RE: Power and Power Exchange

RE: Power and Power Exchange (Full Version)

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

Message

mettadas -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/10/2008 5:51:03 AM)
quote: I likened 'transfer' and the OP's definition of PE to the gift of submission or of being one way traffic. IE, the sub is apparently the one with all the power and the dom/me is reduced to a passive entity until the sub empowers them. Makes it sound like a dom/me has nothing to offer in their own right and that we sit around hoping one day to be a sub's chosen one. I don't think soooo; I've got something equally unique and attractive to submissives - something worth "swapping".... My problem with the term power exchange does not stem from either of the words, but from the combination. There is power, and there is exchange, but there is not an exchange of power. The dom(me) obviously DOES have something worth swapping, or the relationship would not happen.

RCdc -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/10/2008 6:34:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 "phew"? Am a sweetheart; a big teddy bear - honest injun...! lol Who am I to argue?[:D] quote: But perhaps it's my turn to have misunderstood.... "Transfer" doesn't automatically imply something is moving back and forth, only that it is moving (one way). However, "exchange" does imply a trade off - you get something in return for what's given. I think I get what you mean but if you prefer "transfer", then you need to qualify it by saying something's tranferred mutually, ie, both ways simultaneously.... Please tell me I'm close - head's in danger of hurting here.... lmao Focus. Transfer always (to me) indicates that whatever is being transfered is not static or fixed. So in saying 'I transfer authority to Darcy' I have then to wait for it to be accepted can cleared before there is a transfere back. It's not always automatic or instant. Exchange feels like there is an immediate sharing of 'items' - which of course there can be - but in a power exchange, that just doesn;t happen. It implies that the power is given by both to each. 'Exchange' on it's own for me, would work, but not 'Power exchange'. Bah - words are funny thangs... I am now feeling like an accountant.[:)] the.dark.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/10/2008 7:01:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Maxwell67 Looks like a definition of 'surrender' not submission. And, 'topping from the bottom,' to boot.. what if that dominant deos not accept what was given? With submission, the active party is the dominant taking power (or authority, what have you).. the submissive simply lets them. My Master and I don't use the term "surrender" because to us it means giving over to something you don't really want to give over to, like surrendering in a war. He doesn't want me to surrender to him; he wants me to willingly and eagerly submit to him. If he were not to accept what I offered to him, then I can't give it to him. But for me it's not a matter of "letting him", it was a matter of asking him if he will please receive and accept my submission, because I was so drawn to him I couldn't help but submit. In that case, he let me submit to him. I guess it's how you look at it. As for the TPE versus Authority Transfer - both are just catchy phrases to me. Our relationship is an exercise of power, authority, dominance, submission, and anything else thrown into that mix. I transfer my power to his authority and in turn, he masters me. I have exchanged my submission for his dominance. I subjugate to his will. And so on. To some, he micromanages me. To others, he doesn't master me enough. Perhaps it's good to have such terms to more easily communicate and understand each other, but then you'll never find universal definitions to terms anyway. I will say this - he has total authority over me and that authority gives him power over me. So maybe we have a Powerful Authority Transfer! [8D]

MadRabbit -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/10/2008 8:06:48 AM)
Let the semantical war between the "Authority Transfer Acolytes" and the "Disciples of Power Exchange" begin... To me, expressions of dominance and submission are subjective to the individual so everyone and anyone can exchange power, transfer authority, claim a right, exert power, give a gift, make a loan, take out a sub-prime mortage on a slave, or make a dominance and submission sandwich without being wrong. I just use "power-based relationship" lately, because it's right to the point. A relationship based on having a degree of power/authority/control over my girl.

Maxwell67 -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/10/2008 10:04:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie My Master and I don't use the term "surrender" because to us it means giving over to something you don't really want to give over to, like surrendering in a war. He doesn't want me to surrender to him; he wants me to willingly and eagerly submit to him. Admittedly this is really a semantics game, and it really is all in how you look at it. From my perspective, I am not as satisfied or if there is no sense of conquest, and I really believe that for the most part, my partners find being conquered infinitely more exciting than happy cooperation. That is not to say that they do not happily cooperate most of the time. But even if I could do a number of other kinky things with them with full cooperation, if I were too timid to take what I wanted simply because I thought they would not like it (not a hard limit, mind you, just something outside their comfort zone), I could not honestly call myself dominant, could I?

ownedgirlie -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/10/2008 11:01:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Let the semantical war between the "Authority Transfer Acolytes" and the "Disciples of Power Exchange" begin... To me, expressions of dominance and submission are subjective to the individual so everyone and anyone can exchange power, transfer authority, claim a right, exert power, give a gift, make a loan, take out a sub-prime mortage on a slave, or make a dominance and submission sandwich without being wrong. [sm=LMAO.gif] You kill me!!

ownedgirlie -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/10/2008 11:08:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Maxwell67 quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie My Master and I don't use the term "surrender" because to us it means giving over to something you don't really want to give over to, like surrendering in a war. He doesn't want me to surrender to him; he wants me to willingly and eagerly submit to him. Admittedly this is really a semantics game, and it really is all in how you look at it. From my perspective, I am not as satisfied or if there is no sense of conquest, and I really believe that for the most part, my partners find being conquered infinitely more exciting than happy cooperation. That is not to say that they do not happily cooperate most of the time. But even if I could do a number of other kinky things with them with full cooperation, if I were too timid to take what I wanted simply because I thought they would not like it (not a hard limit, mind you, just something outside their comfort zone), I could not honestly call myself dominant, could I? I completely understand there are different styles of preferences and I respect that. Thanks for clarifying your take on it. The part I highlighted above, though, I wanted to comment on. I am of the philosophy that a Master can and should take someone outside their comfort zone if they want to. But I do not link that with any sort of conquest. For example, I myself was not conquered; I begged my Master's ownership. I did so knowing full well there would be things required of me that I would not like. And there are!! Quite often, in fact!! I'm not arguing what fuels your engine, just sharing my thoughts on the topic. I do understand where your use of "surrender" fits in with what you are saying, though. Thank you for explaining. [:)]

Maxwell67 -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/10/2008 11:27:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie I am of the philosophy that a Master can and should take someone outside their comfort zone if they want to. But I do not link that with any sort of conquest. For example, I myself was not conquered; I begged my Master's ownership. I did so knowing full well there would be things required of me that I would not like. And there are!! Quite often, in fact!! I'm not arguing what fuels your engine, just sharing my thoughts on the topic. I do understand where your use of "surrender" fits in with what you are saying, though. Thank you for explaining. [:)] Ok, this is exactly what I mean by perspective, then. To my mind laying claim to territory outside her comfort zone IS conquest. I need not do it all the time, and in fact I only do it when I think she can gain something positive from the experience, but the mere fact I can do it should I want to and that she willingly submits to that in order to please me is the defining characteristic for me. Otherwise we are just perverts in love.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/10/2008 11:31:47 AM)
I understand exactly where you're coming from. Thanks for the dialogue!

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/10/2008 3:58:54 PM)
I don't call what I do a 'power exchange'. I prefer to think of it as 'energy management'. To my mind, what we experience in these relationships is that one member is given the right to evoke a powerful response/intense response by using tools (physical/mental/emotional/spiritual) on another. This person is the Top/Dominant/Master/Mistress/etc., ad nauseum. The other member is given the opportunity to evoke a powerful/intense response by allowing tools (physical/mental/emotional/spiritual) to be used on hir. This person is the Bottom/Submissive individual/Servant/Slave/etc. ad nauseum. In addition, the Bottom/etc., may yield up hir own reserves/store of energy to be used by the Top/etc. in attending to certain needs/requirements, and may yield up the right to use -only- that personal power that is remaining after the Top/etc., has made use of what xhe needs. At no time does the energy that is stored in a submissive individual leave them and directly transfer to the dominant individual -- It's not like a power plant and power lines. Both individuals may get a boost of energy from the practices of their dynamic. The big difference is who gets to decide how that energy is used... and it is-that- which, to me, determines dominance and submission/mastery and servitude. Calla Firestorm

RedMagic1 -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/10/2008 4:34:52 PM)
Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. A more or less good summary of my own position comes from the following fact: When someone writes, "My M/s-D/s relationship has X problem, what should I do?" the best advice tends to be a good answer to the question, "My vanilla relationship has X problem, what should I do?" I think most people capable of building and maintaining successful BDSM-y relationships are emotional switches with complementary kinks. Maybe I'm the Dom/Master/Goddess, but if you get hurt, I'm setting aside my own desires, because your needs are more important to me than my own wishes. This stuff is a lot closer to vanilla than many people think.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/10/2008 7:59:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross It's not power exchange, it's authority transfer. Put me in the authority transfer side

Focus50 -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/11/2008 3:33:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mettadas quote: I likened 'transfer' and the OP's definition of PE to the gift of submission or of being one way traffic. IE, the sub is apparently the one with all the power and the dom/me is reduced to a passive entity until the sub empowers them. Makes it sound like a dom/me has nothing to offer in their own right and that we sit around hoping one day to be a sub's chosen one. I don't think soooo; I've got something equally unique and attractive to submissives - something worth "swapping".... My problem with the term power exchange does not stem from either of the words, but from the combination. There is power, and there is exchange, but there is not an exchange of power. The dom(me) obviously DOES have something worth swapping, or the relationship would not happen. This is quite interesting.... I personally find the word "exchange" inadequate but that it works in concert with "power exchange". lol In my second post here, I defined "power" thusly - Power: A quality that makes one desirable. Anyone who has something you desire has a certain power over you - like it or not, a fact of life. Within BDSM, that quality would be a matter of asking myself what it is a fem/sub has that attracts my interest that an otherwise attractive vanilla female does not. Now I'm not about to try and define that quality (assuming I could) so let's just say I know it when "it" is present and, for the vanilla majority out there, I especially know it when "it" is not. I knows whut I likes - and it's easier to point than to articulate.... *I've also been around the lifestyle long enough to know I also possess a quality desirable to the average fem/sub that a vanilla (or sub) male does not = my* power.** So what do we do with our mutually complementing power? "Exchange" it? No! <gasp> Your "power" (of desirability) cannot be given away or "swapped", it's always retained. And hers is certainly not given to me, or vice versa, anyway. That quality is what we each contribute to a D/s dynamic" - thus we empower each other; POWER EXCHANGE. In a vanilla sense, both making an equal contribution is what enables a "dynamic" of baby-making possible, for eg, whereas it just isn't gunna happen for either singular individual or sex. And back to D/s, there is no D/s dynamic in a room full of dom/mes (even m & f combined) just as there isn't any for a room full of m & f subs.... Power IS* desirability! Focus.**

Focus50 -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/11/2008 4:03:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Transfer always (to me) indicates that whatever is being transfered is not static or fixed. So in saying 'I transfer authority to Darcy' I have then to wait for it to be accepted can cleared before there is a transfere back. It's not always automatic or instant. Exchange feels like there is an immediate sharing of 'items' - which of course there can be - but in a power exchange, that just doesn;t happen. It implies that the power is given by both to each. 'Exchange' on it's own for me, would work, but not 'Power exchange'. Bah - words are funny thangs... "Transfer" seems to be a common theme in this thread, though I've yet to see anyone actually explain it. I (as an ignorant onlooker) have interpretted "authority transfer" as a sub empowering a dom - that everything depends on the sub's actions first and, until then, the dom is reduced to a passive entity with seemingly nothing of value to contribute. Now I'm asking rhetorically here and not specifically taking aim at you, the.dark. I do NOT advocate "authority transfer" as it's been presented in this thread - mostly just as a vote in favour of.... The flaw is there's no acknowledgement for a dom's contribution to a D/s dynamic (until the sub empowers him). So, what happens when "authority" is (mistakenly) transferred to a vanilla partner? Buggar-all, I'd imagine - beyond head-banging frustration on both sides.... I'm all for embracing new ideas but I do not advocate "fixing" what isn't broken anymore than replacing something old with something new but inferior. I think before people wanna dump on "power exchange", they might wanna consider the meaning and context of "power" for starters.... You've guessed it; power exchange, control, D/s dynamics etc - absolutely my favourite lifestyle topics. lol To EVERYONE reading this, do I hafta go ask my own question of what you define as "authority transfer"? So far, all I've seen is a populist new age buzz-word/term that no-one is willing to explain in comparison to PE (present company excepted). It's better 'cause it's newer? Purrrrrrrrrlease....! Focus.

RCdc -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/11/2008 5:43:02 AM)
I know the post was not aimed at me, Focus, but I really wantd to respond(seeing as no one has as yet). Do you have to ask it straight out? I would say the answer would be yes(unfortunately). BDSM peeps are all 'communication, communication' - but when it comes down to it, buzz words are the thang.[;)] Is it a buzz word? Absolutely! If it wasn't then people would be able to construct a reasoned response to what authority transfere is to them instead of just saying 'its not this - it's that'. Or 'Im in this camp'. I don't believe that because it is a buzz word for many people that it doesn't have the ability to hold itself upright and mean something though. I can't 'give' the authority to someone though - that to me would be all butterflies and unicorns and where the whole 'gift of submission' seems to stem from. You can't give something to someone and then expect them to use it all the time, that would be presumptuous to me. But you can offer them a transfer and they accept or they do not. But if they do accept, then the responsibility comes with it and the acknowledgement that the authority is now in their hands and I really cannot see that as being passive. the.dark.

camille65 -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/11/2008 5:51:23 AM)
I go with transfer over exchange. Exchange to me means just that, give X and receive Y to him and he gives X to receive Y. Transfer to me means that I hand it over to him. They are nearly interchangeable but authority transfer just feels like the correct fit to me. I as a grown woman have authority over myself, I have chosen to transfer that authority to someone else.

Aswad -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/11/2008 5:58:25 AM)
Hey, Darcy/the.dark. I would have to say power exchange has one meaning which works. Consider a Formula-1 car, specifically the gearbox. A lot of power exchange there. And more than just a passing similarity in terms of attributes and operation, if you consider it a bit artistically and in the abstract. Health, al-Aswad.

RCdc -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/11/2008 6:13:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Hey, Darcy/the.dark. I would have to say power exchange has one meaning which works. Consider a Formula-1 car, specifically the gearbox. A lot of power exchange there. And more than just a passing similarity in terms of attributes and operation, if you consider it a bit artistically and in the abstract. Health, al-Aswad. Blessings to you and yours Aswad! I'm not so good on electronics and motors.[:)] But I get your drift. Like I said before, I don't have a difficulty with the word 'exchange', after all, relationships (at least healthy ones IMO) aren't just one way, but I do find it confusing to stick 'power' in front of it. But that's just me, the pedant.[:D] the.dark.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/11/2008 6:42:22 AM)
A person cannot put their "power" into a box and give it away to another. A person retain their power but chooses not to exercise it, instead allowing another authority over it. It is the difference between prison and working. A prisoner has no power or authority to give away, a worker does. And Focus, it in no way makes the dominant a passive participant, you have to be the sort of man that inspires someone to offer up authority over them. But I think I see where you are coming from, we dominants DO exude a certain aura and power that attracts those who eroticise power.

stella41b -> RE: Power and Power Exchange (7/11/2008 1:03:48 PM)
I'd say it's more a power transaction. Power exchange is a bit misleading because 'exchange' implies something transferred from one person and something else transferred back. This may not always be the case. Power: the use of energy to change or maintain a state of being. What some people refer to as a power exchange to me is a power cycle or a power chain, i..e a series of transactions between Dominant and submissive based on the transfer of energy between the two. For any power transaction to take place there has to be communication, which can be explicit or psychological. These are usually reciprocal or complimentary transactions, but may also be duplex or covert transactions. For example, a Dominant says 'Fetch me that book.' The first transaction is psychological. Both dominant and submissive know each other and aware of each other's roles in the relationship. This is a duplex or covert transaction. One person identifies as a dominant, the other as a submissive. There is no need to make any statement or introduction. This sets the context for the relationship and all the transactions. The second transaction, in this specific situation is reciprocal or complimentary. The submissive listens while the dominant speaks. There is a power transaction. The dominant has the power which causes the submissive to move and fetch the book. The submissive has given up this power. This sets up the power cycle or chain. The third transaction occurs when submissive communicates to dominant that they have understood the instruction and they then move towards the location of the book. Please note that here, had the submissive not acknowledged the command or refused, this would result in a crossed transaction. The power is transferred back to the submissive who independently at this point goes to fetch the book. Submissive finds book and takes it back to the dominant. This sets up a further transaction, reciprocal, and the handing of the book over to the dominant is accompanied by the handing over of power to the dominant who receives a payoff from the series of transactions or the power chain. It is these transactions or interactions which together form power chains or cycles, rituals, games, and ultimately the whole relationship. Power exchange is misleading, because only one person can have the power at any one time in such a situation for the transactions to be reciprocal or complimentary. It is this power coming from one source which sets up the energy transfer and communication between two people and enables the dynamic. Therefore I would suggest power transaction as a more accurate term.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875