. So I have no method to come to peace of what I enjoy, except to ignore the guilt. And focus on the joy it brings me. I also feel guilty when I enjoy submission. Because women in the past have died fighting for what I want to give up. That makes me extremely guilty about being a submissive as my natural orientation. I try not to let those women in the past down by being as independent and take full advantage of the freedom I enjoy today, thanks to their sacrifices, as much as possible. They gave us women choices to choose. In the past, they didn't even have a choice, so it's super conflicted that with the choice, pressured to choose what will honour their sacrifices. I do feel that submission is an insult to what they have done in the past to give us our freedom. So extreme guilt there. As the gist of submission to me, is wanting a man to make decisions on my behalf. Which was pretty much the traditional way things are. His the boss, he makes final decisions, and I just go along with it. In the past, women didn't have the choice to be the boss, and make the final decisions. I feel horrible guilt that I want to give that freedom up. Although it's rationalized as a different type of freedom. Free from decision making! But it's so conflicting to not want to make decisions when women have died fighting for the right to make decisions for themselves.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/7/2016 9:02:43 PM)
Fascinating, thank you Greta, No need to reply, both since it's off-topic and personal, but may I ask if the guilt itself adds to the humiliation aspect you enjoy, or are they working against each other when it's "go time?" __________________________ Might I see your face? The one you hide from others, that sees a mirror?

Greta75 -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/7/2016 9:17:31 PM)
quote: No need to reply, both since it's off-topic and personal, but may I ask if the guilt itself adds to the humiliation aspect you enjoy, or are they working against each other when it's "go time?" When I am in "play". I shut out the guilty feelings and focus on the enjoyment. The guilty feelings really only come back on, when I am back on vanilla mode. I was in a live in 24/7 D/S relationship before. And the feelings of guilt comes back whenever I am not with him. But when his around, it's kinda Game On, I push all the guilty feelings away and focus on obeying. I feel like, there is my vanilla side, which as you tell in this forum, I am very outspoken and combative and assertive, in my job, in my regular life, I try to bask in the equal opportunity and equality I enjoy today. Because I don't want to waste the efforts of women in the past. But then my kinky life, it's like, my fantasy world, that I indulge in. I try to have balance of both things. So when I go home to my x-dom in the past, I shut out my guilt feelings and focus on him. When I am back at work, I am in charge, I lead men, and aggressive, and fighting to do everything a man can do and try to do it better, and prove myself to be deserving of the job. It's like two different universe. Trying to do the best in both worlds. I try to assuage my guilt by my actions and goals in my vanilla life. I make sure, I always pursue my dreams. Because it's opportunity women in the past did not have. They couldn't do anything they wanted. But we could today and must fully appreciate it and use the freedom they fought hard for to do so.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/7/2016 11:13:05 PM)
The essence of a leader. If your fella is up to that challenge, it sounds like you're doing very well indeed. ____________________ Would you now? Could you? Know what it's like to think, speak, true words, truer thoughts.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/8/2016 12:14:56 PM)
Thanks. I like to think so. :)

ManOeuvre -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/8/2016 8:51:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 When I am in "play". I shut out the guilty feelings and focus on the enjoyment. I think the ability to do so well, concentration and deep mindfulness techniques are essential, and not just to thoroughly enjoying the finest roughness. Has the potency of your ability to shut one out always been sufficient, or is this something you've had to work on? I would conjecture that over the course of one's life that this challenge gets greater; I would think the feelings that lead to both the guilt and the pleasure have gotten stronger as you've been on this rock. Does the challenge of shutting them out increase along with their respective magnitudes? Is it easier or harder today than when you were 18?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/9/2016 7:16:46 AM)
quote: Is it easier or harder today than when you were 18? For me it is easier, I have accepted my quirks and kinks as part of me.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/9/2016 8:59:04 AM)
Have you grown more comfortable with the dissonance, or do you think it's easier because it has been lessened on account of some of the issues working themselves out, or revealing themselves as less conflicting than you first thought?

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/9/2016 9:41:48 AM)
I just don't find it dissonant anymore, I am who I am is all. I can only be the woman I am, I cannot be another, so I just accept that there are contradictions within who I am.

LadyPact -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/9/2016 12:57:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre What are the philosophical contradictions you hold with respect to BDSM, S/m, M/s, kink, lifestyle, etc? Are there principles that you hold closely in your mind which are antithetical to each other? How do you deal with them? For example, I have a profound love of freedom, and regularly quote the greats, like Locke, Jefferson, Lincoln and Prime, and yet I'm comfortable with irrevocable TPE with genuine captivity. I consider religious worldview to be at best epistemic failures and at worst celestial dictatorships, and I abhor them, yet I am intensely attracted to the principles and expressions of sartorial modesty practiced for almost entirely religious purposes. I feel these are not conflicts between any sort of expectations and outcomes, but I may be wrong. Examples of that sort would be the difference between my expected support for the spirit of BDSM ecumenicalism, YKIOK, etc based on my being on a 'community' site contrasted with the 'one twue wayism' that I practice and express to my more like minded associates. Outside of the BDSM there is of course the being a Canadian who happens to like guns, or being a bicycle rider who owns a pickup truck. These are just outcomes not lining up with stereotypes and expectations. I really think that the first two are conflicts which really exist at a fundamental level in my mind, and while I have some strategies for dealing with them, I'd love to hear first if others have analogous, issues before I share my strategies for putting the two halves of my brain back together. _______________________________ Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise. As I quote the original, I was wondering a bit if you wanted some help with that sig line? There's a much easier way to do it. I skimmed the thread, sort of. :) I didn't see anything with a big, neon sign about what I would say. I happen to be a later in life sadist. For a time, I dealt with that "nice people don't hit other people' thing. Personally, I feel this is worse for men dealing with female bottoms, but it's reflective for female tops, too. It took me a while. I don't grapple with it anymore. In reading, I don't think you and I will get along, at all. I consider myself to be a person of faith, which is entirely different than religion. A topic better suited for P&R. quote: and yet I'm comfortable with irrevocable TPE with genuine captivity. Then you, sir, might be considered criminal, rather than consensual. In consensual kink, there is no such thing as a life sentence. If we believe in the theory of consent, that consent given can also be taken away. Should one do so, they have the right to leave your captivity and be free from the fetters.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/9/2016 5:38:45 PM)
Hello LadyPact, Thanks for pointing out the sig line thing. There have been a few other helpful types here who have posted similarly in other threads. I'm still figuring out what I want to do with the signature line. For now my signature move is to not use the designated signature feature. Thanks also for replying to the thread. quote: I happen to be a later in life sadist. For a time, I dealt with that "nice people don't hit other people' thing. Personally, I feel this is worse for men dealing with female bottoms, but it's reflective for female tops, too. It took me a while. I don't grapple with it anymore. Can I ask you, since you don't grapple with the conflict anymore, did it just gradually disappear, or was there some epiphany? Something in between? No need to get along with me. I'm as keen as the next Canuck to discuss the specifics, but the only reason I brought up my negative disposition towards faith was for contrast.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/9/2016 6:00:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: and yet I'm comfortable with irrevocable TPE with genuine captivity. Then you, sir, might be considered criminal, rather than consensual. In consensual kink, there is no such thing as a life sentence. If we believe in the theory of consent, that consent given can also be taken away. Should one do so, they have the right to leave your captivity and be free from the fetters. For the TPE mentioned in my post, I am aware that their are matters worldly and gross which conflict. I'm most interested in the conflicts that stay entirely between one's ears. With respect to the theory of consent, I'm not familiar with the particular version you're referring to to, but I think I get the gist. It does leave itself vulnerable to the charge of not taking itself seriously if it imposes limitations on the consenter as to what they may consent. I think volenti non fit iniuria comes into play here. If not the Romans then who? Who can I italicize?

LadyPact -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/9/2016 7:40:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre Hello LadyPact, And, hello to you. quote: Thanks for pointing out the sig line thing. There have been a few other helpful types here who have posted similarly in other threads. I'm still figuring out what I want to do with the signature line. For now my signature move is to not use the designated signature feature. Fair enough. Should you ever change your mind, there are several posters here who could assist you. Your choice, of course. quote: Thanks also for replying to the thread. Anytime. :) I happen to enjoy threads that encourage intelligent discourse. Kudos on the subject. quote: Can I ask you, since you don't grapple with the conflict anymore, did it just gradually disappear, or was there some epiphany? Something in between? That is an excellent question! Unfortunately, my answer will probably be disappointing. I'm a bit textbook, I'm afraid. There was one epiphany and the rest was more of a process. I went from sensual sadist, to fluffy sadist, to catharsis sadist, to the 'as long as I've got consent' sadist. quote: No need to get along with me. We probably won't in P&R but that is a discussion for another day. quote: I'm as keen as the next Canuck to discuss the specifics, but the only reason I brought up my negative disposition towards faith was for contrast. Not a problem. I actually get that more than most. I happen to be a female poly Dominant who enjoys sadism. Go find that in religion. quote: For the TPE mentioned in my post, I am aware that their are matters worldly and gross which conflict. I'm most interested in the conflicts that stay entirely between one's ears. Do not mistake me for one who can not agree with those who live happily in consent/non consent. Right up until... One of you sincerely wants to leave. Before that point, I don't give a royal crap if under your roof, you command that your s-type opens his/her veins, while swinging from the chandelier, everyday at exactly 6:03 PM, during a chorus of "Nearer My God to Thee". You want to be there. The other person wants to be there. All good. When one of you wants to go, it's over. quote: With respect to the theory of consent, I'm not familiar with the particular version you're referring to to, but I think I get the gist. As you will find, I do not think of consent as just a theory. (I know I speak poorly from time to time.) Consent is supposed to be the backbone of everything we do in kink. Without it, we are nothing but vicious animals. quote: It does leave itself vulnerable to the charge of not taking itself seriously if it imposes limitations on the consenter as to what they may consent. I think volenti non fit iniuria comes into play here. Do you speak Latin often? If I am correct that translates to (roughly) "a willing person means there is no harm". I find this to be correct. It is the epitome of consent. It's about a 'willing person'. A situation where both parties want to continue. When that is no longer true and one of you wants out, consent is gone. Even in CnC, consent must be obtained, originally. Once removed, you have it no more. Like it or not, that is a part of what defines us. Wonderful thread. Quite good. Darn shame there aren't more like it.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/9/2016 7:50:27 PM)
quote: Can I ask you, since you don't grapple with the conflict anymore, did it just gradually disappear, or was there some epiphany? Something in between? It was more a matter of two epiphanies. The first that the reason I was unhappy in my relationship with this wonderful guy, it took a teary drunken heart to heart for me to admit both to him and myself that I wanted him to give me orders, to be his fucktoy, and yet also his helpmeet so to speak. And the second that I was a masochist, that I actually enjoyed pain (luckily he was a budding sadist). Prior to that one I used to tell myself that I liked doing things I didn't like to please him, I basically shifted the responsibility to him. Now that I have had these two epiphanies things are really much better. I guess to my mind the key is to simply accept yourself as you are.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/9/2016 7:54:29 PM)
quote: With respect to the theory of consent, I'm not familiar with the particular version you're referring to to, but I think I get the gist. Consent is not a theory, it is the heart of this weird shit we do. I consent, until I no longer consent.

LadyPact -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/10/2016 8:10:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Consent is not a theory, it is the heart of this weird shit we do. I consent, until I no longer consent. That last part is exactly what gets me into some heated debates with a certain contingent of the CnC crowd. Even among practitioners of CnC, there is a split on one very important issue. I could not say with any accuracy what the percentages of that split are, so I'm not going to try to put statistics out there. I just know that I've talked in person with people on each side of the split and the best I can do is say some. That issue is consent. More specifically, the withdraw of consent, i.e., one of the parties wants to leave the dynamic. * Some people engaging in CnC hold the belief that when the withdraw of consent happens, the dynamic is over, and that's the end. I'm including the folks in this category who see their dynamics as an all or nothing proposition. * Some of the people engaging in CnC hold the opposite view. If one of the parties want out of the dynamic, the person who doesn't want the dynamic to be over, has the right to drag the unwilling person back into it. The latter of which, I just can't agree with. An exceptionally high percentage of the time, when that dynamic is viable, I don't care what the willing participants are doing in it. I reserve a couple of areas like 'let's not create a situation where people are ending up in the ER' and Dear God, let's not have the untimely death of folks engaging in BDSM. The dynamic is no longer viable when one of the participants wants to leave. Whether that's the M/ or /s, male, female, other, het, gay, or anything else. Basic human rights apply.

Bhruic -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/10/2016 8:20:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre What are the philosophical contradictions you hold with respect to BDSM, S/m, M/s, kink, lifestyle, etc? Are there principles that you hold closely in your mind which are antithetical to each other? How do you deal with them? [snip] I consider religious worldview to be at best epistemic failures and at worst celestial dictatorships, and I abhor them, yet I am intensely attracted to the principles and expressions of sartorial modesty practiced for almost entirely religious purposes. [snip] First... I detect (by your use of "celestial dictatorship") a Hitchens fan. Hello brother! I think the contradictions are not innate in the situations, but enforced by narrow social perceptions, and the desire people seem to have to see life in black and white terms. For example... I see no conflict in owning a bicycle and a pick up truck. If you were a zealot about emissions and fuel economy, and owned a pickup truck, that might be a different matter.

DesFIP -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/10/2016 10:14:38 AM)
I grew up in a sex positive home where we were encouraged to make our own paths. So no problems there, but it's easier since I'm into bondage, not s & m. As far as religion goes, I'm a Reconstructionist Jew and we're a horse of a different color. We are not supposed to do unnatural things. Unnatural defined as our own nature. So it's unnatural for a gay to not seek a same sex partner. As such, since sex is a gift from God, to refuse it by not doing bondage which gives me amazing orgasms would be wrong.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Dispositional Dissonance (7/10/2016 3:40:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Do you speak Latin often? No I don't. I just appreciate using dead people's phrases for clarity once in awhile since their meanings are incontestable. My love for, as opposed to proficiency in, the language was exposed on another thread. I am an amateur.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.445313E-02