RE: Machevelli Domination (Full Version)

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



Message

KnightofMists -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/3/2007 11:04:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

If someone is a Sadist (or calls themself one), I usually take for granted they may be more punitive


personally I think this would be an innaccurate assumption.

Punitive would seem to indicate... Punishment.

Being a Sadist doesn't equate to a person having a a desire to use punishment as a tool to affect behavior change.

I am a Sadist... but punishment is actually a tool that I rarely consider using.  Since in seldom is it a tool that will be very effective to affect behavior change.  Even if it could be effective... generally... I have found other tools to be more effective.




SusanofO -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/3/2007 12:24:23 PM)

KOM: Okay, Point taken (my bad)[:)]

Everyone else: I want to write more, but have lots to do today. But I love this thread, and think it's facinating. I shall return. Thanks to juliaoceania for starting it.

- Susan



ownedgirlie -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/3/2007 12:34:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
Do you fear losing your girls? If a dominant fears losing his submissive, is she somehow in control over him?


Saw this and wanted to comment on it.  I have no idea if my Master fears losing me or not...I think he is pretty certain he owns me until he decides not to own me and I am here for the duration no matter what occurs.  That was proven to us both already.  He does not like to think about when I wanted to leave, but he knows it occurred.  However, he does not and will not alter the way he rules me based on whether or not I may leave.  He is who he is, and his methodology - as long as he is being true to himself - will not change.  If he loses me as a result, then that is a consequence, but he will not compromise himself for anyone.  He no longer owns a well loved former slave as a result, nor does he regret the loss of her.

For this reason I would say the slave/submissive in such a case continues to have no control over him.  If I no longer wished to submit to him on his terms, he would investigate why and see if he could reshape my mindset, but if I still did not wish to submit, then he would wish me well.



CelticPrince -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/3/2007 3:16:49 PM)

juliana,

when respect is there, there is not room for fear.

CP



juliaoceania -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/3/2007 5:06:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
Do you fear losing your girls? If a dominant fears losing his submissive, is she somehow in control over him?


Saw this and wanted to comment on it.  I have no idea if my Master fears losing me or not...I think he is pretty certain he owns me until he decides not to own me and I am here for the duration no matter what occurs.  That was proven to us both already.  He does not like to think about when I wanted to leave, but he knows it occurred.  However, he does not and will not alter the way he rules me based on whether or not I may leave.  He is who he is, and his methodology - as long as he is being true to himself - will not change.  If he loses me as a result, then that is a consequence, but he will not compromise himself for anyone.  He no longer owns a well loved former slave as a result, nor does he regret the loss of her.

For this reason I would say the slave/submissive in such a case continues to have no control over him.  If I no longer wished to submit to him on his terms, he would investigate why and see if he could reshape my mindset, but if I still did not wish to submit, then he would wish me well.


I admit I have a slight agenda in asking about fear and control. I am being taught not to allow my fears to control me. In his view my emotions should not control me because that means he isn't controlling me. He does not want anger to control me, hurt feelings, or fear to control me. If he sets me free from as much fear as he can I know he sees this as a good thing. He certainly does not want me to fear the loss of him. Fear is not the motivation for my submission. (and I know it is not the motivation for most of us[;)])

Just because a submissive has fears (being a human being there are always fears that we have) does not mean she is controlled by them. I think there is this assumption that submissives can be more easily swayed by fear than their dominant's, and while this is the case for many, it is not the case for all. Sometimes it is an effort not to allow negative emotions affect my submission.. but he expects me to at least try to control my emotions so that he can be the one that is guiding and directing..

I wonder if this makes sense? And this is one of the few areas I know what is expected of me because he has gotten more annoyed with me over this issue than any other in the past.. and I am always stretching to be more in control over my emotions than I was the day before... I have actually come very far in this regard because of him.... and I am deeply grateful to him for this gift.. and it is a gift to me.



ownedgirlie -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/3/2007 5:20:46 PM)

I relate to all you said, Julia.  I have learned - and it has not been easy - to not allow negative emotions to affect my submission.  This was a challenge this past year, with so much going on in my personal life.  I am allowed to feel the entire gamut of emotions I did, but that's different than being ruled by them, thus distracting my focus from my Master. 

For this reason he has taught me to remain level headed in even the worst of times, and to come to him for help when the world spins too fast. I remember when my Dad died, that source of fatherly love was suddenly gone for me, and I lashed out at my Master for it - "Why aren't you doing such n such for me???"  only to realize my Master is my Master...he is not my father and will never replace what I lost when my Dad died.  So rather than projecting my anger at my Master about the death of my father, I clung to him in my grief instead, and received far greater results.

I also hear what you say re: fear not being the motivation for your submission.  I relate to that greatly.  In my past it was my motivator.  I submit to him because I must - because he has inspired me to submit as deeply as I can.  And while I know he will let me go if I choose to not submit, that is not my reason for staying.  Submitting to him means being true to myself.  Pleasing him makes my life most satisfying.

I understand that which you consider a gift.  I consider it a gift as well.  [:)]



Padriag -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/3/2007 6:01:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I admit I have a slight agenda in asking about fear and control. I am being taught not to allow my fears to control me. In his view my emotions should not control me because that means he isn't controlling me. He does not want anger to control me, hurt feelings, or fear to control me. If he sets me free from as much fear as he can I know he sees this as a good thing. He certainly does not want me to fear the loss of him. Fear is not the motivation for my submission. (and I know it is not the motivation for most of us[;)])

Julia, I have suspected from the beginning that for you, the question was much about fear and how others deal with it, use it, or not, and how they regard it; a personal quest for insight on your part.  He's right, when your fear controls you, he does not.  It is a difficult thing to serve two masters, especially when they do not agree.  It was in part why I specifically made the point to you that in a moment of fear, that fear overwhelmed you, but that this did not mean you stopped trusting him.  I think that your trust him is probably very important to you, and I hope that my words helped you see that even in those moments when that fear wells up, beneath it there is still the trust... even when you cannot see it any longer.  Your trust never ended, it was merely eclipsed for a moment.

I'm sitting here right now trying to think of something I can say or write, some quote, some past lesson I might draw on that would be of help to you.  It troubles me, that for the moment, I seem insufficient to the task.  I could quote Winston Churchill or Dale Carnegie or others, but somehow that seems not enough.  How does one remove anothers fear when we have no special powers to do so.  Again it would seem, only time and experience can do this for you.  All I can offer is a meager encouragement and a reminder that your yesterdays are not your tomorrows and in that perhaps you will find hope sufficient to the task.



Padriag -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/3/2007 6:20:25 PM)

A couple of points

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

If someone is a Sadist (or calls themself one), I usually take for granted they may be more punitive (unless I'd think it's a Newbie, or maybe a person who has hang-ups about what bdsm can entail (if someone chooses to include that), and in that case, I'd ask them questions, to make sure I knew if their conception of "Sadism" matched mine, or that I at least knew what the term means to them (and I'd hope they'd do the same).

As KoM has already pointed out, sadism and punishment are not the same thing.  I am very strongly of the opinion that the two should be clearly separated.  To be clear, a sadist inflicts suffering for pleasure.  Punishment is not about pleasure, it is about correcting behavior.  Mixing the two, in my not so humble opinion, is about as foolish as playing with matches and gasoline and just as likely to have explosive results.

quote:

Knowing someone fears something, and seeing that fear, and seeing they are willing to risk feeling that (or some pain) anyway, because they trust a Dominant (Sadist or not), I am sure must be a really rewarding experience for many.

Speaking personally, it is.  I would point out however, that a submissives fears are not to be treated lightly.  We've discussed trust already, and here trust again becomes important.  In this case, the submissive must know she can trust me with her fears... and again, she learns this through experience, that I am consistently careful in how I handle them and do not push her beyond what she is capable of.

I said elsewhere, and it is perhaps worth repeating here, that I view one of the differences between domineering and dominant behavior as being a matter of consideration.  A dominant considers the circumstances and the consequences.  Those who are domineering consider only themselves.  Thus a dominant will consider a submissive's fears and the consequences of forcing her to confront them.  The domineering does not. 



juliaoceania -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/3/2007 6:55:39 PM)

Thank you for your kind words Padriag.

quote:

As KoM has already pointed out, sadism and punishment are not the same thing.  I am very strongly of the opinion that the two should be clearly separated.  To be clear, a sadist inflicts suffering for pleasure.  Punishment is not about pleasure, it is about correcting behavior.  Mixing the two, in my not so humble opinion, is about as foolish as playing with matches and gasoline and just as likely to have explosive results.




And I agree wholeheartedly with this as a submissive with a somewhat Sadistic Daddy



cloudboy -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/3/2007 9:01:33 PM)


Machievelli's world view was one of hostile competition, not cooperation. BDSM is founded upon cooperation and trust, things eminently lacking in Machievelli.

BDSM is about polarities coming together, whereas Machievelli assumes polarities in perpetual opposition.

Nowhere in Machievelli will you find a passage recommending one to let his polar opposite tie him up. Therein lies the difference of the two philosophies.




Sinergy -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/3/2007 9:12:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

It is hard to put words to methods used to procure this extraction, and I did not mean to say that ownedgirlie and Amayos are not inspired or inspiring. But I will be clear on how I see my own dynamic, I do not feel it is extractive....



What do you mean by extractive?

quote:



He seeks my improvement for his benefit, but I do not see him trying to change me in any particular direction, perhaps he does have some master plan of where he wants me to go and who he wants me to be, but it is so subtle I do not see it.



I have a plan, of sorts.

But you forget about my systems approach to things.  I would describe my approach in my having the idea that I know you need to undertake (or are undertaking) a certain journey.  As you stated, I see myself as a catalyst, not as a motive force.

quote:



There are those who take a girl down to her bare elements and through training and rebuild her, the military does this also. It is a method of exerting ownership that I have read repeatedly, it is far different from my situation.



I suppose I lack the hubris to think that I really know 100% what this other person should be.

I guess the best analogy would be as follows.

There are those that feel that a true sign of a Dominant tree-grower would be a master of the Japanese art of Bonsai.  You hack a tree down.  Put it into a framework.  Let it grow.  End up with exactly what you want.

There are those who feel that the true sign of a Dominant tree-grower are those who help trees grow in the forest, involve themselves in the Sierra Club, fight logging, etc.  You let things grow like nuts.  Squirrels, deer, 'coons, etc., move in.  You eventually can hardly walk through it because it all ends up overgrown.  End up with exactly what you want.

I dont think either of these approaches is wrong.  While I have done Bonsai and I enjoy it, the Dominance aspect of helping trees grow in the forest makes more sense to me.

What I do seems to work.  Feedback I get indicates that those with me seem to think it works.

So I go with it.

Sinergy



juliaoceania -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/3/2007 9:28:08 PM)

quote:

There are those who feel that the true sign of a Dominant tree-grower are those who help trees grow in the forest, involve themselves in the Sierra Club, fight logging, etc.  You let things grow like nuts.  Squirrels, deer, 'coons, etc., move in.  You eventually can hardly walk through it because it all ends up overgrown.  End up with exactly what you want.

I dont think either of these approaches is wrong.  While I have done Bonsai and I enjoy it, the Dominance aspect of helping trees grow in the forest makes more sense to me.




One involves making the submissive exactly what you want by micromanaging a submissive's exact growth. The other requires a setting up a certain environment and allowing the submissive to become who she really is, which is what you want. Yes, I can definitely understand your analogy Daddy.



ExSteelAgain -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/3/2007 9:35:50 PM)

When I had the urge to respond more in this thread, I would stop myself, waiting to see what Sinergy had to say. I find his response interesting as I do his interactions with Julia on the board. Thanks.



Sinergy -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/3/2007 9:41:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain

When I had the urge to respond more in this thread, I would stop myself, waiting to see what Sinergy had to say. I find his response interesting as I do his interactions with Julia on the board. Thanks.


Thank you very much ExSteelAgain.

Sinergy



obis -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/4/2007 1:37:59 AM)

I would rather be loved. It is harder to maintain, but more effective in the long term. The problem with fear is that it is very close to hate, which is the only sure way to lose a relationship forever.

as celeste said, Love is far more dangerous and painful, and once obtained it will be a far more compelling motivator.



SusanofO -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/4/2007 2:10:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Machievelli's world view was one of hostile competition, not cooperation. BDSM is founded upon cooperation and trust, things eminently lacking in Machievelli.

BDSM is about polarities coming together, whereas Machievelli assumes polarities in perpetual opposition.

Nowhere in Machievelli will you find a passage recommending one to let his polar opposite tie him up. Therein lies the difference of the two philosophies.




Padriag: Thanks for the cookie! he[:)] I agree w/you about communication and that Sadism isn't (necessarily) related to being punitive, and that punishment is a whole different thing than Sadism.

juliaoceania: IMO, cloudboy nailed it here (gotta love those lawyers). Good luck, btw.

IMO, this whole thread topic is a lot like the debate about whether kids in school should be getting A's (or even passing) classes, regardless of whether or not they are actually passing a class, because to get a lower grade might hurt their self-esteem (even if they don't know the material according to the teacher's standards).

**When I was a freshman in college, I was taking a political science class. It wasn't horrendously difficult, but - toward the end of the semester, I began suffering from symptoms of severe depression and could not remember almost anything I read, and was worried I would fail the final exam. I hadn't seen a doctor, and had no idea what was happening to my mind, and was pretty scared about it (I eventually solved the whole medical issue, but not for a few years).

I went to the Prof and explained my situation. I wanted to stay in the class, and was worried I'd ruin my GPA. I was half hoping he'd "go easier on me", perhaps. Actually, I am not sure what I was expecting him to say, I just thought I should tell him what was happening to me, and how it was affecting my ability to retain material in his class.

He was sympathetic, but told me that he could give me an "Incomplete", but he wasn't giving me an "A" if I took the final exam and failed it (or even a C, and I didn't want a lower grade than that) - and - he told me it was my choice to stay in, or just drop the class, and take an "Incomplete". If I stayed in, there was a chance I could get a "C or D" in the class, if I really screwed up the final, and I didn't want one.

He didn't re-adjust his standards to suit my situation, but I did have the option of re-taking the class (possibly with a different Prof, maybe with the same one, if he happened to be teaching that class again, the next semester, and I was still at the university). If I'd had a different Prof, maybe I would have received a "gentlewomanly C" instead, regardless of how well I knew anything in the class, I dunno. I also could have chosen to stay, and opted for a likely "C" or "D." I dropped the class, and got an "Incomplete".

But -was he "oppressive" toward me by simply stating what my options were, in this case? Did he make the standards for what constituted passing or failing the class relatively clear at the beginning of the term? Yes, he had, although he still used his own standards while grading quizzes and tests.

Last night, I talked to my Dominant on the phone. He is a fairly mild-mannered guy. He told me he was planning on "testing my limits" when I visit him this month. He has a cat-of-nine-tails he told me he's cleaned, and he's made some new floggers for the occasion. Shoud I be terrified? Maybe. Do I trust him? Yeah, I do. Maybe I am a fool, maybe not. We don't know eachother all that well, but he does have 38 years of experience that he can prove, and he seems relatively sane so far.

I did sort of feel silly for a remark I made last night, when we were talking. He's a very intelligent guy, and I said: "Gee, you seem so nice, I can't picture you wanting to use a cat of nine tails on anyone, really". He said: "I am nice. I'm also a Dominant. But, I do have good judgment, so don't worry."

He knows I am scared (a little). But I am not stupid, either. I know he likes me,
and I think he's nice, too, and if he really wants to ruin things, then giving me unbearable pain he doesn't think I am ready for from the outset might be a sure way to ruin things forever. But - if he wanted to do that, I suppose he could.

We are going to spend a few days talking, before we get into any activity (he's told me that). He also knows what I've tried, and not tried, as far as bdsm activity. I am hoping for the best. I don't think he's psycho, but will find out for sure, I guess, just how well-matched our conceptions are re: What our definitions of "pain" are, and how much he wants to accomodate me. But - he has a right not to want to accomodate me, if he doesn't feel like it. And I have a right to say "I decided this isn't going to work, after all."  I am scared of the cat of nine tails talk, btw. But, I also know he knows what he is doing, and I have a safe word. I'll let 'ya know how it goes, if you're interested (maybe we should  compare notes, he. Just kidding.)  [:)][:D]

- Susan



juliaoceania -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/4/2007 6:37:42 PM)

I pointed out several times that I used the quote a launching pad for this thread. I did not mean to draw a direct analogy from Machevelli.. power is power, and people often weild it through fear. Take an employer or a parent or a teacher.. all have authority, all can choose to use fear as a motivator to keep it.



SusanofO -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/4/2007 6:55:07 PM)

True. If it works. It might not, or they could get arrested, or it might work and put a child on the Dean's list at school, or who knows?  And it might. Fine by me, for a Dominant, (in general) if they've made their philosophy clear (and if I've asked about it) up front. IMO, they do have a responsibility to make their "philosophy" clear upfront. Maybe not always a wise move to use fear as a Dominant, but definitely within someone's "rights" as a Dominant, IMO.

I might not stay, as a submissive, if they used it constantly, but then again, I am not altogether sure (depends).  It's pretty hard to generalize here: Can you give a specific example, juliaoceania, of fear being mis-used by a Dominant? I know they can, but I mean specifically what kind of situation are you referring to?

My point (in bold type, in that last post ) was that he'd made "the rules" clear enough to be considered "fair" by me, from the outset (plus I needed the class to graduate). I could either abide, or not. I could drop the class, stay, go, whatever. But, if I chose to stay - those were the rules. And they weren't changing. I could go seek an "easier teacher", or choose an easier class. But not his, not then. My choice at that time was: Stay, or go.

There are scads of lists (bdsm activity experience polls) people can fill out before they get into a relationship re: What activities they've done, or not, and how often, to give a Dominant (or for a Dominant to ask a submissive to fill out). They can discuss these and the Dominant can get a good idea what a submissive has done, and how that might mesh with what he thinks he might want her to do, and with her (after talking about it more, IMO), before she says to him "Yes, I want to be in a relationship with you, as your submissive" (or maybe even do any bdsm activity with you at all, for that matter).   

It's perhaps not everyone's "style" to fill them out, or discuss them (and anything the list might neglect to mention, perhaps) before they start a relationship, but I see folks who are in situtations (not you) where one of them is saying things like if in a LTR, perhaps): "Gee, I never realized you'd be asking me to wake up at 4a.m. and cook you breakfast on week-ends, or I would have made it a "hard limit", and now I want to make it a "hard limt" (because they don't want to do that)...just an example. As you said, a "limit" doesn't have to be related to physical pain - it can also relate to emotional pain, or just plain inconvenience.    

The following isn' t directed at you, it's a general comment. IMO, if someone agrees to be a submissive, then they have one choice: Submit,or don't submit. If they choose not to submit, in my relationship, their other choice would be: To leave. The man I am meeting in March, with whom I am considering a possibly committed relationship, (whom I mentioned before) has said before, if you say "No" then you've made your choice. I know that part of his D/s "philosophy" already )and we've more to discuss, I am sure before-if I agree to committ).

Now, I consider him a pretty nice guy, and I like him, but - that's really neither here nor there. Fact is, he may not be asking me to submit today, or even next week, to anything I consider especially fearful. But - he could if he wanted to, and he'd be within his "rights as a Dominant", IMO.  Hence the word Dominant. Otherwise, I'd just be a "submissive" picking and choosing what I want to submit to, and when I want to submit to it. He might choose to accomodate that, but he doesn't have to do it.

If I find that reality  "too fearful" to me, I can leave. It's nice if his wishes, schedule, timing, mesh with mine, but not imperative. Otherwise, we're in a "vanilla" realtionship. I don't want a "vanilla" relationship.

I've heard many Dominants (Ex-Steel says this a lot) say on CM - "Choose wisely ladies. Know who you are dealing with - before you say you will be someone's submissive." I know he's right. I am not saying I could do it all the time and never feel afraid, confused, etc, I am saying I think he's right.

- Susan



Padriag -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/4/2007 7:12:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

...power is power, and people often weild it through fear. Take an employer or a parent or a teacher.. all have authority, all can choose to use fear as a motivator to keep it.

It is worth considering and exploring that fear comes in degrees.  And that there is a difference between a tyrrant who keeps power only by fear... and those who use fear of consequence to correct and discipline behavior.  We all fear to stick our hand in the flame, with good reason, we fear the consequence... and this is not a bad thing.  Neither is it arbitrary or random.  A tyrrant, however, is rarely so rational, reasoned... or reliable.

I think the opposition many have to accepting that fear and love can exist within a single relationship is the association they have with fear.  That too easily they see only the tyrrant, but less clearly the benefactor who is a little cruel, so that he may be very kind.  Skinner had that fault I think, and it is still much with us.

I would rather a submissive have that little fear of me, than suffer the greater unkindness it may be keeping her from.  And in this, my goals, reason and methods are very different from that of the tyrrant.

As it is late, I will leave you with that thought as I must take my leave.  I've a busy and stressful week ahead.



littlesarbonn -> RE: Machevelli Domination (3/4/2007 7:34:04 PM)

Why would anyone want to dominate Machiavelli? I mean, he's gotta be really old by now. At least in his 40s.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.614258E-02