RE: Machevelli Domination (Full Version)

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



Message

kate -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 1:54:15 PM)

i am working at the womens center at school and my shift is over...i'll be back later....i LOVE this thread....



puella -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 2:07:18 PM)

Hello juliaoceania,

I hope you do not mind me chiming in on this, as I think you were really offering the question to the Dominants.  It is a question I have been mulling over in the background of my mind since I read it and something popped out at me today.

My kittens roll on their backs and offer me their vulnerable bellies (I swear the fur seems softer there than anywhere else).  This is an act of their submission.  Having worked at a volunteer at an animal shelter, many abused animals come under our care.  As the new 'dominant' in charge of their wellbeing and livelihood, the will lower their heads and cower in deference to whomever has the greater power.  This is an act of oppression.

I chose animals to illustrate the point I am trying to make, because on some level, looking at the most organic and uncomplicated examples in nature can sometimes make things a bit clearer for me than my on obfuscated logic.

I think what can seem very subtle nuances between the words submission and oppression are actually quite important, and are very connected to your question. 

In my own opinion, submission is something that happens when feelings of love, trust and naturalness of place are compelling that reaction from one person to another... (as in the example of my kittens. The do not fear me at all, they know that I would never harm them or hurt them intentionally or maliciously... when I enforce their behavior, the obey out of their acknowledged position of submission to me, not fear... they know I will not harm, them, even when they disobey, though they may be disciplined, and I have no fear of retaliation from them any unguarded moment...though they have launched themselves at me on more than one occasion whilst I was sleeping in an attempt to initiate a midnight play session...hehe). 

Oppression happens by way of fear, forcible subjugation and physical and emotional harshness are utilized to create obedience(those animals who have learned by way of fear[which is often taught by violence and harm]  and their response of obedience has nothing to do with an acknowledged place of respected dominance over them, but rather an acknowledgment that they understand that at this moment, I have more of a means to harm them.  Often times, if not carefully handled, these animals, when presented with the opportunity to take back their subjugation, will lash out violently.)

I can not judge for others which response has more value.  I can only speak for myself as to which is the most rewarding, and the healthiest means dealing with me as a submissive...



agirl -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 2:18:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

I think this question also relates (as happypervert mentioned), to whether people "shape a submissive's behavior" primarily via fear (at any gradation) or mostly via positive re-inforcement. But to say fear (aversion, an intense feeling of being controlled, apprehension or out-right dread) is never a factor, well, I just don't believe that's true.

It might mean the person is in a "controlling D/s relationship w/very little bdsm activity attached" (to me). Otherwise, what are we even doing with things like belts, whips, spankings etc.? Ever?

I mean I agree some people might do them "just because they "feel good." My question then would be - why do they feel good? Is it a "reward", vs."discipline"? Okay. But - Why are you doing these particular things? What's with the belts, straps, branding irons, caging, etc. Why not take a nice, long hot bath, instead. Or go for a 3K run?

I think if people weren't concerned about the "fear factor" being abused, they wouldn't have things like hard (or soft) "limits."

That was my only point, really.

- Susan


I see your point Susan. Not having limits with M means that I obviously trust him and that didn't drop in my lap after a chat or two. It came through experience of him over time.

I don't know HIS limits, though.......I never have and I sincerely doubt that I will, nor do I want to. I have a healthy fear of what he's capable of, based on what I have experienced. I'm afraid of pain, I just can't force myself to look forward to it.........but that fear is wrapped up in a much bigger experience.

If I could remove all the cold caning, the whippings, the spankings, the branding, piercing, needles, flogging etc......because I'm afraid of them .........would I?.....No, because I've found out so much about myself ,and him, through these times.

agirl



juliaoceania -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 2:20:12 PM)

FR

I am not saying the two cannot exist at the same time, I was phrasing the OP to accommodate the quote. I was also using the question to see which would be more valued by dominants as a mechanism of control since both can be used, is it fear or love that is most valued?

I do not know if the two can exist side by side personally. I do not call my fears of abandonment or his displeasures based upon a fear of him, but more a fear of myself and would be there whether I was in a D/s dynamic or not. In other words those fears were not planted by him, they are not of him, in fact if anything he lessens my fears.




agirl -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 2:27:15 PM)

That's a very good point. I can be in a position of fear with M because I DON'T fear him.

He may damage my body but he never damages my mind.

agirl



SusanofO -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 2:29:41 PM)

puella: Good example (although I am not sure it altogether translates into a human experience where someone is using negative reinforcement as a primary means of either "pleasure" or the flip-side of the coin, "discipline" (as opposed to "punishment". But then again, what kittens consider "pleasurable" (eating Cat-nip?), or "disciplinary" (not getting to eat Cat-nip?) isn't my thing, either, so maybe it is a very good example, just exclusive of humans, probably. It's all depending on the context, IMO. I am not being disrespectful in any way (I am just a very analytical person, sometimes).   
 
agirl: I agree w/you, trust takes time...

juliaoceania: My Dominant helps lessen my fear, too.

I wish more Dominants would write in. I am going to wait to comment anymore. I've been posting too much (but it is a great topic, juliaoceania).

- Susan



Padriag -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 2:50:33 PM)

A point to ponder ladies.

Do you fear less because your dominant lessens your fears?

or

Do you fear less because your trust in your dominant reduces your fear?

The first would ascribe some special power to the dominant to banish fear.  The second is a function first of familiarity and more importantly, reliability.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 2:53:23 PM)

I'm going to amend my answer because in thinking about how I defined it, I'd use fear if it happened to work better than love in the long term.

So, I prefer love because fear never works in the long term AND because it is right for me to do so.  Using fear would be against who I am and not be fulfilling for myself.



gooddogbenji -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 2:59:00 PM)

Fast reply:

In The Prince, Macchiavelli is speaking of rulers, and totalitarian ones at that.  In order for them to remain in power, they pretty much had to avoid getting killed, and getting invaded.  Both of these are acts of aggression which are done only by people who neither love nor fear you.

He goes on to explain that if you're loved, you are never loved by everyone; that is not possible.  But it is possible to be universally feared (almost).

Therefore, if you are loved, some may still want to kill you.  But if you are feared, few will.

Now, in BDSM as we know it, if a ruler is not liked, you kick him to the curb.  If you fear him, you go to the cops.  Therefore, to be feared doesn't work in the long run, but, just like Macchiavelli said, if you are loved, that lasts for as long as you are loved.

Neither insures against heartbreak, but one insures against cops.

Yours,


benji



juliaoceania -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 3:00:06 PM)

Puella,

Is it the difference between domination and domineering that you are describing with oppresion and submission? It was something that crossed my mind when reading your post.






juliaoceania -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 3:04:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

A point to ponder ladies.

Do you fear less because your dominant lessens your fears?

or

Do you fear less because your trust in your dominant reduces your fear?

The first would ascribe some special power to the dominant to banish fear.  The second is a function first of familiarity and more importantly, reliability.


Is there a difference? Are these things mutually exclusive?

I think reliability is one thing that increases trust, but sometimes having him say something such as "I will never do X or Y or Z to you because I get how much that would hurt you" goes a long ways to allaying my fears.

An example: When my Daddy and I first started talking he promised he would never punish me by isolating me. That went a long way to instill trust in me, and he never has done that, so there is the reliability that he keeps his word.



juliaoceania -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 3:07:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji

Fast reply:

In The Prince, Macchiavelli is speaking of rulers, and totalitarian ones at that.  In order for them to remain in power, they pretty much had to avoid getting killed, and getting invaded.  Both of these are acts of aggression which are done only by people who neither love nor fear you.

He goes on to explain that if you're loved, you are never loved by everyone; that is not possible.  But it is possible to be universally feared (almost).

Therefore, if you are loved, some may still want to kill you.  But if you are feared, few will.

Now, in BDSM as we know it, if a ruler is not liked, you kick him to the curb.  If you fear him, you go to the cops.  Therefore, to be feared doesn't work in the long run, but, just like Macchiavelli said, if you are loved, that lasts for as long as you are loved.

Neither insures against heartbreak, but one insures against cops.

Yours,


benji


I realize that Benji, the quote has echoed in my mind off and on when reading about punishment and strictness and if there are dominants that view fear as being essential in domination. I am not making a value judgment on those who have used fear or if it was effective or if it was harmful because I am not in that relationship. The quote stuck out in my mind even though it is not directly related because I was using poetic lisense to start this thread.



gooddogbenji -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 3:13:57 PM)

Cool. 

Jes' sayin fear can be pretty damn effective.

We actually got into a debate a few days ago about it.  We had a communication seminar at work, and one manager stated that "ruling by fear never works."  A few people, having worked in companies where it works quite well, got their backs up, and they were off!

Ruling by fear can work very well if the ruling don't really care about whom they rule.  In a company, you will have high staff turnover.  In a country, people will flee, and others will make babies.  In relationships, you learn to find the right partner who responds well to fear, but will eventually run, crying, into the night.  Then you find another.  If you don't care who it is, it works.

Yours,


benji



Vendaval -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 3:18:10 PM)

The saying, "Speak softly but carry a big stick," seems relevant
to this conversation.  Trying to remember who said that ?
 



juliaoceania -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 3:21:06 PM)

Teddy Roosevelt I believe



ownedgirlie -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 3:25:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

A point to ponder ladies.

Do you fear less because your dominant lessens your fears?

or

Do you fear less because your trust in your dominant reduces your fear?

The first would ascribe some special power to the dominant to banish fear.  The second is a function first of familiarity and more importantly, reliability.


Both and neither.

He lessens my fears, yes.  He also taught me to fear less, in general, by teaching me to know myself.

Yet I do trust in him deeply. As mentioned in my first post, he has the ability to crush me...but I trust that he won't.



Padriag -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 3:35:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
Is there a difference? Are these things mutually exclusive?

A very large difference.

quote:

I think reliability is one thing that increases trust, but sometimes having him say something such as "I will never do X or Y or Z to you because I get how much that would hurt you" goes a long ways to allaying my fears.

Ah, but would you believe him if you did not already trust him?  And would you trust him if you did not believe you could rely on him?  Anyone can say they will not do something... but we do not fully believe them until experience tells us we can rely upon what they have said.



Vendaval -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 3:38:03 PM)

Think you are right, thank you julia!



juliaoceania -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 3:48:18 PM)

quote:

Ah, but would you believe him if you did not already trust him?  And would you trust him if you did not believe you could rely on him?  Anyone can say they will not do something... but we do not fully believe them until experience tells us we can rely upon what they have said.


I do not see the point that you are trying to make, many things go into trust.. first of all, the willingness of the person extending the trust to do so. The reliablility of the person one has extended their trust to plays a role. The past experiences of the person that is extending trust... from my experience.

I have over reacted to something recently because of my past baggage.. it had nothing to do with his reliablity. It had everything to do with my fears. So while I agree that reliability does indeed provide a foundation for trust.. it is only one component. Someone can be very reliable and trustworthy and still not be given the trust of someone else.



SusanofO -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 4:02:06 PM)

Well.  Someone can agree to bdsm play, whether it is fearful to them, or not (maybe the simply find it "exciting"). I suppose they could "submit" to things they said they feared (but really didn't fear) because they were excited by them ("Oh Master, I cannot take 25 strokes! No!") When what they wanted was more, not less of some "discipline" they actually saw as a "reward". But I'd call that manipulation in that situation, not submission. 

I do realize people can engage in bdsm activity without being scared of particular things, and simply can engage in it because they enjoy it, and find it very exciting, instead. But my question is still "why?" (even though I do, too, enjoy bdsm activities). Why bdsm, and not running or eating chocolate if you want an endophin rush?

To me, bdsm is all about control. If there's no control, there's nobody "submitting" to anything. And sometimes (particularly when someone is having their "limits pushed", IMO, it can definitely be about fear, as well). Where does control come from? From someone giving (and gaining someone else's trust). Unless it's not a consensual situation.

But - in a situation where a Dominant is pushing a submissive's "limits" I don't call the above behavior "submissive" (lying that you "can't take something" you actually want, because you want more of it, not less). I call that manipulation on a submissive's part. 

I guess I think there are probably Masters who rarely push a submissive's limits, sure. But pushing limits is also a pretty common practice, is it not? I also think you can "control" (or encourage growth) in someone by being kind, pleasant, and growth as a person doesn't always have to come by inducing intense fear.

But - If a Dominant is "pushing someone's limits", my impression has been, well - isn't there at least (usually) a little bit of fear for a submissive to overcome? If not, then just what are they "submitting to?" I mean if the submissive enjoyed having their "limits" pushed, thought they could "just do it" without being pushed, then why would they have a need for "control" on the part of a Dominant? What are they "submitting to" if they enjoy it?  

I see Padriag's point: To me it means, that if a Dominant continually "safely" pushes a submissive's limits (open to interpretation, can mean he didn't kill her of course, and anything less severe than that as well, probably, depends on who you're talking to), then her trust she can rely on his word grows. Or at least it can increase the potential for that, if she has "past baggage." The key to building trust is being reliable, as a Dominant,and something that can grow or decrease, depending on whether he is reliable, regardless, sometimes, of the intensity of what he is doing to a submissive, perhaps, as long as he can successfully guage when it's wise to stop.Knowing when it would be wise is what increases a submissive's trust, if "pushing their limits."

Also: If a submkissive gets a "reward", if they "submit" to someone pushing their "limits" (dinner at a fancy restaurant if you agree to 40 strokes vs. 20 tonight) - is that "submitting"? Hey, I'll "submit" to spanking anytime - I love it. I'd maybe have a hard time w/an extra, intense, or repetitive hard, lenghty ones, closely spaced together, though.

Is the only reward deepened trust in the Dominant (not a small thing at all, and probably the whole point, IMO, if someone is really "trustworthy"), or is it the Dominant getting excited and enjoying challenging a submissive?  Both? If so, I think it's fine (that's what I've gotten from it, mostly).

Maybe related, maybe not: I read on another thread about someone who wants to have "rules" for their submissive, but didn't specify them. They were very vague "rules". Things like: "Respect others". I thought Hmmm. How're 'ya gonna know when she breaks it? Is it fair to enforce something that hasn't been specified? I mean after all, they're not "submitting" to anything really, are they, unless it's been specified a bit more explicitly? I thought the idea they'd induced "control" with such a vague rule, was an illusion.

- Susan



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
9.765625E-02