RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right?

RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (Full Version)

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

Message

SirKenin -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (1/31/2007 7:16:10 AM)
Why does emotion have to be defined as "love"? I find that concept simply ridiculous. There are so many emotions that fall outside of that umbrella.

MaryT -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (1/31/2007 7:22:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirDiscipliner69 Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? I haven't read through the thread, but does desire count as emotion? If so, the desire to dominate counts too, so at least some emotion is necessary.

SirDominic -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (1/31/2007 7:39:32 AM)
Fascinating the way these threads develop. The OP asked a simple question. The simple answer is no, Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination. A lot of the responses seems, to me, to have warped the question into "Should emotion be attached to be domination". There are those that way yes, those that say not, but they are not answering the question that was asked. It also seems to me that the OP was talking about the Dominant, not the submissive. I could be misreading his query, as it is not really clear. But I don't think he was asking about the submissive's side of the equation. As a general rule, submissives attach a lot more emotion to the relationship than the Dominant does, but again, I don't think that was what he was asking. SirDiscipliner, if you are following this thread, my question to you is Why did you ask the question? Was it purely theoretical? Or was there a real life application involved, and if so, what is that application? Namaste, Sir Dominic

ExSteelAgain -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (1/31/2007 8:09:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Why does emotion have to be defined as "love"? I find that concept simply ridiculous. There are so many emotions that fall outside of that umbrella. You are right many emotions are not love. Emotion can be anything, fear, embarrassment, passion or whatever. The original post wasn’t clear and we all had to choose what the word emotion meant to us. Defining love is even more tricky. Love may not be the emotion to you that it is to me. No two people probably see it exactly the same way. People feel things differently. Some feel little “emotion.”

MasterKalif -> RE: Emotion and dominance (1/31/2007 8:22:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos On its surface, this comment seems correct—until of course one considers the consciousness one requires to dominate well. Emotion is a necessary engine in the human animal to make good decisions, based upon the volume of constantly shifting input life inevitably brings—therefore it is impossible for us to escape emotion if we are to be good, thinking animals, true to our feelings and instincts. Additionally, considerable empathetic abilities are often required in human domination, and those who dominate well are in touch with those abilities. These processes are not to be considered interchangeable with the popular notion of romantic love, however. Dominance can and does exist without love, but good dominance at its base does involve a suitable degree of empathy and human understanding, even if simply to know how to dominate better. amayos, excellent point....I feel the same way...domination can exist without emotion, yet as humans we feel empathy and understanding as well as the need to create bonds, and as such, domination is better with these factors in place...in fact as I am a passionate person to the core, I believe in Dominating with human emotions involved, makes it more meaningful I think. [:)]

adaddysgirl -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (1/31/2007 9:03:41 AM)
Don't you know? There are no easy answers on CM! Yes, this appears to be a simple dom question....requiring a yes or no answer. But in fact, it turns out to be much more than that. Firstly, most subs will respond as how it is in their relationship and what it means to them and their dom. Then, of course, you have to define emotion (is it love, caring, some other type of attachment? etc). The question probably could have been asked 'does submission need emotional attachment', and the answers would probably been about the same. Couple this with the fact that many more subs than doms respond to any question, this is not surprising. So a simple yes/no answer will be quite rare on these boards (and will most likely not even be acknowledged....lol). Definition and elaboration are the norm. Welcome to the boards! And to the OP....from the dom responses i have seen here, it seems that some type of attachment (whatever you want to call it) does tend to form over time and may or may not have been the initial intent. But for others, perhaps it never gets to that point...regardless of the duration of the relationship. But what do i know? i'm not a dom...lol. DG

gandalf0297 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (1/31/2007 9:14:17 AM)
No. It does not NEED to be there. In it's most simplistic form. But it Will be there as the relationship moves forward. Wether you want it to or not. And that's when thing's get complicated. But I don't think I'd want to be in a D/s relationship that did not have emotional attachment.

velvetears -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (1/31/2007 9:17:24 AM)
Can you eat a hamburger with no condiments, or mashed potatoes with no butter? Sure you can but it won't taste as good. Thats how i would view domination/submission without any emotional attachment - bland as hell.

juliaoceania -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (1/31/2007 9:31:07 AM)
quote: It also seems to me that the OP was talking about the Dominant, not the submissive. I could be misreading his query, as it is not really clear. But I don't think he was asking about the submissive's side of the equation. As a general rule, submissives attach a lot more emotion to the relationship than the Dominant does, but again, I don't think that was what he was asking. I was wondering about whether or not he was talking to just dominants are not too, although I did not make the assumption you did, I have no idea if that was what he meant because technically one may not need emotions to dominate, but they do need a submissive to do so. As for the rest of your post, when I ask a question to this forum my entire intent is to spark an ongoing discussion, and discussion is not a static thing. If the OP feels we have all hijacked his thread, well we are discussing the concept, which is a compliment to the OP, not an insult. If it is a worthwhile thing to ponder for us, we will talk about related elements.

amayos -> RE: Emotion and dominance (1/31/2007 9:46:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterKalif amayos, excellent point....I feel the same way...domination can exist without emotion, yet as humans we feel empathy and understanding as well as the need to create bonds, and as such, domination is better with these factors in place... My overall feeling is that we as human beings are in a constant state of emotional flux to one degree or another; love, hate, happiness, sadness, desire, animosity, compassion—even indifference—are forms of emotion. The bedrock question I inevitably arrived upon after considering the opening post's excellent theme was, do we do anything without some form of emotion attached? Emphatically I say, no. The crux is the tyranny of what emotions we socially recognize as "valid" and are expected to contain regarding a particular interaction.

agirl -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (1/31/2007 10:02:59 AM)
I read the question in a literal manner as there was no context. What I'm wondering is what the OP meant by emotion and whether he was speaking in bdsm relationship terms or even simply relationship terms, soley. Outside of that, it happens all the time. agirl

Dnomyar -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (1/31/2007 10:24:40 AM)
I have a friend who ask's me to Dom her at play events. Other than being a friend I have no emotional attachment to her. It is a release for her and I just facilitate it. We go our seperate ways when we leave the club.

darksdesire -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/1/2007 7:46:18 AM)
since domination and submission is a back and forth exchange, I would say that the answer then depends on the submissive and if she wants that emotional attachment. I for one, need the emotional attachment...I need to feel it, and to know he has it for me, otherwise, my submission will be hollow, joyless, empty, and finally nonexistent. And since we are talking about a consensual relationship I could not be dominated without attachment. So of course domination can exist without attachment, but only if the submissive is willing to submit without attachment as well.

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/5/2007 10:35:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Celeste43But I think that when I feel submissive, I am experiencing an emotion or several mixed together. But if given the consent I could dominate you without emotional, romantic or religious overtones. Ross http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bon_D_Age/members?o=6

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/5/2007 10:39:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LycanHorde having no emotional attachment to the one you're excercising control over, well you still have the pleasure of doing something you enjoy, the pleasure of living in your skin so to speak, allowing who you truly are an outlet, an avenue of expression. What if there were no pleasure but simple being dominant over another mentally, physically and sexually? Ross http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bon_D_Age/members?o=6

daddysprop247 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/5/2007 10:40:22 AM)
no, domination does not require emotion to be domination. and i would go even further to say that many are unable to dominate when there is emotion attached. of course when i say emotion, i'm referring to the positive ones: love, or caring, or even mild concern. but hate, lust, repulsion are emotions as well and i think that most people experience emotions of some sort when dominating or when being dominated. most, but not all by any means.

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/5/2007 10:41:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrazyC No. domination is just that domination. But Domination in a relationship, i would want some emotional connection. you prefer to have sprinkles on your ice cream...but with out the sprinkles it still is ice cream. Ross http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bon_D_Age/members?o=6

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/5/2007 10:50:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlindDescent Emotional attachment...hmmm; are you speaking of the dominant's emotional attachment? If so , then if one looks at one's submissive as a tool; perhaps one might make a parallel to the attachments men make to their cars or hammers or whips. One need not consider a car a phalic symbol nor regard a submissive one of phalic power either but simply a means of a vehicle of pleasure. Things we cannot do without and have a very specific function in our lives, are thing we establish a different type of bond with. Things that are performed and/or created through the use of one's tools do create an emotional change; either in the participants, or the viewers. So from that perspective; yes I have had emotional attachments with every submissive I have ever been fortunate to have spent time with regardless of format. Emotional attachment aside it still was a perk that was chosen rather than something that was a vital part to make domination work. Domination still is domination without emotional and it still renders. From a submissive's or "tool's" perspective; if the tool knows what was going to transpire at the hands of its owner, then I would think that it would be rather excited to perform and create those things that make its owner and its recipients so happy. Good outcomes equals closer relationship equals positive attachment equals emotional attachment. Dependant on who was the hammer and who was really the anvil....going for the warm and fuzzies is ok but is still a frill not a prime cog in the machine. Then again...if the craftsman sucks, or drives recklessly and takes no time to maintain his tools...then that is another story entirely. It is all in the relationship and foundation that evolves. A finely crafted watch needs no emotion but simply daily attention to the mechanical maintenance. I prefer attachment. It is the extra spark of belonging that makes it far more than an emotionless event. Then again; consuming without clear purpose or intent is never a prudent thing to pursue. Consuming is primal basic need. Ross http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bon_D_Age/members?o=6

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/5/2007 10:53:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Dispassionatly speaking emotional connection is not required however I would contend that over time it will almost invarriably result from it. Service is rendered and followed as that is the way it should be. One can be a fine submissive without emotional burdens attached under the guise of devotion. One can deliver proper discpline to a submissive without compassion, empathy or emotion. Both can function in a give and take performance of roles. Ross http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bon_D_Age/members?o=6

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/5/2007 10:56:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlindUnknown But then again...how can you claim to be -fully- dominating someone if they do not surrender emotionally? It does not need to be total consencration to be in fact domination. Emotion gives one the filling of the void for one's existance. Domination stands by itself. Ross http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bon_D_Age/members?o=6

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125