quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Id rather do it than talk about it philosophically, but then I have little patience with deep philosophy,

quote:

Some people find security in that. Who are W/we to judge such things?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather

quote:

Some people find security in that. Who are W/we to judge such things?

nobody's fucking judging anything, we're questioning if it's possible. i don't think it really is in the context of a d/s relationship involving healthy people. free will will always be present, it can't be submerged permanently or completely, and even that sort of control requires constant reinforcing and some sort of "religious" element. even soldiers are conditioned using pseudo-religious elements: patriotism, democracy, freedom - there has to be some fucking ideal or entity greater then oneself to surrender one's will to. i don't think a dominant would count as a greater entity unless the sub is pretty much fucked in the head to begin with.

quote:

Niccolo Machiavelli
Severities should be dealt out all at once, so that their suddenness may give less offense; benefits ought to be handed out drop by drop, so that they may be relished the more.

quote:

However, "i don't think it really is in the context of a d/s relationship involving healthy people." is a judgment. It's a personal judgment, also know as an opinion, but a judgment none the less. I am with MaryMay in the "different strokes for different folks" camp.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather

quote:

However, "i don't think it really is in the context of a d/s relationship involving healthy people." is a judgment. It's a personal judgment, also know as an opinion, but a judgment none the less. I am with MaryMay in the "different strokes for different folks" camp.

ok doctor semantico, where the fuck did i say it was in any way good, right, bad or wrong. i said it wasn't fucking possible if the one having their will subverted was mentally healthy. how does that have a fucking thing to do with "different strokes"?

i'll tell you how - it doesn't, that's how. you have a really bad habit of ignoring what people actually fucking say and just writing in what you want them to say don't you buckwheat?

quote:

Niccolo Machiavelli
Severities should be dealt out all at once, so that their suddenness may give less offense; benefits ought to be handed out drop by drop, so that they may be relished the more.

quote:

i said it wasn't fucking possible if the one having their will subverted was mentally healthy.

quote:

It is abundantly clear that in your judgment, those who can have their wills subverted are seeking something unhealthy, and thus, bad for them.

quote:

ignoring what people actually fucking say and just writing in what you want them to say

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather

quote:

free will will always be present, it can't be submerged permanently or completely, and even that sort of control requires constant reinforcing and some sort of "religious" element. even soldiers are conditioned using pseudo-religious elements: patriotism, democracy, freedom - there has to be some fucking ideal or entity greater then oneself to surrender one's will to.

That's just your mainstream media trying to brain wash the public into the belief that soldiers are all crotch grabbing G.I.Joes/Janes with a desire to serve. The largest majority of the men and women who serve. do so for opportunity to advance thier lives in some way. Be it for money for college, carreer advancement, or to open doors that would have; otherwise, been closed to them. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Very few of those who enlist do it on the fledgeling desire to serve a higher calling, and even fewer of those stay longer than thier first contract.

_____________________________

Basically if you can't inspire someone to trust you deeply, you aren't going to be able to buy that or a reasonable facsimile thereof. -DesFIP

(in reply to HannahLynHeather)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrazyCats

So I turn the question over to my fellow D/s enthusiasts. Since the very acts of dominance and submission place us in a position to study the long term effects of training, conditioning, and individuality, what do you think? can another's will be subverted completely, or is it all a matter of degrees of influence that we have on one another?

Can we even really tell the difference?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

I'm not a believer in free will at the very core of things. We can all say we have free will as much as we want to, but every one of our thoughts and actions is based on something - instinct or learning. We make decisions based on a million trillion little seemingly inconsequential and subconscious pointers. Every single thing that happens anywhere, anytime has a reaction, and every single thing we decided to do has a cause, right down to in what direction we put the toilet paper on the roll. Being able to choose, say, iced tea over lemonade doesn't mean one has free will. It just means one is in a position to be able to choose.

So, can another's will be subverted completely? I suppose, in theory, yes, since I don't believe it's ours to really own or not, anyway. As a submissive, I allow myself to be put into a position to be trained. Nobody is taking anything that I'm not giving them. I would say that, for those more intense D/s situations that I have not found myself in (and, even for less intense), whether one's will can be forced is dependent on what synapses are firing off in my brain to allow me to consider my response to be an appropriate one, and how I learned that, and why it's important to me, and where I first learned that, etc, etc, etc...So, the ability of the dominant to completely exert his or her will on another has primarily to do with the other, and less to do with the dominant. I suppose there could come a time where planned interaction with the dominant has tipped the scale, so to speak, so that a submissive's reaction is due more to the dominant's training than his or her own experience, but then again, I would submit that said tipping point has also much more to do with the the submissive's ability to tip. So yes, I feel that it is all a matter of degrees of influence upon each other...everybody...in all ways.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Endivius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

I'm not a believer in free will at the very core of things. We can all say we have free will as much as we want to, but every one of our thoughts and actions is based on something - instinct or learning. We make decisions based on a million trillion little seemingly inconsequential and subconscious pointers. Every single thing that happens anywhere, anytime has a reaction, and every single thing we decided to do has a cause, right down to in what direction we put the toilet paper on the roll. Being able to choose, say, iced tea over lemonade doesn't mean one has free will. It just means one is in a position to be able to choose.

So, can another's will be subverted completely? I suppose, in theory, yes, since I don't believe it's ours to really own or not, anyway. As a submissive, I allow myself to be put into a position to be trained. Nobody is taking anything that I'm not giving them. I would say that, for those more intense D/s situations that I have not found myself in (and, even for less intense), whether one's will can be forced is dependent on what synapses are firing off in my brain to allow me to consider my response to be an appropriate one, and how I learned that, and why it's important to me, and where I first learned that, etc, etc, etc...So, the ability of the dominant to completely exert his or her will on another has primarily to do with the other, and less to do with the dominant. I suppose there could come a time where planned interaction with the dominant has tipped the scale, so to speak, so that a submissive's reaction is due more to the dominant's training than his or her own experience, but then again, I would submit that said tipping point has also much more to do with the the submissive's ability to tip. So yes, I feel that it is all a matter of degrees of influence upon each other...everybody...in all ways.

In every possible way no. Free will is choice. You choose to do something or you choose not to. In a D/s relationship trust is a factor, yes, but the choice is allways there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Endivius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

I'm not a believer in free will at the very core of things. We can all say we have free will as much as we want to, but every one of our thoughts and actions is based on something - instinct or learning. We make decisions based on a million trillion little seemingly inconsequential and subconscious pointers. Every single thing that happens anywhere, anytime has a reaction, and every single thing we decided to do has a cause, right down to in what direction we put the toilet paper on the roll. Being able to choose, say, iced tea over lemonade doesn't mean one has free will. It just means one is in a position to be able to choose.

So, can another's will be subverted completely? I suppose, in theory, yes, since I don't believe it's ours to really own or not, anyway. As a submissive, I allow myself to be put into a position to be trained. Nobody is taking anything that I'm not giving them. I would say that, for those more intense D/s situations that I have not found myself in (and, even for less intense), whether one's will can be forced is dependent on what synapses are firing off in my brain to allow me to consider my response to be an appropriate one, and how I learned that, and why it's important to me, and where I first learned that, etc, etc, etc...So, the ability of the dominant to completely exert his or her will on another has primarily to do with the other, and less to do with the dominant. I suppose there could come a time where planned interaction with the dominant has tipped the scale, so to speak, so that a submissive's reaction is due more to the dominant's training than his or her own experience, but then again, I would submit that said tipping point has also much more to do with the the submissive's ability to tip. So yes, I feel that it is all a matter of degrees of influence upon each other...everybody...in all ways.

In every possible way no. Free will is choice. You choose to do something or you choose not to. In a D/s relationship trust is a factor, yes, but the choice is allways there.

I choose to disagree.

:)

quote:

That's just your mainstream media trying to brain wash the public into the belief that soldiers are all crotch grabbing G.I.Joes/Janes with a desire to serve. The largest majority of the men and women who serve. do so for opportunity to advance thier lives in some way. Be it for money for college, carreer advancement, or to open doors that would have; otherwise, been closed to them. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Very few of those who enlist do it on the fledgeling desire to serve a higher calling, and even fewer of those stay longer than thier first contract.

quote:

So, the ability of the dominant to completely exert his or her will on another has primarily to do with the other, and less to do with the dominant. I suppose there could come a time where planned interaction with the dominant has tipped the scale, so to speak, so that a submissive's reaction is due more to the dominant's training than his or her own experience, but then again, I would submit that said tipping point has also much more to do with the the submissive's ability to tip.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather

no, buckwheat is pretty fucking much unique to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrazyCats
If it is only possible to subvert the will of unhealthy people, it is then a judgment call to label any person with a subvert-able will who wants to be conditioned as unhealthy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather

there is no value statement whatsoever in that

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
We're motivated by such a complex mix of forces that it's just too simplistic to boil them down to one "perspective" or another, and while the discussion here is genuinely interesting, remember that this is a topic that has troubled philosophers for thousands of years and we're still only a tiny bit closer to understanding how we exercise "will" - free or otherwise.

quote:

Niccolo Machiavelli
Severities should be dealt out all at once, so that their suddenness may give less offense; benefits ought to be handed out drop by drop, so that they may be relished the more.

quote:

That is not a counterargument.

quote:

Your assertion based upon the comment "i don't think it really is in the context of a d/s relationship involving healthy people." Feel free to correct me if this is not your opinion:

Having a subvertable will and desiring to be conditioned = mentally unsound individual

quote:

1) Having a subvertable will and the desire to be conditioned = kink (My premise)

quote:

2) Any kink can be viewed as the actions of a mentally unsound person by those who do not share that kink. (My premise supporting the first premise)

quote:

3) Viewing the kinks of another as actions or choices of a mentally unsound individual = value judgment of their kink. (My conclusion)

quote:

My conclusion: your opinion of "i don't think it really is in the context of a d/s relationship involving healthy people." is a value judgment of another's lifestyle choices.

quote:

Which is why I said what I said in the first place.

quote:

While I disagree with Hannah's perspective that subverting the will of another requires a flawed mind, mainly because I see it as a kink when done by two consenting adults rather than a mental disorder, there is no way to prove either side right or wrong.

quote:

We lack sufficient technology to test either hypothesis. Add to the lack of technology, it would it be unethical to actually do clinical trials of conditioning human beings even if we had the technology to make the results meaningful. The control group would need to be a random assortment of individuals who may or may not be willing in the first place, while the experimental group would only consist of willing volunteers. Now that... would be sick, twisted, and depraved!

quote:

My opinion on the flaw/no flaw portion of the "will" debate is that anyone without sufficiently rigorous mental training will eventually be broken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather

that's interesting, but unrelated to what i posted in the bit you quoted, i was referring to how soldiers were trained/conditioned after they fucking sign up, not why they sign up. do try to keep up.

quote:

Regardless of how much you want to believe it. We were never trained or conditioned in that way. Stop watching made for t.v. movies and believing they are documentaries.