RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s?

RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (Full Version)

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

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 8:43:52 AM)
OK This is not necessarily my view but I was chatting with my friend/lover on the phone yesterday and mentioned this thread. She's a masochist of sorts but fairly strident most of the time. I got an email from her this morning which contained the following paragraph. I was quite surprised at how forceful this paragraph comes across but knowing her she would have thought some time about it. I haven't yet spoken to her yet so maybe she doesn't feel as strongly as her thoughts appear in the email but I thought it worth adding to the thread if only to create controversy and discussion. The brackets are mine. They (Submissives) do not want to be loved for them selves but adored for what they are not. It is a way of (a woman) keeping control while getting (what she perceives to be) a good old fashioned arse whipping. Feminists dressed up to be deflowered like debutants. It’s all about controlling men through sex while denying that fact. Why the fuck can't they be honest and do all women a favor.

KnightofMists -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 8:59:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring I am not stereotyping anyone. I am stating my opinion and preference derived from my experiences, which works for me, but I certainly understand that others have their opinions that work for them. That is the beauty of these boards, right? mmmmmmmm no you just making a universal judgement that is suppose to apply to all subs, as quoted below. quote: It's always all about the sub. You have just to look at the profiles and the demands of your average sub Yes you stating your opinion, but it seems the only personal experience your refering to is all the apparent profiles that you are reading. Which in of itself is a rather narrow perspective of any one person and is a rather large leap to take such narrow perspective into such a universal judgement. But your right it's your opinion and your entitled to have it. No one needs an informed or well thought out opinion to express it on the boards. A person is very capable of posting any half baked opinion or thought if it so pleases them. Your post demonstrates this rather well. Of course, there will be some that will take exception to such narrow opinions and will feel compelled to responded to one's narrow and ill-informed post.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 9:10:38 AM)
In deference to my good friend Estring (hey dude, when are we getting together again? Still going to LAC?) injecting the semantic argument between the labels submissive and slave only serves to distract. Labels that you give yourself only serve yourself, but this issue behind the words may be the "inherent contradiction" that some see in a D/s relationship. If either party comes into the relationship with the goal to "win" you've both lost. A submissive/slave looking to win access to sensations through the actions of a Dom/Master doesn't have the mindset to appreciate that there is no inherent contradiction. The same holds for a Dom/Master looking for a object for their need for inflicting a sensation. If the relationship and the activity is based solely on the play aspect the "inherent contradiction" accurately describes what is happening. However, that does not describe a D/s relationship that views the sensation aspect of the relationship in the same context as "vanillas" content, happy, and fulfilled, to make love in the dark for 20 years. The action is the outward display of a much deeper dynamic. There is no contradiction because both parties serve in their roles, the "Relationship". One party, the submissive/slave, is the "compliance" officer; the other party assumes the "enforcement" role. Both would be nothing without the other. But beyond each other, they need a common "ideal". Neither can exist independently. There is no "win" for either and the only loss to be concerned is the loss of focus. This is why punishment should never be a goal. It represents failure on both parties. Enforcement is required when compliance gets lax. Compliance usually gets lax if interest wanes. It's only after you've experienced all the sensation fantasies that you can determine if the relationship will be long lasting. Within a relationship there is no contradiction. There is no contradiction unless you focus solely on the outward display of the dynamic.

Vancouver_cinful -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 3:29:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver OK This is not necessarily my view but I was chatting with my friend/lover on the phone yesterday and mentioned this thread. She's a masochist of sorts but fairly strident most of the time. I got an email from her this morning which contained the following paragraph. I was quite surprised at how forceful this paragraph comes across but knowing her she would have thought some time about it. I haven't yet spoken to her yet so maybe she doesn't feel as strongly as her thoughts appear in the email but I thought it worth adding to the thread if only to create controversy and discussion. The brackets are mine. They (Submissives) do not want to be loved for them selves but adored for what they are not. It is a way of (a woman) keeping control while getting (what she perceives to be) a good old fashioned arse whipping. Feminists dressed up to be deflowered like debutants. It’s all about controlling men through sex while denying that fact. Why the fuck can't they be honest and do all women a favor. ::rolling eyes:: And this isn't you speaking, right? It's a "friend"? Funny, but it reminds of me of all the other posts you've made stating that all submissives are just manipulative game-players. I won't dignify this by arguing with it, but I thought you should note that we've gotten the drift that you don't think very highly of us. Cin

Level -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 4:36:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth It's only after you've experienced all the sensation fantasies that you can determine if the relationship will be long lasting. Important sentence right there. Merc, if you have anything else to say on that, I know that I, for one, would like to hear it. Or maybe that's all that needs to be said?

somethndif -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 4:59:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RavenMuse OK so Subs have a need to serve, yes, to focus on the needs of their Dom, to bring pleasure to their Master, make his life easier in any way they can. But it is a need of theirs, fullfilling it makes THEM happy, so doesn't that make it "About" the sub? Doms have a need to control, direct, do things their way, take up the responcibility for the relationship. But doesn't that responcibility mean ensuring both sets of needs are met. Given they should have already identified most of their own needs, doesn't that mean a lot of their focus and attention is on finding and learning the subs needs? Again, doesn't that make it "About" the sub? I agree with your basic point, but I have viewed it not as a contradiction, but as a paradox. It is what I call the fundamental paradox of a D&s relationship. The submissive/slave always chooses, but she gives up the right to choose. And it is the paradoxes in life that make life interesting! The way that I look at it, the submissive/slave can always end the relationship, can always walk away. But she chooses to submit and to do what her Dominant/Master wants her to do. And she makes that choice every minute of every day, whether she does so conciously or subconciously. But if the Dominant/Master does not pay enough attention to the submissive/slave's needs, limits or whatever it is you want to call them, he won't have her for very long. I view the dynamic as a dance, with the Dominant/Master leading, and the submissive/slave following. The Master may know some dances or some steps that the submissive doesn't, and the same with the submissive, she may know some dances or steps that the Master doesn't. They can learn from each other, and it is a growing process, a learning experience for both of them. And although you may be doing the same dance or the same steps, the dance is always different, with a different partner. Some are better partners than others, at least for me. Dan

Sinergy -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 5:48:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists No one needs an informed or well thought out opinion to express it on the boards. A person is very capable of posting any half baked opinion or thought if it so pleases them. I offer my own idiotic ramblings as a case in point... Just me, could be wrong, etc. Sinergy

BitaTruble -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 5:55:37 PM)
quote: They (Submissives) do not want to be loved for them selves but adored for what they are not. It is a way of (a woman) keeping control while getting (what she perceives to be) a good old fashioned arse whipping. Feminists dressed up to be deflowered like debutants. It’s all about controlling men through sex while denying that fact. Why the fuck can't they be honest and do all women a favor. As it's rather difficult to debate with someone who isn't at the podium, seems pointless to bring this forth or attempt to argue another point of view. ::shrugs:: Celeste

puella -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 7:05:08 PM)
hmm... I really do not know what to tell you meatclaver, beyond... as a submissive woman, what she said made absolutely no sense to me, nor did it have any way of registering as a truism in the way that my mind functions and the way I think. It had so little merit and basis of understanding for me.. that I couldn't even get offended by it..It had no more credibility to me than saying something like...Cats are evil creatures, spawned from Satan himself, and seeking nothing more than a packet of tendervittles... er.. okay? It has no impact on me because it is: untrue; a sweeping statement of judgment; not even based upon something that has a foundation which can be intellectually dissected for comprehension; and... totally unimportant. The only thing I might be able to comment upon is that.. it would seem to me that she has not reached a level of submission with any person to really understand that some experience submission that goes far beyond getting your endorphin rush at the end of a paddle or getting some sort of sexual release (not that there is anything wrong with either of those!)... Personally, I know that if control was something I wanted from a relationship, I would certainly not have to play games to get the opportunity to Domme some guy.. hell, every day I have to toss out invites from submissive men... It simply is not a part of my nature. Maybe she just doesn't understand people who work that way? Dunno.. good luck to her.

feastie -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 7:12:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver They (Submissives) do not want to be loved for them selves but adored for what they are not. It is a way of (a woman) keeping control while getting (what she perceives to be) a good old fashioned arse whipping. Feminists dressed up to be deflowered like debutants. It’s all about controlling men through sex while denying that fact. Why the fuck can't they be honest and do all women a favor. This post doesn't offend me... It just makes me wonder on what she's based her opinion.

OTKkindaGirl -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 7:21:05 PM)
I view the dynamic as a dance i agree with Somethndif on this. Not only is it a dance but it is a true balance of each others energy. Much like ying and yang, or shiva and shakti. To me a D/s relationship should feed one another and is necessary for an honest partnership. The more a D gives the s the more the s desires to give the D. It is a circle or a waltz. If the D doesn't want to give to the s, the s will soon lose the energy to continue and the power given to the D will diminish. Likewise, if the s will not supply the power to the D the energy towards the s will diminish. am i wrong to think this way? i don't know... i just know that the more given to me, the more i want to please. i also know that when i get nothing in return it feels like neglect and affects my esteem and i've already been through that enough. In response to RavenMuse; To say that it's all about the sub is to say that the Dom/me gets nothing from it and i think that is a bunch of hog wash. How can it be all about the sub if the sub is pleasing the Dom/me and learning from the Dom/me. i know i am not the only sub to have done things i did not want to do just to please a Dom, so would that not make it about the Dom? Like i stated above, it is a fine balance if D/s is to be successful. One thing is for sure though and that is, this life is so much more interesting than a vanilla one. Dancin' to the beat of the drums. edited to add: Without a sub a Dom/me is just a person with strange toys!

juliaoceania -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 7:53:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver OK This is not necessarily my view but I was chatting with my friend/lover on the phone yesterday and mentioned this thread. She's a masochist of sorts but fairly strident most of the time. I got an email from her this morning which contained the following paragraph. I was quite surprised at how forceful this paragraph comes across but knowing her she would have thought some time about it. I haven't yet spoken to her yet so maybe she doesn't feel as strongly as her thoughts appear in the email but I thought it worth adding to the thread if only to create controversy and discussion. The brackets are mine. They (Submissives) do not want to be loved for them selves but adored for what they are not. It is a way of (a woman) keeping control while getting (what she perceives to be) a good old fashioned arse whipping. Feminists dressed up to be deflowered like debutants. It’s all about controlling men through sex while denying that fact. Why the fuck can't they be honest and do all women a favor. Is she talking about those postintg on this thread? Submissives in general?....hmmmmm... I really find it amusing when people generalize and judge others they do not know and think they fully understand them in the context of their sex lives and romantic entanglements based on a few posts on a forum. I would never be as bold to think I knew all of any group to generalize about the whole in what motivates them, how they feel, what drives them. Whatever the motivation of this post is, it is actually pretty baffling to me. Adored for what we are not? Who is supposed to be judging this? The dominant we are involved with? Her? You? Who judges how adorable we are and in what way? A stranger on a forum posts another stranger's comment once removed and this is supposed to be pertinent to submissives who read it? Are we to hang our heads in shame and put a scarlet letter on our foreheads now? Puhleeeaaaaaseeeee.

OTKkindaGirl -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 8:11:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver They (Submissives) do not want to be loved for them selves but adored for what they are not. It is a way of (a woman) keeping control while getting (what she perceives to be) a good old fashioned arse whipping. Feminists dressed up to be deflowered like debutants. It’s all about controlling men through sex while denying that fact. Why the fuck can't they be honest and do all women a favor. this is just plain BS not D/s! i too would like to know on what basis this statement is made. Before i discovered this lifestyle i was in an abusive vanilla relationship for 15 years that included sex three to four times a year if i was lucky. for me personally, this lifestyle isn't all about sex, (but i must confess it sure is a plus)! i was resented for being who i was. i was despised and humiliated for "loving him too much". no matter what i would do to please him, he would change the rules and i would change and adapt to them trying all the while to please him. Why? Why did i do all of this? It is part of who i am and what i am. Did i enjoy the resentment, no. i am selfish in the regard that i do want to be loved for who and what i am. One of the things that bothers me about the above statement is the general assumption that submissives=massochists. although i am a bit of a masochist... not all submissives are. If i never have sex again, i would be ok with it...if i were not ever privileged to feel a hand, paddle, flogger, cane or any other implent of torture against my backside or even frontside, i would be disappointed but i would accept it. my submission isn't about sex or pain so much as it is about pleasing. Is it really a submissives fault if her Master just happens to get pleasure from sex? If a Master didn't expect sex with submissives would he not just be with an uptight, knees together vanilla kind of woman? Is it a masochists fault if the sadist gets turned on with the mention or thought of inflicting pain. i am a far cry from a feminist as well. i do not apologize for it either. i like feeling like a woman especially in the presence of a man. and i like the men around me to feel the essence of their masculinity. i like being treated with respect and what does sex have to do with that? nothing. Seems to me that jealousy, bitterness, and anger towards submissives is eating somebody alive, for whatever reason. This is sad because i feel that spiritually, submissives are some of the most beautiful people i have ever encountered.

Wulfchyld -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 8:35:02 PM)
Raven, it is all about the sub/slave. It is he/she that defines us. We can shake our feathers and beat our chests all we want but that doesn’t make us more dominant. However the submissive is free to be seen submissive and the Nilla call it demure. The dominant usually gets pegged with asshole. It is all about the sub/slave and I am very comfortable with that. She defines me and lets me wear that label of Dom/Master. I can respect her limits and she mine and the more willing she is to submission the more I get to shine in all my Domliness. You know me, I am the guy that pisses everyone off because I feel the sub/slave has the control. A control which she hands over to me, yet she can still take away should I dishonor her. However in that moment of submission and she gives herself to be taken as the plunder she knows I will make her it is still about her. What she is capable of doing, how she serves, and how well… here comes the dirty word… I can train her. I willing accept the responsibility for her and from my side of the fence it is all about her. From her perspective it may very well be all about me. Yet, somewhere in us putting our 100% into each other we find an equilibrium and harmony that makes it about us… Master… slave.

OhBeMyMind -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 9:11:27 PM)
Eh, maybe you aren't completely full of crap after all. [sm=applause.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: Wulfchyld Raven, it is all about the sub/slave. It is he/she that defines us. We can shake our feathers and beat our chests all we want but that doesn’t make us more dominant. However the submissive is free to be seen submissive and the Nilla call it demure. The dominant usually gets pegged with asshole. It is all about the sub/slave and I am very comfortable with that. She defines me and lets me wear that label of Dom/Master. I can respect her limits and she mine and the more willing she is to submission the more I get to shine in all my Domliness. You know me, I am the guy that pisses everyone off because I feel the sub/slave has the control. A control which she hands over to me, yet she can still take away should I dishonor her. However in that moment of submission and she gives herself to be taken as the plunder she knows I will make her it is still about her. What she is capable of doing, how she serves, and how well… here comes the dirty word… I can train her. I willing accept the responsibility for her and from my side of the fence it is all about her. From her perspective it may very well be all about me. Yet, somewhere in us putting our 100% into each other we find an equilibrium and harmony that makes it about us… Master… slave.

Wulfchyld -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 9:13:17 PM)
Well you can't say I am a quart low... me gots brown eyes.

Wolfie648 -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 11:20:07 PM)
I rear my ugly head. sub - safeword - control slave - no safeword - owner has control. Who is about? The person with the control. D (owner of j).

OhBeMyMind -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/22/2006 11:26:28 PM)
I know its off topic....and I apologize in advance....but I have to say....damn nice tattoo Wolfie!!!!!!!

meatcleaver -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/23/2006 12:50:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: feastie It just makes me wonder on what she's based her opinion. Observation of the modus operandi of submission. Take power away from someone (give it up) and what power they have left they will use to get what they want. When I was first introduced to the life style I was blissfully unaware and never considered analysing the dynamics of D/s. Having talked to many subs in r/l and being more aware of the dynamics, I became aware that sex was being used as the negotiating chips. If you read blogs that concentrate on D/s by subs looking for a dom you will see the sub text is the promise of sex. Crappy dom said D/s is a dance. That is one perception. The other is that of manipulation. I think quite often Doms are happy to be blind to the dynamics if they are getting what they want. ie. sex. If the dom stops responding to the implied threat that sex will be withdrawn if he doesn't do what the sub desires, he is ditched because there is no other weapon in the sub's armoury. I posted that paragraph because at first reading Y put into a nutshell something I had been trying to come to grips with about an experience I had. I think I had a vile trick played on me because I was unresponsive to sexual blackmail simply because I saw myself as having other things in my life that at the time had to take proiority. Of course the person could have just finished with me and had done with it but she I assume, was feeling agrieved that her sexual charms weren't strong enough to make me do what she wanted. The trick played on me was her personal character flaw but I think the observation of the dynamic is reasonably sound.

HarryVanWinkle -> RE: Inherent contradiction in D/s? (5/23/2006 12:53:00 AM)
I believe that any relationship, be it Owner/slave, Dominant/submissive, Top/bottom, Switch/switch, polyamorous, polymonogamous, completely monogamous, or plain ole vanilla must fulfill the needs all parties involved, or ultimately, it will fulfill the needs of none of them. It's all about both, or all of them.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.734375E-02