Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (Full Version)

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



Message

Gemeni -> Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/24/2005 10:23:08 AM)

I keep seeing so many debates over slavery limits etc....and I think a lot it comes from a misconception about the deliniations of kink, vs a natural dynamic.

Firstly, kink is about kink. But getting kink your way is often defined incorrecly as having "power". It may make one FEEL powerful to have a person agree to something he or she would not normally do,but it comes back to a simple matter of compatability-it has nothing to do with power imbalance.

The second misconception I often see is to think a man is not a Master, unless he has a slave. This is incorrect..A man who has control of himself and his life, IS his own Master, by virtue of his inner strength. And will be so, whether he chooses to have a slave or not.

Now when a man acheives stability and consistency in his life,he will tend to attract a certain sort of woman to him who also desires that. And these will tend to be submissive women.
But in this sort of relationship,nothing is being "exchanged". it would be silly to think so,they simply work together. And power is not an issue.

I really do think that evolutionary processes have hard wired us to this sort of dynamic. And that it is simply a natural outcome of this process, to seek D/s relationships. Even when you look at the differences in how the sexes express love.....women tend to be more about passion and romance,while men often seem to feel love is more about possesion, and feeling protective of their property.

Look at it this way..Men who had strength and competence could better help to support and raise offspring to maturity. So thier bloodlines were passesd on. Those who did not,were weeded out.

The stronger blood survived and flourished,it simply worked.

And it is STILL hard wired into us..No matter how much current society wishes to make us think we are all "equal and the same".

Because we are not, and we cant be,right down to the cellular levels.

Now the real point I am trying to make here is that so called "D/s" seeks to pervert this natural order,this symbiosis, into a "kink".

And people were practicing Dominant/submissive relationships totally independent of that for millenia before that ever happened.

It's not a kink,it's who we ARE. The beauty of it is when we find the right match.





TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/24/2005 10:36:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gemeni

Firstly, kink is about kink.


Well, one would certainly hope so. *smile*

I get the feeling that you find the word "kink" to have negative connotations. To you, it seems to mean something unnatural or perverted. For many of us, kink just means "different." Most people's ropes are straight...our's have a few kinks in them.

When we say we are kinky, we mean that the things we like to practice, be it flogging or bondage or consensual slavery, are a bit outside what most people consider to be "straight" sex. They certainly are outside the "sex as procreation" definition of "straight" sex, but I think society has evolved to the point where that definition no longer really applies.

quote:


The second misconception I often see is to think a man is not a Master, unless he has a slave.


While one might be a Master, one is clearly not a slave owner, unless one owns a slave.

quote:


Now the real point I am trying to make here is that so called "D/s" seeks to pervert this natural order,this symbiosis, into a "kink".


I think you misunderstand what we are saying when we call what we do kinky. It is not unnatural to be kinky. It is not perverted to be kinky. To be kinky is just not to be straight...value judgements to be left to the individual.

Taggard



Gemeni -> RE: Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/24/2005 10:42:11 AM)

I agree on your points Taggard.

And no one is not an owner without someone to be owned. I'm just seperating out the basics that seem to lead to so much semantic confusion.

I see nothing negative about kink,I enjoy a certain amount if it myself. I just dislike seing it DEFINED as Dominance and submission,as if it had to fit that narrow criteria.



EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/24/2005 11:33:43 AM)

Well first off, I'm THRILLED at the topic of "debunking the power exchange" and I fully agree. I still HAVE all the power in me that I had before I was owned. In fact, I am MORE powerful now with the training and experiences that the Owner has given me. I use the words "ultimate authority transfer" to express the dynamic.

However, I'm disagreeing with you that a relationship that has a dominant and a submissive in it is a "ds" relationship. I also disagree with your assertion of doms=male and subs=female. While I agree that males have been the physically more assertive of the sexes historically, that doesn't make them a dominant in terms of Ds.

If there's no difference between all the vanilla relationships out there that have one partner as dominant and one as submissive, why do we have so many people trying to be NON vanilla relationships? To me there's a VERY large difference between being with someone who has a dominant personality, and being with someone who is oriented AS a dominant.

To me dominance and submission has nothing to do with personality. I have a very dominant personality but I am oriented in relationships as a slave. I also don't think that just because women have BEEN in the submissive role through history means that they ARE "submissives" in the sense that we use here.

There's a difference between "dominant," being "a dominant," and "dominant personality."



Gemeni -> RE: Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/24/2005 11:37:38 AM)

It's really all about the way the personalities mesh, isn't it emeraldslave?

And as far as gender orientation,I was using my own perspective. It simply explains how a lot of the nunaces between the sexes work,so far as I can see them.



Jasmyn -> RE: Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/24/2005 11:44:26 AM)

Gemeni I admit I think along similar lines. There are things that I enjoy sexually that a good portion of the population would class as kinky but what I find interesting is a great deal in the 'kinky' crowd equate what I enjoy to be the act of a 'submissive' ...yet I know full well that when I get up off the bed...I do so as a Dominant Woman...and when in the bed...I am getting exactly what I set out to get.

I also tend to not use the term 'tpe' to describe My M/s relationships. There is no power being exchanged as far as I am concerned. I'm not being powerful so they can be submissive..I just am.

Look forward to hearing others thoughts.

Jasmyn



EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/24/2005 12:07:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gemeni

It's really all about the way the personalities mesh, isn't it emeraldslave?

All human relationships are. However, ones personality does not dictate ones orientation.
quote:


And as far as gender orientation,I was using my own perspective. It simply explains how a lot of the nunaces between the sexes work,so far as I can see them.


In a GENERAL sense, sure. But there's exceptions in every relationship, even in every human. Isn't that the entire concept of "yin-yang"? That everything has both a "male" essence and a "female" essence? Every woman has some "non stereotypically female aspects" about her and every male has some "non stereotypically male" aspects about him.

I'm willing to go along with the idea that there are stereotypical differences which can be seen in a general look at things. But if you begin to draw from that any conclusions based on an INDIVIDUAL, then it goes to hell. How often do you hear in life and on the boards how a submissive is really so very strong and dominant in everyday life?

There's just no way to take generalities and apply them either individually or universally. They are simply generalities.



Gemeni -> RE: Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/24/2005 1:16:05 PM)

smiles....

Another point I'd like to make (beyond the ones made about indiviudal prefference)

Is why I stated the one about self Mastery. I think this applies to just about anyone.

I get SO tired of hearing the whining about how "if I only had a slave/Master, it would complete me as a person!"

Now this smacks to me as a terrible self esteem issue.

Firstly, if you NEED a slave to feel powerful,what does that say about you? So,you are going to draw your power from your servant?

What happened to YOURS buddy, are you really so inadequate?

And I'll say the same of slaves looking at it this way.. A Master completes YOU? ........... I do hope you have more than just your ELBOWS to put on the table in offering. Unless you simply seek a baby sitter. In which case,be honest enough to say so. A fellow may not care to take on that role-it's very draining.

For this sort of thing to work,you need at least to have a base level of usefulness and competence. If both parties are lacking in the same areas,it is going to be difficult to cope in a functional manner-so you need to be VERY careful in knowing what your strengths and weaknesses are. Self realization is a MUST.

We are all hopefully grown up enough to take some personal responsibility for ourselves by the time we are 21 or so.

Lets face it, M/s things are about internal fortitude. Either role takes responsibility to execute with sucess.

What cheapens this is, when people with no intention to take on the responsibility use it as a sex game, and claim to be equal to the task. You have the guts to go the distance, or you don't.

It's less about the fun,and more about work.

Just don't delude yourself about it, either way.



LordODiscipline -> RE: Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/24/2005 3:42:35 PM)

I sincerely find this a specious jumble of semantic conveniences...

The issue of "Master"
1. Someone may be a "master of themself"
2. Someone may be a "master of another" should they control that person's actions.
3. If one controls another person's actions they are (by default) their "master".
4. One may (also) be a "master of a craft"
5. There is more than one definition of "master" or "to master" and they are not 'mutually' exclusive or 'mutually inclusive'

The issue of genetic "hard wiring"
1. There is 'never' something that 'always' happens
2. If the thoughts you expressed were entirely true about people today, then there would never be a 'geek' who was mated.
3. If this were the case, than there would never be anyone who was gay as that would necessitate that the issue of desire for the same sex would die from our genetic makeup within generations.
4. There is a LOT more to personal chemistry than genetics and simplistic pandering about instinct.

Exchanging Power
1. People exchange power in all interactions relative to the original meaning of the term, which is a give and take interaction based upon the dynamics involved in the interrelationship.
2. People have practiced many things for millenia -

they were not considered to be perverts, or, associated themselves under such a 'banner' in the manner in which they did it - in the times that you refer to - and they did not organize to associate with others under the cover of anonimity - such as many of us do - during those periods. Vague references to historical times in the past does not make the terms synonimous and does not change 'what it is that we do' into 'what it is that they did'. No amount of revisionism will change today.


Just a few thoughts from a tired individual.

~J




Gemeni -> RE: Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/24/2005 5:12:34 PM)

I know I was overly simplistic in this LOD.


As far as genetics,some things are pretty consistent and we have mutations and variants as well. "Gay" is not a breeding type of animal overall,they do not reproduce. They do fit into a certain mutation subset within the "breeder" group however. and even then,there is a variance with chemistry as you mention.

No one has quite figured out the roots of sexual attraction and orientation to date,so we can't say for sure how much is nature,and how much is nurture, or purely mental in origin. But I think it fairly safe to say that mutations that do not multiply tend to die off.

Only the ones that work within thier enviornments suceed.

And no,history does not dictate the future,but it does serve as a viable refference about our nature.




MidnightWriter -> RE: Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/24/2005 6:51:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gemeni

I keep seeing so many debates over slavery limits etc....and I think a lot it comes from a misconception about the deliniations of kink, vs a natural dynamic.

I love phrases that include the word "natural" - as if kink were unnatural. I rarely agree with such unstated assumptions - but they're fun to find. Especially since they're semantically meaningless; since nothing exists outside of nature, then nothing can actually be unnatural.
quote:

Firstly, kink is about kink. But getting kink your way is often defined incorrecly as having "power". It may make one FEEL powerful to have a person agree to something he or she would not normally do,but it comes back to a simple matter of compatability-it has nothing to do with power imbalance.

This may, indeed, be your experience of the practice of d/s, and I'm glad you enjoy doing it your way. Your way is not, however, the only way - for some, there is an actual power imbalance, no matter how unlikely you may believe that to be.
quote:

The second misconception I often see is to think a man is not a Master, unless he has a slave. This is incorrect..A man who has control of himself and his life, IS his own Master, by virtue of his inner strength. And will be so, whether he chooses to have a slave or not.

Your use of two different definitions of 'master' to prove your point is disingenous at best. Not that I insist that the end of a relationship changes someone's self-identification - but I object to your comparison of apples and oranges to make this point.
quote:

Now when a man acheives stability and consistency in his life,he will tend to attract a certain sort of woman to him who also desires that. And these will tend to be submissive women.

Do you have any evidence to support this generalization? Stable and consistent people tend to attract vanillas, as well - and plenty of submissives are drawn to the wilder, bad boy/girl image.
quote:

But in this sort of relationship,nothing is being "exchanged". it would be silly to think so,they simply work together. And power is not an issue.

Last time I had such a relationship, spit got exchanged, among various other bodily fluids and personal effects, leaving time and energy entirely out of the question. Yes, we worked together on some things - but power was very much an issue.

That this does not reflect your style does not mean that other styles do not exist.

quote:

I really do think that evolutionary processes have hard wired us to this sort of dynamic.

Wow - a point upon which we can agree. Yes, dominance is seen throughout human relationships, and into most primate behavior. That we can blame this upon evolution is an untried assumption, and I believe that Darwin would be spinning in his grave at it.
quote:

And that it is simply a natural outcome of this process, to seek D/s relationships. Even when you look at the differences in how the sexes express love.....women tend to be more about passion and romance,while men often seem to feel love is more about possesion, and feeling protective of their property.

More meaningless generalities. I know men (one, I've slept with since I was born) who enjoy passion and romance, and who are not possessive. Protective? Try threatening a woman's offspring if you want to see "protective" in action. I can find women for whom romance and passion are anethema, and men who are not protective and possessive. To speculate, based upon such obviously mistaken generalities, is a futile effort.

Which lab in the 1950s are you stuck in?
quote:

Look at it this way..Men who had strength and competence could better help to support and raise offspring to maturity. So thier bloodlines were passesd on. Those who did not,were weeded out.

This would be why all men are now strong and competent - simple genetics.

It'd make perfect sense, if it were not so easily rebutted.
quote:

The stronger blood survived and flourished,it simply worked.

I would LOVE to see a genetic/evolutionary explanation of the drivers in my part of town - I'm amazed that they can find and start their cars, but their ancestors had a much more challenging environment to deal with. There's simply more to the equation than genetics.
quote:

And it is STILL hard wired into us..No matter how much current society wishes to make us think we are all "equal and the same".

Because we are not, and we cant be,right down to the cellular levels.

Are you sure you want to get into molecular biology?

No, we are not all equal - and cannot be the same. This does not mean that dominance is genetic, or even gender-specific.
quote:

Now the real point I am trying to make here is that so called "D/s" seeks to pervert this natural order,this symbiosis, into a kink".

This would depend entirely upon what definition you were using for 'kink'. "So-called "D/s""? Whom are you trying to kid? First you claim that d/s is ingrained into our genes, and now it's an unfounded rumor to start with?
quote:

And people were practicing Dominant/submissive relationships totally independent of that for millenia before that ever happened.

All people, everywhere, are dealing with dominance and submission - socially, professionally, and within relationships - even in those relationships that we term "vanilla". I never saw anyone dispute this with any effectiveness.
quote:

It's not a kink,it's who we ARE. The beauty of it is when we find the right match.

I dunno about you, but kinky is part of what I am. The beauty of it is when we give other folks the same room to be themselves as we insist upon for us to be ourselves.



LordODiscipline -> RE: Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/24/2005 7:13:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gemeni

As far as genetics,some things are pretty consistent and we have mutations and variants as well. "Gay" is not a breeding type of animal overall,they do not reproduce.


Recent studies indicate two contributing factors to the sexuality of a person that have garnered considerable interest and extended cooberating study -
1. The in utero cascading (to be simplistic) of hormones within the amniotic sac. This appears to be partially due to a genetic triggering based in the quantity of children that the mother has birthed.
2. A genetic component of the child that is a determinant in their sexuality. This is based on the propensity of "gay" off spring in families, and regions/areas where the study is conducted.

Both have limited viability without further study, but the overriding evidence thus far is significant and the numbers are very good for the cross section of the population so far taken into consideration.

The point of my broaching the subject is that IF there were a genetic predisposition for darwinian dominance within the species (as you indicated) there would be (of necessity) an expiration of any variation within the species which did not adequately contribute to and/or support that - and, certainly there would be no people who were gay, should that be the sole determining factor. (not even to mention the low rate of reproduction inherent in the gay communities)

quote:


They do fit into a certain mutation subset within the "breeder" group however. and even then,there is a variance with chemistry as you mention.


Actually, I mentioned 'chemistry' in a less than stellar way - as a colloquial idiom vice with any scientific connotation. The "chemistry" I was speaking of is the one that allows the 'babe' to desire the 'geek' and the Buff Bud would never be with the the 'bride of Frankenstein'.
quote:


No one has quite figured out the roots of sexual attraction and orientation to date,so we can't say for sure how much is nature,and how much is nurture, or purely mental in origin. But I think it fairly safe to say that mutations that do not multiply tend to die off.


They may remain constant in the population and/or manifest themselves as the DNA ages and strands break - so they may be steady or on the increase depending on original disposition and/or deterioration leading to their manifestation as a realized situation.

quote:

Only the ones that work within thier enviornments suceed.


Well -depends on your definition of "work"

quote:

And no,history does not dictate the future,but it does serve as a viable refference about our nature.


Somewhat - but only as anecdotal reference - and stereotypical. History (in behavioral terms) is constantly evolving relative to sociological inference and the moralities of the time one is in.

It does not provide us with any clear pattern that might be pointed out as "the way" that "all humans are" - or - "the way" that humans are 'going to be'.

~J

Who is going to bed



Gemeni -> RE: Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/24/2005 7:32:33 PM)

Interesting ideas.

Lots of food for thought here. I'm not going to debate my ideas, I just offered them for discussion.

I don't a lot of this is provable one way or the other. And these sorts of things HAVE been debated to death many many times.

Let's see some facts from various sources pro and con and see if there are any common elements.

Feel free to ADD anything you like,I'm here to learn as much as any of you.

But if I was vague, but please don't rebut me with anything equally vague. It won't serve any purpose but to engender a bunch of knee jerk squabbling,and we already have one ten page thread about that.



BeachMystress -> RE: Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/24/2005 8:10:39 PM)


. I'm finding I'm agreeing with bits and pieces of all said, and it is helping me define nuances in my relationship with my sub. Good thread on all sides! I love when the forums are like this, productive debate without flaming!

While I know there are some women who like spineless worms as subs, I've always insisted that my subs be strong people in their own right. They don't have to be aggressive, just able to take care of themselves and stand their own in this world. I don't except substandard material. I deserve the best. (which of us doesn't?) To that point, I get very unhappy with anyone who refers to my sub as a lesser. He is in NO way lesser.

I don't generally refer to our relationship in D/s terms. I break it into vanilla terms for people. I'm the traditional "husband" role, he's the traditional "wife" role. (Any of you men who have a wife know what that means. I get nagged at times.. eeps. LOL.) That doesn't mean we've exchanged power in any way. Our power and expression of it is the same as couples throughout the ages. We've combined into a unit in which one of us (me) is the lead. Our power compliments each other. I love EmeraldSlave2's term "ultimate authority transfer." It is more descriptive to an outsider than power exchange and better fits my relationship as a whole.

That being said, we do have the dynamic of him tolerating things that are more comfortable as a fantasy so that I can get my rocks off. Since our entire life is an authority transfer, what would you term this? Do we just throw it on the given pile, since we have a D/s relationship? Do we call it kink? Personally, I'm not labeling it. I kinda just call it our life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gemeni
Even when you look at the differences in how the sexes express love.....women tend to be more about passion and romance,while men often seem to feel love is more about possesion, and feeling protective of their property.

Since my sub is more romantic than I am in many ways, I don't agree with this statement. I personally can not stand most romantic comedy and he seems to like it. You can't separate how people act along gender lines. Both of us are possessive and protective of the other. I consider that a normal bond between a mated pair.



EmeraldSlave2 -> RE: Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/25/2005 5:58:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BeachMystress
I love EmeraldSlave2's term "ultimate authority transfer." It is more descriptive to an outsider than power exchange and better fits my relationship as a whole.


Woohoo! I'm on a worldwide mission to destroy the TPE term and replace it with mine. Each person counts!



Darthbetta -> RE: Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/25/2005 6:04:14 AM)

Firstly, if you NEED a slave to feel powerful,what does that say about you? So,you are going to draw your power from your servant?

Well, one night I was using my single tail on my date, and apparently she can't handle that kind of punishment, because when I struck her she just farted, flew around the room, and out the window to deflate on the sidewalk below..........

I sooo need a real slave.....



BeachMystress -> RE: Debunking the Myth of "power exchange" (2/25/2005 12:18:29 PM)


Look, how many times have I told you to go out with the girls made in Taiwan? The ones from Mexico just can't take the abuse!



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125