Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (Full Version)

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



Message

Jasmyn -> Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/14/2004 8:45:45 PM)

Is it the domination that defines the submission or does the submission define the domination?



GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/14/2004 9:38:56 PM)

A very interesting musing Jasmyn. I will say this. As a natural Dominant, I do not allow a submissive or slave to be disrespectful to Me in any way. I respect their parameters and interests, and I expect them to respect Mine. If W/we are not a match, so be it! A good example of your musing would be a certain male who has just rejoined this site.(again!) This is a pathetic male who claims to be 24/7 live-in sub/slave material, but he really wants you to come to him. If he can maintain control, and get you to come live in his house in SoCal, he might go along for the ride. But he is completely unwilling to give up any of his personal life choices, breaks promises, (and yes, he is one of the Jerk offs I mention in My journal). Here is a pefect example of how the "submission can define the domination" for if there is a Mistress/Goddess out there who will play along with him, he is truly topping from the bottom, and the Top is really no Top. Just a quick thought. My "bottom" line (a little play on words): it is the domination that needs to define the submission. A true Dominant will not settle for less than what is expected. If the sub can't or won't provide it, best to move on. When the sub insists on trying to continue the relationship already cut off, and insists and whines that this is what he wants, but he just wants it on his terms, he needs to find someone who is willing and content with his parameters. SSC. I am not consenting! Why is he still insisting? There are many who say 24/7 is what they want, but they have so many personal obligations and personal recreational lifestyle preferences, they really cannot serve properly. ( "i need to play golf at least 3 times a week!") It is up to Each, what is required. Everyone is not a match and has different interests. But why in the world would a supposed sub/slave continue to attempt to make contact, when it has already been made clear that this is not acceptable? A true example of the submission trying to define ( and control) the domination. Not for Me!



inyouagain -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/14/2004 9:40:06 PM)

Is it the domination that refines the submission or does the submission refine the domination?

Which came first, the dominant or the submissive? [:)]

Inyouagain



Jasmyn -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/14/2004 9:52:10 PM)

Know many a 'male submissives/slaves' claiming for all their might this overwhelming desire to submit to a dominant woman, but their MO is to take a submissive woman and make her dominate them according to their rules ....and claim they've been 'dominated'. Pfft to that I say.



Voltare -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/14/2004 10:48:59 PM)

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Seriously, I think the approach you offered as a means of a conversation starter is flawed logic (this is not intended as a flame or personal insult, but merely my own opinion. It's a good conversation starter!) To assume that the elements of submission and dominance somehow are independent of each other, is a bit like saying that white and black are independent colors - they aren't. The existance of one is simply the absense of the other - if you take away black ink from a white page, it's white. If you take away light from a room, it becomes black. So it is with Ds, I suppose. These are not mutually exclusive qualities, either - on the contrary, I am quite dominant in most of my relationships, but when my boss - a very submissive woman by nature in fact - says "you need to be in Lampa at 6pm" my "sure thing" response is almost immediate. This doesn't make me less dominant in personality, but it certainly isn't a quality that I wish to display to her at that moment (i.e. saying no fucking way am I going to work at six at night.)

In terms of relationships, I think I see Ds more in the light (rimshot) of mutual growth. The submissive helps the dominant grow, the dominant helps the submissive grow. They do not have opposing qualities - the opposite of submission is not dominance, in my mind, but obstinance. The opposite of Dominance is not submission, but rather indecisiveness. So it could be better said, that Dominance and submission are complimentary and contrasting qualities, rather then opposing qualities. The existance of Dominance permits a submissive to become more submissive...and vice a versa.

Best I can scrounge up at 2am.

Stephan



GoddessMarissa -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/15/2004 2:00:42 AM)

I think it all coincides with each other ands defines each other.



GoddessMarissa -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/15/2004 2:02:26 AM)

I think dont think one came first, but both together. How else could they exsist?



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/15/2004 10:58:56 AM)

Such a great question...and one which I have spent a bit of time running my own wheels over.

For me, in any Safe, Sane, and Consensual (SSC) BDSM relationship, it must be the submission that defines the domination. Any time the Top steps over the line and attempts to do something that the bottom does not want, it is no longer SSC, and therefore forbidden.

That, of course is the easy answer.

The more interesting, and far more important, answer only comes when one realizes that many are in this lifestyle that are not wired to be SSC. They are drawn to BDSM simply because they do not want to consent, or want to consent only once. Now, in these cases, the Top can define the submission, as the bottom has essentially handed them a blank check.

Which brings us to the question then of which came first...the old chicken and egg question. An unanswerable question, right? Maybe not. Even with just a basic understanding of evolution, one realizes that it is possible to determine which came first. Since evolution occurs due to mutations at the genetic level, it is clear to see that egg came first. Whatever laid the egg was one mutation away from actually being a chicken; when it laid the egg with the mutated gene, it laid the first chicken egg. That egg hatched and laid other eggs (chicken eggs) which hatched and laid more eggs. So, if you are ever asked again which came first, there's your answer.

All that said, where are we in the whole dom sub which defines which question? Well, going back to evolution (see the chicken egg thing wasn't entirely a goose chase designed to show off my intellect *smile*), it has always been my theory that dominance and submission are evolutionary developments in mankind. They evolved together to create strong group units that were better able to protect their offspring and pass down their genetic material.

So my final answer to the question isn't that one defines the other, as in [dominance = submission]. Rather, they are defined by how they work together, as in [dominance + submission = something valuable].

Of course, that is all just my theory....

Yours,
Taggard



inyouagain -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/15/2004 12:41:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty
... Since evolution occurs due to mutations at the genetic level, it is clear to see that egg came first. Whatever laid the egg was one mutation away from actually being a chicken; when it laid the egg with the mutated gene, it laid the first chicken egg. That egg hatched and laid other eggs (chicken eggs) which hatched and laid more eggs. So, if you are ever asked again which came first, there's your answer.

Your theory has two immediate flaws:

1) No 2nd egg ("now a bonafide chicken mutation") to be a rooster to fertilize the "now a bonafide chicken mutation" hen who needs to lay fertilized eggs in order to hatch out newer "bonafide chicken mutation generations".

2) Its totally based on the "passing on" of mutated genes scenario, versus any allowances for genetic mutation during the adolescence, young maturity, or everyday adult life of the new hatched "this generation of chicken". It makes the transition from "pre-chicken thing" to "bonafide chicken" in one easy step, versus multitudes of generations as the true evolutionary effect.

Also, nature has some pretty nasty carcinogenic substances here and there, and living near them or having them in your food chain has it's disadvantages. Couple some natural ones with man-made environment "deviations" (even chickens are bomarded 24/7 with microwaves from Cell Phones, TV/Radio stations, Satellites for everything, including Star Wars and GPS, and Porn of course). The Porn your neighbor buys is received by his TV, and by your body... your body is being bombarded 24/7 (unless you live in a brass or lead lined home), and most don't even know it. Is it a slow cooker microwave oven similarity? It's certainly not nature... but seems to be the nature of mankind.

The question remains, which came first... the chicken or the egg?

Inyouagain



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/15/2004 1:50:22 PM)

Details...details...I always found I prefered a theory to no answer at all, even if the theory isn't 100% solid. From the guesses come the facts.

Yours,
Taggard



Thanatosian -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/15/2004 8:31:59 PM)

quote:

So, if you are ever asked again which came first, there's your answer.


This is only the answer if one subscribes to the evolutionist viewpoint of 'how it all came about' - does not work so well if one subscribes to the creationist viewpoint.

And no, I do not want to start a debate here about evolution vs creation - to me, this is another of the 'whatever works for you' topics, like 'the difference between sub and slave' or 'what does a collar signify' et cetera et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum

apply usual caveats here



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/15/2004 8:53:30 PM)

Well, if you subscribe to the creationist viewpoint, then you would believe that god created all animals on the 5th day (if memory serves), therefore the chicken obviously came first.

I completely agree with you on the whatever works for you philosophy...though I do have some theories on just why certain things work for some people and not for others. BUt you'd have to subscribe to the evolution theory.

Yours,
Taggard



ShadeDiva -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/16/2004 1:38:44 AM)

I define myself - through myself.

I don;t define who I am through another - nor do I find myself drawn to either pole of the power spectrum based on another human's existence or presence in my life - I am as I am, no more, no less.

I don't wish to be dominant because someone is submissive to me, and I don't wish to be in a submissive space just because I am around or know a dominant.

I existed this way before I even related to the other side of things, so as such - I don't need nor require the usage of the other power spectrums to validate nor define who I am as a person, or anything else.

I'm content with being me.

ShadeDiva



Jasmyn -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/16/2004 8:41:20 AM)

Thanks Stephan....[;)] I knew my musing could easily be seen as flawed and no offense taken at that being pointed out [:D]

It doesnt necessarily have to simply read as a chicken vs egg scenario though, although the chicken lessons have being entertaining by those who have put them forward. Apply the question individually and what would the answer be?

When asking myself the question my answer is 'for me' it is the domination that defines the submission. I often say to a sub/slave 'you will be safe, I will be sane, and together we will be consensual' but if the submissive/slave is not willing or unable to fall into line with my needs then I dont re-address my needs to suit them. We work through what is the reason, or the fear, behind the boundary/limit and move on, or, worse case scenario (for want of a better term) I'll tackle the boundary/limit head on if I believe it is something they need to face/tackle to aid they're growth....likewise if it is something I dont think they should engage in for whatever reason then no amount of *needing* it will make me address it.

Which is why I loved your opposing descriptions for d/s being obstinance and indecisiveness and couldnt agree more. Its often said that a submissive only submits because they want to and if the dom wishes to do or have the sub do something they oppose then it is not consensual and the sub will cry foul, and I often wonder why the drama? Do they not trust their dominant? And if they dont trust the dominant, then why are they allowing this person to dominate them in the first place?

I know its not that black and white, but in a case where the dom has given assurances the sub will be both emotionally and physically okay during and after the event, and to this point the sub has no reason to not believe this will be the case, then is it fair for them to play the consensuality foul card and expect the dom to be okay with it?

And in the case of the dominant, what is it that is stopping them from taking control of the situation and making a decision for the both of them? What is it they fear from taking control?

Jasmyn

[image]local://upfiles/14851/3C382BA6A1634337A375C8BB5F1AB749.jpg[/image]



TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/16/2004 9:58:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jasmyn

And in the case of the dominant, what is it that is stopping them from taking control of the situation and making a decision for the both of them? What is it they fear from taking control?


Hmmm...I don't know...perhaps JAIL TIME!?! I don't care what kind of permission you have before hand, or what kind of paperwork and consent is explicitly obtained, the moment a woman says "no" and means "no" if a man proceeds to have sexual contact with her, he can be found guilty of rape.

I know that I won't play with a slave until I have gone through a lengthy negotiation process and signed at least one contract. I doubt it would be much help leagally, but if a slave makes it to that point in the process, I tend to have enough exposure to have developed some trust. If she has fooled me, then shame on me.

In general, I completely agree with your post. The key to any successful relationship is trust, moreso in BDSM than in any other area. The bottom has to trust that the top will cause no real unwanted emotional, psychological, and/or physical damage. The top has to trust that the bottom will not turn around and press charges.

Yours,
Taggard



ShadeDiva -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/16/2004 5:16:27 PM)

Yum! Resistance play!

All I have to say on that one.

hehehehe

Now where is that slapjack, bodybag, and shipping trunk???

lol

~ShadeDiva



Jasmyn -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/16/2004 9:29:41 PM)

Aye, sexually no means no... but what of cases when the sticking point isnt sexual and/or physically harming. What happens if what it is the dom wants to do is play with other submissives, or switch down and sub to someone for a night, or to make their sub wear an outfit they don't like, or co-top their sub with someone else, etc?



Thanatosian -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/17/2004 5:07:27 AM)

quote:

What happens if what it is the dom wants to do is play with other submissives, or switch down and sub to someone for a night, or to make their sub wear an outfit they don't like, or co-top their sub with someone else, etc?


These are all things that should have been negotiated prior to entering the relationship, or, to be a bit more fluid and dynamic, if they come up whilst in the middle of a relationship should be discussed and negotiated and consented to prior to the actual 'fact' or 'time' they are to take place

to pick a specific example, you proposed making a sub wear an outfit they dont like - if it has been agreed upon beforehand that the Dom shall choose the clothing the sub will wear, then the sub has no just cause in playing the 'consentuality foul'

or for another, if the dom wants to play with other subs, but has negotiated a monogamous relationship with the sub, then the sub could rightfully call 'foul', however, again allowing for fluidity in the relationship and changing dynamics as the relationship progresses, it could be 'renegotiated' at a time prior to the playparty/meeting/whatever where the dom wants to play with other subs

I fail to see what a dom switching down and playing sub for a night has to do with the doms sub, unless the dom is subbing to their sub???? or maybe in a negotiated monogamous relationship, then I could see the sub crying foul - but yet again, could be discussed and agreed upon beforehand

as for co-topping, the only scenarios I can think of where the sub could 'legally' call 'foul' is if 1: they are in a negotiated monogamous relationship or 2: the sub has prior knowledge of the co Dom that the subs Dom doesnt (i.e. does not follow ssc) - both of which are subject to the discussion process outlined repeatedly above

to answer your original point
quote:

I know its not that black and white, but in a case where the dom has given assurances the sub will be both emotionally and physically okay during and after the event, and to this point the sub has no reason to not believe this will be the case, then is it fair for them to play the consensuality foul card and expect the dom to be okay with it?

And in the case of the dominant, what is it that is stopping them from taking control of the situation and making a decision for the both of them? What is it they fear from taking control?


no it is not okay for them to play the consentuality foul card and expect the dom to be okay with it - with a caveat - if it is a very new relationship and a good basis of trust has not been established then I might see it and say okay - but I would also say 'then why are you playing with this dom in the first place if you dont trust them????'

as for what is stopping the dom from taking control and making a decision - maybe SSC or self control or a real concern about the subs welfare (physical and emotional) or....or.....or....or..... I dont think fear would have much to do with it.

apply usual caveats here



Voltare -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/17/2004 9:58:02 AM)

I don't think I have a great deal more to add to this conversation other then this one thought regarding the 'no' issue.

In the context of an ideal relationship, I would permit the submissive one real choice - to revoke consent. Saying 'no' isn't enough due to negotiation, and the stacks of photos, conversations, and other shared items used mutually. It's very difficult for a woman to prove she was raped by her long term, live in boyfriend - because her word against his just isn't enough. If there is clear evidence that she actively sought out and enjoyed a BDSM lifestyle - then a rape conviction is even more difficult. Having said that, I don't think Jasmyn was discussiong sexual interaction, but rather social or relationship interaction i.e. if we are trying to decide what to do saturday night, and she says "well maybe a movie?" and the Dom says "nope, we are going dancing - and that's the end of it." The sub can choose to obey - or she can choose to disobey and go to the movie. In my case, she would come back from said movie to find her things packed and sitting by the front door (in this wayyy over simplified example, as in reality I am not that big of an asshole.) The key is, that she submits because she desires submission...the dominant dominates because he craves that power or status (he/she forms can be reversed to suit gender specific needs.) A slave I dealt with a year ago was similar to this - she wanted to choose when she was, and was not a slave on her own terms. After a few weeks, I decided this was unacceptable, and she never came through my front door again.

So, again - no doesn't mean no always. Revoking consent, in BDSM terms for me, is the only real no - and usually means it's time for a serious reassessment of any continued 'BDSM' interaction.

Stephan



Sundew02 -> RE: Defining Dominance & Submission ...just musing (6/17/2004 10:45:41 PM)

The answer is as individual as the people involved. For ME, it is the s side of the slash that defines the domination. Alone on a deserted island, I could scream my dominantion to the palm trees, I would still be just a woman alone. Without another human to dominant there is no meat with the potatoes. Just a very bland existence. Sundew



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




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