|
Noah -> RE: Punishment is Deceptive (10/2/2006 12:08:31 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: catize
quote:
I appreciate the restraint that catize showed in her disparagement, but: "I submit and obey because it fulfills me to do so, not because I live in fear of punishment." really does strike me as implictly disparaging. It also strikes me as unimaginative. There are all sorts of orientations one can have to punishment which are just not captured by the implication that anyone who builds punishment into a relationship is relying on fear to do a job which can and should be done better--for all people and in all relationships--by something else.
Is it so hard to make room for a sentence like: "I am in a relationship which employs punishment because it fulfills me to do so," catize? Do you believe that some uncomplicated, black and white notion like fear vs. fulfillment can charcterize the issue?
It would seem as if I have stepped on an issue that is dear to your heart. I don’t see how expressing my own point of view disparages another. You have inferred an implication that was not intended.
No, I do not find it hard to accept that there are widely varied relationships that work well for those involved.
Catize. I'm sorry to see you have taken such a defensive stance to a post that wasn't intended as any sort of attack on you. I never skip over your contributions when reading a thread because based on my readings of your posts over a period of time I respect you and your views. The questions I asked weren't merely rhetorical. I'm interested in your responses to them as well the responses of others.
The topic was punishment and you started your post with: "I prefer to be treated as an adult..." Now how was this to be taken except as a suggestion that punishment is somehow not adult in your view? Can you see how a person might have gotten the impression I got?
I also asked about your implication that punishment is simply a fear-driven enterprise, and asked you to consider that it could be much more multifaceted. I have no doubt that you are capable of considering this but your post read to me as though as it happened you hadn't stopped to look at these things these ways, and I was inviting you to.
This is all quite different than a suggestion that you don't appreciate that things vary, in general--which is a suggestion I might be tempted to make about a very few people here but not you.
quote:
Among the many posts I'm grateful for here is the one which introduced the notion of atonement, which is for me a powerful notion. I'd like to read more about this in the present context. I think there is a wonderful cluster of concepts--mirroring a wonderful cluster of aspects of the human experience--which cluster can include punishment and atonement as well as alienation/reconciliation, penance--in a sense that is more aspirational then punitive, discipline, and communion.
quote:
What must a submissive atone for?
What must a submissive atone for? I can hardly understand the question since it is put so generally but seems to point toward areas which are of necessity utterly personal and particular. But the thing is that I never suggested, nor did I see anyone else suggest, that any submissive must atone for anything. So I wonder why you put your question so provocatively.
I appreciate your contribution to the discussion in terms of suggesting a view of atonement as involving expiation for sins. This surely corresponds to one of the word's lexical definitions and it is worth bringing in. The notions of sin and/or expiation don't need to be brought in, of course. The word atonement can be understood in terms of alienation/reconciliation as well, and perhaps in other ways. Breaking the word down as at-one-ment highlights this. But yes, in a given relationship the sin/expiation idea might be the best way to get at certain things.
Addressing the reconciliation sense of atonement one can easily consider a reconciliation with a partner as the subject matter. Equally well one can consider a personal, internal urge toward at-one-ment, or we might use the term "centering," which might or might not be facilitated by one's partner. The punishment dynamic could be one way to approach this sort of thing.
I get the impression that those discussions which are all you and your partner need in certain situations may serve you in both of these senses: re-affirming communion, so to speak, and aiding personal equilibrium for you as well. Whether or not this surmise about you holds true it is still that case that it could work this way for a given person. In fact I think cases like this have been brought up in other posts to this thread.
A point I was making is that we needn't suggest that this way of at-one-ment is "adult" and other modalities are not.
As for, in particular: "And if a submissive is in need of penitence for human fallibility, how does the dominant receive expiation for their sins?"
This of course is a perfectly fine question to explore, whether one is speaking in terms of sin or in terms of alienation. In fact I don't think it gets enough consideration generally. There can't be any question that dominants are just as fallible and error-prone as submissives. I shouldn't think that they would as a group be any less desirous of at-one-ment, though some individuals in some contexts surely are.
quote:
quote:
If punishment doesn't fit you or your relationship, that's fine. Please don't be too quick to pounce on those different than you for what you presume are deficiencies. Depending on the road you are travelling you must choose an appropriate vehicle. Isn't this right? Maybe punishment isn't a vehicle that assists advancement on your stretch of road. That's coo. Just be careful about assuming that your stretch of road is actually ahead of all of those where punishment works, works perhaps in ways you have never experienced and don't understand.
It is *my* philosophy that *I* am the one responsible for *my* own behaviors. My belief is that my submission needs to come from within. The efficacy of external controls is, *in my opinion*, self-limiting within the context of *my* relationship.
There is a right road for *me* but I do not see where I inferred all others must travel the same path.
quote:
Of course you, catize, stopped short of imposition, but I don't think you quite stopped short of admonishment.
I find the highlighted portion of your statement more than a bit ironic.
As for the question of where you inferred that all others must travel the same path, please note that I was careful to publicly give you credit for stopping short of making that move, the move of imposing your view on others. All the same, insofar as you implied that the punishment dynamic is just a fear-based thing and not "adult" it did strike me as disparaging to those who engage in it. This was my opionion, my interpretation of your words, and I owned it as such and presented it for your response. That's all fair, right?
There is no need to see irony in that sentence you underlined since I have never spoken out against admonishment in general. In fact in my first draft of the post it had another portion: "... just I have not stopped short of admonishment here." but I deleted that as it seemed so self-evident as to be almost insultingly superfluous.
Insofar as your comment about preferring to be treated as an adult was a suggestion that punishment is childish, I was admonishing you in regard to it. If you didn't intend to imply that punishment is childish then I can't imagine why the word "adult" entered your post. But that's okay. There are lots of things I can't imagine.
Insofar as your characterization of the punishment dynamic as simply fear-based I was admonishing to consider that it can be so much more.
Insofar as I have drawn false inferences, I thank you for your efforts to set things straight.
|
|
|
|
