quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

Why?
I have to admit i tend to skip past his posts now unless it is his thread as he only responds to those who he can pick apart. Those who show a thinking of their own and a view  which opposes his but could be right for that person he ignores.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin


As I see it, a master who accepts responsibility for the well-being of his slave is accepting responsibility for the state of her self-esteem and confidence.

I think it is well-known that fear can be and has been used to damage the self-esteem and confidence of individuals since humanity began.

I think there is a sufficient number of cases of battered spouses that can testify to how effective this can be within intimate relationships.

If punishment is to act as a deterrent to stop undesirable behaviour, as part of an aversion therapy, then the punishment must be something the punished wishes to avoid.

The degree to which the punished wishes to avoid punishment is the degree to which she fears it: from very little to scared-as-hell.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

Through the various punishment threads the theme seems to be:

1. sub/slave breaks a rule.
2. sub/slave needs physical punishment to learn not to break the rule.

What this says to me is:
1. sub/slave is not devoted to obeying her d/m
2. sub/slave is too stupid to learn by any other means than brute force.

Bottom line: to be a better d/m, and to get a more obedient sub/slave, frighten your sub/slave with punishment and the threat of punishment.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

Ofcourse, i am not speaking of the role-play kink that can spike up the fun of a weekend trist - being a bad girl can have its advantages but in a serious commited relationship, there should be no reason for blantant disobedience nor "punishment" for an adult. This is only my opinion and the standard at which i hold myself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

Through the various punishment threads the theme seems to be:

1. sub/slave breaks a rule.
2. sub/slave needs physical punishment to learn not to break the rule.

What this says to me is:
1. sub/slave is not devoted to obeying her d/m
2. sub/slave is too stupid to learn by any other means than brute force.

Bottom line: to be a better d/m, and to get a more obedient sub/slave, frighten your sub/slave with punishment and the threat of punishment.

In another punishment thread I said:

quote:


As I don't believe in punishment, I don't really see a difference between an "infraction" and an "excuse for sadism".

They both seem to be a way of loading any guilt the d/m is feeling about being sadistic on the back of the submissive.

It's like saying "you've made me angry" when the truth is I choose whether I will respond with anger or something else to whatever is done to me or around me.

Do you see where I am going with this? It's akin to abusive husbands who blame the beatings on their wives' behaviour.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

Why choose fear when there is love?

quote:


How does this differ from the abusive husband whose battered wife obeys out of fear?

quote:

ORIGINAL: camille65

Bob it is an ongoing issue (forgetting that medication) and a poor example. I have some serious memory issues and cognitive thinking problems due to both medical conditions and the very same medication that I forget lol.
So that particular example was not a good one. I found your question vague and answered it best I could but unfortunately chose a difficult scenario for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

Why choose fear when there is love?

False dichotomy. One can have both, either, or neither, in a relationship.

quote:

quote:


How does this differ from the abusive husband whose battered wife obeys out of fear?

Fear is not the only factor driving battered spouses.
The closer you examine the topic, the more the line to D/s blurs.
In my mind, the difference is intent, consent and the methodical approach.

Edit: To clarify, I mean the form can be similar, not what's going on under the hood.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

I recognize that Prop has also said what you are saying, bit it is a difficult concept for me to accept that one can have love -and- fear for the same person at the same time, or that fear leads to greater love.

quote:


I asked Prop if the fear she was speaking of might better be described as "awe" (as in the "fear of God").

quote:


Is that the fear you are describing?

quote:


I think what's going on under the hood can also be similar, tho' not in all cases (as several contributors to this discussion have taken the time to point out).

quote:

ORIGINAL: welshwmn3

"Punishment", even corporal punishment, is as different from "abuse" as day is from night. 

In my past, I've had both, corporal punishment and abuse.  The difference, in my opinion, isn't even consent or non-consent (because at the time my grandmother punished me, I wasn't able to give consent).  It has to do with if it's done with respect.

Corporal punishment at my grandmother's hands was for a specific infraction.  Maybe I was a brat.  Or had a tantrum and broke a bed (yes, true story), or other behavior that wasn't acceptable.  Grandma discussed what the issue was, spanked me, and that was the end of it.  I apologized for my misbehavior, we hugged and kissed and "made up".  And sometimes she'd give me cookies afterwards!  She never made me feel like I was scum or terrible because I did whatever it was I did.  Most of all, I was never afraid of grandma, but then, I seldom did the offending behavior again (or in the case of breaking the bed in a tantrum, NEVER did it again).

Abuse at other people's hands was meant to make me fear them and hate myself.  It is what you acuse "punishment" of being.   If I learned anything from the abuse, it was how to be a better liar or 'sneak theif' so I didn't get caught the next time.  I was in constant fear of being beat at any time.  I thought I was a terrible person who had no rights to any kind of respect.  I deserved any abuse that was heaped on me, no matter who it was from.

It's taken me a long time to see the difference.

When Sir punishes me for breaking a rule (because I am not perfect, and never did claim to be perfect), he does so with respect.  I know what I did wrong, he administers the punishment, and that's the end of it.  There's no words of how I "made him" do anything.  I was wrong, it was something that xyz is the consequence of, and so, unless there are extenuating circumstances, I get xyz punishment.

Now, if he just wants an excuse to be sadistic, then that is just "I'm doing this because I want to and you like it."

Like I said, this is just my opinion, and I've not read the whole thread yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

I recognize that Prop has also said what you are saying, bit it is a difficult concept for me to accept that one can have love -and- fear for the same person at the same time, or that fear leads to greater love.

Depends on the context, I imagine. I think love without any measure of fear is a rare thing, at least past the initial stages of it, depending on how you define fear and love.

quote:

quote:


I asked Prop if the fear she was speaking of might better be described as "awe" (as in the "fear of God").

She has clarified in the past that this is, at least in part, the case. IIRC, that is.

quote:


As I've said elsewhere, men tend to have an instinct to hunt, conquer and keep. But without the instinct to protect and provide, this is little more than plain animal savagery, with nothing much to respect about it. That's just sating hunger, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
My debate with Bob ...

... takes interesting twists and turns.
I would invite those interested to read the exchanges in the "Safe Punishment" thread, because Merc's synopsis is not to be relied upon.
Taking quotes out of context and attempting to use them to support an unsupportable position when the facts are known is called a "straw man", and I've wasted enough of my time on this one already.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

No wonder you need to "withdraw" when faced with adversity or challenge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

Fear of what? Loss? Rejection? Betrayal?

quote:


As I see it, Love does not exist without Trust.

quote:


And as Velvetears pointed out, how can there be fear where there is absolute Trust?

quote:


I see the fear as a lack of trust, an insecurity in the trustworthiness of the partner.
Where do we differ on this?

quote:


Not to prejudice her answer, but I suspect this would be so, from other things she's said.

quote:


I think the instincts to protect and provide exists within each man and woman. But like any instinct, its development can be stunted in an unhealthy environment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

Fear of what? Loss? Rejection? Betrayal?

I wouldn't know. You might comment on whether you fear to lose again, though.

quote:


For that matter, without Fear, where is Thrill?

quote:

quote:


Not to prejudice her answer, but I suspect this would be so, from other things she's said.

Yeah, well, I suspect the two are intermingled for her. My own "awe" of my god has no element of fear. Just as my respect and admiration for an animal that could kill me does not have that element. It has an element of awareness, yes, but not fear. That may have something to do with acceptance and naturalism, or not, I dunno. I know the animal will most likely not attack unless I attack it, or it is starving, and I know how it will go down if it does, though I don't know the outcome. I also strongly suspect the animal can sense that, at least for some animals. "Even" a horse can be positively lethal, and they are pretty skittish, but I've had no problem approaching one I'd never met, cut it loose from its harness, help it up, examine its injuries, bandage them, then later move it a distance, remove the bandages, and apply a tourniquet. The horse was dead calm all the way, and did not shy from my touch. Nor did I fear it, even though I am well aware of what its hooves could do to my body.

quote:

quote:


I think the instincts to protect and provide exists within each man and woman. But like any instinct, its development can be stunted in an unhealthy environment.

No doubt it can be stunted or enhanced, but that's usually a matter of another coat of paint. In either case, if the hunt/conquer/keep instinct is stronger than the protect/provide one, that's a recipe for problems, I suspect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

False dichotomy. One can have both, either, or neither, in a relationship.

I readily accept the last two as possibilities. And I recognize that Prop has also said what you are saying, bit it is a difficult concept for me to accept that one can have love -and- fear for the same person at the same time, or that fear leads to greater love.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

[...] it was being without her that I feared.

quote:


I recall hearing that the physiological responses to fear are identical to the responses for excitement.

quote:


The difference is how the brain interprets the responses.

quote:


That's why some people love roller-coasters while others fear them.

quote:


I think they sense the alpha-ness of the individual. Where they will not trust some, they seem more prone to trust those who have a high alpha-ness about them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

[...] it was being without her that I feared.

Which demonstrates that fear and love can coexist, feed each other, and intermingle, doesn't it?

quote:

quote:


I recall hearing that the physiological responses to fear are identical to the responses for excitement.

Makes sense.

quote:

quote:


The difference is how the brain interprets the responses.

As usual.

quote:


That's why some people love roller-coasters while others fear them.

I just get disoriented and annoyed at the G-force.
Except during the near-freefalls, where it's like a brief adrenal spike without context.

quote:

quote:


I think they sense the alpha-ness of the individual. Where they will not trust some, they seem more prone to trust those who have a high alpha-ness about them.

~lol~

While I do subscribe to the theory that there is such a trait, and strongly suspect possession of it, that sounded awfully like "domliness" with its usual connotations.

quote:


But, yeah, I think most mammals have some sense of a person's nature and frame of mind. There are a lot of physical signs that are autonomic precursors to violence, for instance, and if I "trick" myself by conscious dissociation, so that one part of the mind remains a "watchdog" that will abort, while the other intends to do harm (which will be aborted), the response is very different.

Actually, funny side note... I want a Czechoslovakian Wolfdog.

I saw some pictures from defense dog training, two different setups. In the one that is offered to civilians, the dogs just sat down and gestured to indicate they wanted to play, or came over and licked the "attackers", or whatever. In the one that is offered to army personell and so forth, there's this guy with a protective suit on, doing his damned best to keep one dog from circumventing the armguard and going for the throat, while another dog is going for the hamstring. Not bad with a .9:1 body shape.

Those have pretty excellent instincts and read people very well.
Train them well, and the kitten may get to ride on its back.
Plus they're so damned adorable and cute.