RE: Machevelli Domination

RE: Machevelli Domination (Full Version)

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

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 4:11:49 PM)
quote: I guess I think there are probably Masters who rarely push a submissive's limits, sure. But pushing limits is pretty common practice, si it not? I also think you can control someone by being kind, pleasant, and growth as a person doesn't always have to come by inducing intense fear I have had some of my limits pushed and was not afraid at all. In fact if it were not for it being him I would be afraid. I did not like bondage when I tried it before.. with him it was divine! Never a frightful feeling, and he questioned me repeatedly about my emotional well being the entire time. We plan on doing knife play.. this might scare me, but again I trust him and I trust myself to do it. You see, if I did not trust myself to overcome a fear response we would not do it.. knife play requires I be very still or I could become very damaged... fearful squicked people are not reliable people... although I suppose one could immobilize the victim.. er I mean submissive.

SlyStone -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 4:17:29 PM)
I guess from all the responses here I must be seeing this all wrong. The question is basically simplistic, chose to be loved or chose to be feared. Who but a fool or a mad man would not chose to be loved. But my understanding of the OP was that she was asking a more complicated question than that of the dominant. I thought she was asking which of the two, if forced to chose, did you SEEK from your submissive, assuming you care for her and want her to gain from the experience. Fear is a tool, one of many, that can be used as an aid to guide and lead and take a submissive to a new place and seek mutual growth, all of which in my mind are what the bdsm experience is all about. One can fear the teacher and still learn, one can fear the experience and still gain from it. I am not talking about fear for one's life, but fear of the unknown. If we are talking about a bdsm experience and not a long term vanilla type relationship than I think the need for love by the dominant need not, and perhaps should not, be an aspiration, a hope perhaps, but not an aspiration. For me,as a dominant, D/s or bdsm are not about trying to get someone to love me, that just seems way to narcissistic, for me it is about the two of us shedding our skins and celebrating our humanity. If one believes that love is gratitude than it is there anyway, conscious or not. Yes it is a need to be loved and to love, we all seek some kind of affirmation, but If the dominant is deserving of it than it will come, there is no need to seek it, and in my mind it is selfish to do so.

juliaoceania -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 4:28:09 PM)
quote: guess from all the responses here I must be seeing this all wrong. The question is basically simplistic, chose to be loved or chose to be feared. Who but a fool or a mad man would not chose to be loved. But my understanding of the OP was that she was asking a more complicated question than that of the dominant. I thought she was asking which of the two, if forced to chose, did you SEEK from your submissive, assuming you care for her and want her to gain from the experience. The OP was just a device to think about what love and fear mean in the D/s relationship. It was an OP that was intentionally open ended to illicit responses from people based upon their feelings that the simplistic nature of the post brought forth... there are no right or wrong answers. I love threads that just go the way that people reading them want them to go. I do not care if threads I start get hijacked because of this... and will often hijack my own thread...lol You answer is interesting.... because it took the false dichotomy I set up and showed how you do not want love or fear.. which is exactly what the OP was trying to illicit... a spectrum of views... Edited to correct myself based upon what you wrote... you may not necessarily want love and not all D/s relationships function with love involved

SusanofO -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 5:03:23 PM)
I wasn't insinuating juliaoceania (or anyone in particular) was being a manipultive submissive in my last post. My point was, if someone enjoys something how can it be a "limit?" What, in that case, are they "submitting to?" The very nature of the word "limit" dictates it is something one doesn't particularly enjoy, or is fearful of undertaking (on some level anyway, to me). Call it "expanding your horizons", call it whatever. Same thing. If they've just never tried something, and find out they enjoy it, I don't see that as someone having "pushed a limit" - I see it as trying a new activity. I see it as nuetral, in reality. They might think they'd not like it, but they don't really know. Pushing a "limit" (to me) is doing something you really believe (via past experience) you might not (or won't) like doing. If your'e not at least a little fearful, then why is it a "limit" in the first place? If it just "sounds squicky", but has not been experienced, to me, it doesn't count as a "hard limit." Possibly (to me) it might as a soft limit, but even then, I think it classifies as nuetral, at best. Because it's just "un-tested territory". About the only thing I really truly see to this, as an exception, is death (can't come back from there, can we?) and the obvious illegalities that are usually carted out here as "hard limits" (activity w/ unmentionables, etc.) I am not trying to sound like a big weirdo, I guess I am a stickler for specificities. - Susan

CreativeDominant -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/2/2007 5:31:38 PM)
It's interesting as this thread goes on to see that there are dominants who feel that fear has no place in a loving D/s relationship or even in a non-loving D/s relationship and that there are also dominants who feel...like I do...that love and fear can exist together in a D/s relationship. One thing I am observing...and please, other dominants who feel that fear CAN also be present, correct me if I am wrong...is that those who do feel that fear can exist in the equation do not feel it best that the fear be of the dominant themselves but rather, that it be of varying actions which might be taken by the dominant orrrrrr, of certain thoughts the dominant might have. And that none of these so far involve such actions as abandonment, isolation, or abusive behavior. I know they don't for me when I speak of the type of fear I have used and as noted, I haven't seen them in play by other dominants who also have fear in place in a D/s relationship.

puella -> RE: Machiavelli Domination (3/2/2007 5:55:02 PM)
Hello juliaoceania, I realize that my post was less than clear,sorry, I was writing on the fly. I think what I was trying to get at is that for me there are vast differences in the way Dominants can get the results they want from their submissives, and that actually, sometimes the total of what some dominants want can be very different between different types. To me, the two 'methods' you spoke of, love and fear conjure up two very different sets of variables. I would tend to believe that you will get submission from love and oppression from fear. I do understand that the general coloring of the word oppression as we employ it most often does not really encompass all of what I was trying to express with the word. So though I know it is a bit drainful, let me supply a couple of definitions for illustrate my comparisons between submission (driven by love) and oppression (driven by fear): (I used submit instead of submission, as the definitions for submission were, in general, rather unspecific... "the condition of having submitted", etc) sub·mit [image]http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif[/image] [image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image][image]http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif[/image] /səbˈmɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[suh[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]b-mit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -mit·ted, -mit·ting. –verb (used with object) 1. to give over or yield to the power or authority of another (often used reflexively). 2. to subject to some kind of treatment or influence. 3.to present for the approval, consideration, or decision of another or others: to submit a plan; to submit an application. 4. to state or urge with deference; suggest or propose (usually fol. by a clause): I submit that full proof should be required. –verb (used without object) 5. to yield oneself to the power or authority of another: to submit to a conqueror. 6. to allow oneself to be subjected to some kind of treatment: to submit to chemotherapy. 7. to defer to another's judgment, opinion, decision, etc.: I submit to your superior judgment. op·pres·sion [image]http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif[/image] [image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image][image]http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif[/image] /əˈprɛʃ[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]ən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-presh-uh[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]n] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. 2. an act or instance of oppressing. 3. the state of being oppressed. 4. the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc. You can really see with the definitions, the very subtle nuance of language which, in application, leads to very different results. Submission has no definitive 'negative' (for lack of a better word) words associated with it...yield, deference, "some kind of treatment... which has no implicit leaning either toward positive or negative... When looking at oppression, the words are much darker, and all can be inspired by fear ...budensome, cruel, troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc. I think there can many more 'methods' of getting the results you want from a submissive than simply love or pain, and I do not mean to imply that you were using those two to suggest that idea. But of those two which Machiavellian principals look at, when sort of, realigned to fit this paradigm, I think those are the results you get. Like it or not love is (or should be) a positive emotion. Fear is a negative emotion. One can utilize and/or manipulate either of those emotions, however, to achieve pleasing or displeasing outcomes. Some dominants find the 'baggage' of love to be cloying;some find the fear to be deliciously heady. I do not think however, that in the end, you can hide from the meanings of words, even if their connotations do not appeal to you.

juliaoceania -> RE: Machiavelli Domination (3/2/2007 6:02:05 PM)
I enjoyed reading that and can see your point very well. I even agree with it for myself Next thing for anyone reading this post who cares to chime in.. do you see a difference between the fears we carry with us (fears of abandonment and displeasing our loved ones) dependent on something inspired by the dominant... or do you see them as something we carry with us no matter who are partner is? Just because an emotion exists in relation to someone does not necessarily mean they instilled this fear, does it? Although I am sure they can play on this fear that already existed and increase the insecurity of the submissive. Hopefully I am not being confusing in what I am trying to convey

SusanofO -> RE: Machiavelli Domination (3/2/2007 6:14:32 PM)
julaioaceania: That is an excellent question, I think. I think they could help to increase, or decrease, things and situations one may be fearful of, and whether they do that or not, would depend on the situation, and-or the Dominant. Some things one is fearful of might be harder (or easier) to eradicate or enlarge. I do believe the ability to eradicate fear would be specific to how much trust exists between the Dominant and the submissive. Enlarging one's fears, well, they could do that, too, but that happens more often if I am unsure if I can trust myself; trust that I will make it through some situation, and come out on the other side of it intact (sometimes for good reason, too). I will caveat ths by saying have never been a huge fan of what is known as the "mindfuck" (some people love "mindfucks". I don't). But I don't think being fearful in bdsm situations is exclusively a result of being "mind-fucked" either. Sometimes peope are just afraid of certain activities, or increasing the amount they do of an activity, IMO. If someone can show me and demonstrate I can do things I am afraid of, safely (by that I mean I survive it intact, and they can gauge pretty well how I am doing in the interim, while it is occurring) then that increases my trust in myself (and probably my fondness for them, as well), although I might not appreciate the challenge of it all, at the very moment it is happening. It would also lets me know they are reliable in that they will not do irrevocable damage to me (which is my definition for doing a "consensual" activity), which would make me trust them more, maybe, than I did before. Maybe a lot more. Depends. - Susan

juliaoceania -> RE: Machiavelli Domination (3/2/2007 6:17:41 PM)
In my first D/s relationship he played on fears I already carried inside of me in order to dominate me at times. Carrot and the stick approach undermined our dynamic to the point it ceased to exist, which was why Sinergy promised me that he would not do some of the same behaviors before we even met

ExSteelAgain -> RE: Machiavelli Domination (3/2/2007 6:23:03 PM)
Fears, phobias and anxiety were there before the sub began a relationship. You can’t blame the Dom for any of that. I mean some subs have phobias of being left, driving, being in crowds, heights, flying, eating in public, talking to strangers and on and on. None of that is the fault of the Dom. For instance, the fear of being left was certainly there before the sub met the Dom. All the Dom can do is listen to the sub explain her phobia to him with understanding and respect the phobia later in all things.

SusanofO -> RE: Machiavelli Domination (3/2/2007 6:28:51 PM)
juliaoceania: IMO, If your ex-Dominant did that to the complete exclusion of playing on your strengths, he sounds like he was perhaps what I call "socially impaired" - IMO, he was an ass. - Susan

puella -> RE: Machiavelli Domination (3/2/2007 6:30:58 PM)
Yes, I believe the correct term is sociopath...

SusanofO -> RE: Machiavelli Domination (3/2/2007 6:40:54 PM)
Yes. He does sound like a real weirdo, and not very nice, especially if he knew you hated it, and didn't explain he was attempting to "get you over your fear" - if that was what he was even doing. Doesn't sound like that maybe was the case at all. I have to say this is also where I used to get confused by people who are anti-Sadists. I didn't understand Sadism for a long time, but I've just come to think of it on the more extreme end of a long spectrum of intensity as fas as bdsm actvity. I have a fear of heights, and one time a Sadist I know suggested sky-diving as a possibility for me. It terrified me, Maybe if the relationship had progressed, I would have done that, though, (eventually), who knows? He didn't insist, or suggest it right off the bat, it just came up in a conversation as one way to allay a fear of heights. I think I would have closed my eyes the entire way down to the ground, if I'd done it, btw. He also admitted it was a thrill for him, even it it wasn't for me (more like terrified). I mean, "masochists" love what they do, and I've seen people who do look like reliable, sane ones (Archer, Noah, amayos). I've also heard people call themselves "Sadisits" who I thought were actually just Newbies ashamed of the idea of ever playing on anyone's fear, even toward a constructive end. If someone tells me the are a Sadist, I take them at their word (for my own protection) but I am not opposed to playing w/one. I do know I'd probably have to "work my way up" to any purely Sadistic activity that was extra painful for me. But if someone knows someone is a Sadist, and the person has explained what that term means to them (in fair detail, Like: Here are the sorts of things I do and consider sadistic, what do you think?, etc.) and they agree to that "philosophy" (generally), I don't see that as objectionable. I also think it is a term open to self-evaluation. What is "painful" to some is enjoyable to others. Someone who actually calls themself a Sadist, I see as honorable in the way that there are probably folks who may be are doing much the same thing they are, and just not bothering to let anyone know that is their "bdsm philosophy". Those people I'd probably call sociopaths. I also would ask how much experience they've got at bdsm activity. I also think the term "masochist" is open to self-interpretation, and subject to other folks' interpretations. I mean, to some degree, isn't spanking (even a faily mild one) painful? To me it is. But I don't consider myself an out and out masochist or a "pain slut". In that same vein, I think, maybe all folks who engage in bdsm have the capacity to be sadists and-or masochists. It's a matter of degree. Are we talking about inducing tears, or what? Is that Sadistic, or just more intense bdsm actvity (and compared to what?) Maybe in two years, I'll be a total "pain slut", I have my doubts, but who knows, really? There is much I haven't tried, as far as bdsm acticity. Maybe if I am, I'll limit it to specific acttivities? (or try to suggest that anyway). I am a relative Newbie, experience-wise. Btw, that doesn't sound, from the way you described it, juliaoceania, like what your ex-Dominant was doing. At all. He sounds like a jerk! - Susan

ExSteelAgain -> RE: Machiavelli Domination (3/2/2007 6:43:16 PM)
I posted before I saw your post, Susan, or I would have commented and complimented you there. You do say that it may be possible to eradicate fear in the sub, but that is rare if it is a true psychological phobia. That may be best handled by professionals and dealt with carefully by a Dom. The beneficial thing would be that the Dom is aware of it and doesn't use it to hurt the sub.

SusanofO -> RE: Machiavelli Domination (3/2/2007 7:00:28 PM)
I tend to agree with you, if it is a genuine phobia. There are people who consider themselves "pro" enough as Dominants to do that, but I wonder if they can explain how many "cases" they've handled, and even then, every submissive is different. I think some could maybe genuinely help, but I also think of the one Dom who tried to get me to say I'd go off my anti-depressant meds, simply because he was a self-professed "expert" in herbology and alternative medicine. What he was not was an "expert" in how to alleviate depression. I dumped him like a hot potato. I considered that completely irresponsible, on his end. But, for me, my current Dominant is a doc, so it might work out. However - I am asking a load full of questions should we ever bridge that territory (fear of heights, etc). He also says he is "moderately sadistic" and I am asking (and have asked) a lot of questions about what that means to him (because I think the term is open to interpretation, but can serve as a "warning", in that it tells someone; "I do impactful stuff. Forewarned is forearmed. Get ready, or get out.") If a Dominant wouldn't help me "get ready" or allow me to work my way up to it, in at least some sense, then they have no respect for my individuality or "limts", and then I'd be gone. They don't want to "Dom" me, they just want to "Do me. " And I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a "bad submissive" if I left, in that case. But - it still doesn't mean I'd be physically comfortable and experience no pain, via what they might do, if I chose to stay, if he was willing to help me work up to more "sadistic" stuff. I am planning on perhaps inquiring a bit more how that has affected subs he has played with. His previous subs stayed w/him a long time, so that is a good sign. He also isn't always a sadist ("heavy player") more like occasionally, and he has assured me we will work up to things he wants me to try (or that both of us are interested in). I have detailed my hard limits for him, and he asked about them, and he's let me add to the list, as I've thought of any new ones (biting that breaks the skin, for example). - Susan

juliaoceania -> RE: Machiavelli Domination (3/2/2007 7:01:23 PM)
I am not speaking of a phobia, I am speaking of using abandonment issues But I understand the miscommunication, I was not clear enough. I may be pushed to overcome fears... I welcome this to be honest. But that must be done from a position of love, not one of punishment

szobras -> RE: Machiavelli Domination (3/2/2007 7:04:59 PM)
Juliaociana, Chiming in on your post #108, IMO,The fears that we carry with us are dependent on ourselves. A Dominant inspiring these fears would then be "causing them to be felt", through some form of action. Intentional or not. However we must keep in mind that we can inspire our own fears even without conscious intention. Some have referred to this as "unfinished business." recreating something in our life that needs work." Issues such as Abandonment, and many other fears that are carried from one relationship to another can surely be played opon unfortunately. I think what we are seeing here, is "Are there fears that are NOT ok to play with, or utilize as a tool for control?" I think there are plenty that are not ok, abandonment is one. As far as to instill fear. That is an intentional act of manipulation to gain control. Whereas the inspiration is not always intentional.

SusanofO -> RE: Machiavelli Domination (3/2/2007 7:23:40 PM)
I understand what you're saying, but does not complying result in any consequence? Any "discipline?" juliaoceania: Seriously, maybe make playing on abandonment issues a "hard limit" (Sinergy already said he wouldn't play on those, so for you it's working now anyway). But I mean I wouldn't think there was any reason why someone couldn't make that a "hard limit". I am sure saying this might spark more posts, because the consequence of not obeying, for some submssives and slaves, is automatic "release." However, I do think there is a difference in how one might use this fear with a submissive, if a Dominant knows in advance it is an issue. IMO, the submissive shouldn't use it as an excuse to be non-compliant (not saying you would, btw), neither should the Dom use it as a threat unless there is no way he can see to shape a submissive's behavior except threatening "release". It seems kind of an extreme response, on the part of a Dominant, when there are other ways to "discipline" (or even "punish") a submissive. On the other hand, the entire basis of a D/s relationship is "control" and "release" is always an option for a Dominant. I can envision a circumstance where a Dominant is possibly tired of what he views as a "gamey" submissive. Since "control" is always the under-lying (IMO) option in some (if not many) of the relationships I've read about, then if there are "too many" things a submissive won't comply with, then the relationship just isn't probably a compatible one, IMO. I'd hope both partners would be realistic in their assessment of what is occurring in the relationship, and how honest they are both being with eachother, as far as influencing eachother's behavior. - Susan

szobras -> RE: Machiavelli Domination (3/2/2007 7:33:50 PM)
All actions have consequences. Discipline also entails a lesson learned. Sometimes the consequences are good. Sometimes not. So yes, they do. IMO What I am meaning to say is that I believe that we need to focus and wiegh the risk to maintain a positive, safe interaction when considering the use of fear in any dynamic.

ExSteelAgain -> RE: Machiavelli Domination (3/2/2007 7:38:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I am not speaking of a phobia, I am speaking of using abandonment issues But I understand the miscommunication, I was not clear enough. Perhaps, I took it a little far by labeling a fear of abandonment as a phobia.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125