RE: Emotion and dominance

RE: Emotion and dominance (Full Version)

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

Message

marieToo -> RE: Emotion and dominance (2/7/2007 9:51:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO czarforever: Trust me - cloudboy is joking. You gotta believe me (and I did not get paid to say that, he). I swear it is a joke. Where is amayos these days, anyway?! - Susan I dont know, but I'd never get away with the stuff Cloudboy gets away with. It's not fair!

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/9/2007 12:07:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 not everyone experiences or seeks to experience subspace To be dominated without emotion does not mean that the submissive needs to get something in return to have been dominated. Ross

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/9/2007 12:09:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHugs In my mind's eyes I see, as a Dominant--I do not have to have feelings towards my victim/target/submissive/slave. They can often be a stranger that is a impromptu demonstration body/victim. Unknown to me who they are -- my skills will manifest on my energy which is rooted within me. Very nicely put as usual. Ross

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/9/2007 12:11:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 i know i'm capable of being someone's slave devoid of any emotional attachment because i know me and what drives my submission, as well as what drives my need to be owned. emotion has nothing do with it. it's also not a case of "wishful thinking", as that's not the sort of situation i would ever desire or like, but it's one i could accept and tolerate, while still functioning properly/well as a slave. soo...that is why emotional attachment is not a necessary component for me when i submit, and how i can understand that likewise domination requires no emotional attachment in order to exist or even thrive. Very nice insight as usual...a need driven from energies within rather than emotion? Ross

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/9/2007 12:12:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BreatheinToMeThere are other emotions outside of love. What made you enjoy it? Pride? Self competitiveness? Curiosity?(of the subs reactions) aren't those still emotions? The seven deadly sins of emotional submissives? http://www.collarchat.com/m_785841/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm Ross

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Emotion and dominance (2/9/2007 12:15:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos One more time:Emotion and instinct are inextricably linked and work together in translating outside stimuli for the ultimate success or wellbeing of an organism. How you feel about something determines your behavior. Emotion itself is part of instinct's fixed set of behaviors and reactions to sensual input. Emotion is not derivitive of domination nor is it needed. It is a byproduct chossen by some to make the process more acceptable to the social norm. One may dominate without emotion and be dominated by emotionless process. Ross

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/9/2007 12:17:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania That would imply one has to punish to dominate. In our dynamic I would feel that there was a failure in our dynamic if punishment were necessary to keep it intact. I do not see punishing as a dominant act in our relationship, No it does not imply pushment is needed by rather discipline. In your perception of your arrangement, self acceptance, relationship you find emotion is needed within the confines and comfort. Ross

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/9/2007 12:19:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: texancutie But when one does dominate isn't there some need being filled? Even if that emotion is fulfillment or satisfaction, aloofness or coldness, or whatever. Emotion is not needed to dominate so there is nothing to be required except submission on the other half. Aloofness and coldness are perceptive adjatives and are nonbias. Ross

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/9/2007 12:21:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists Wrong! Emotions is a part of our human existence... of course... the specific emotions demonstrated in a particular D/s dynamic will be subjective to the persons involved. Be it Fear Love..etc.. or a mixture. It is your perception that it is needed for existance yet to be dominated requires no emotion nor does the domination need to be 24 / 7 to be present. Ross

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/9/2007 12:25:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo I think as long as a person is breathing, they are feeling emotions. However, I do think someone can dominate another person without being emotionally connected to the person they are dominanting. Being connected via domination is the only tie that the individuals need have. There is no need for the warm and fuzzies merely a safety net that some seek in justifying being dominated. If they choose emotion it is their option...not mandatory requirement. Ross

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/9/2007 12:27:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: julietsierra If I'm playing with someone and there's no emotion, no connection beyond that moment of play, I do not EVER hit subspace. And when emotion is present, I do. So it is your perception that in order to meet a desired goal you must have something to achieve that? So emotion is a destination rather than a journey? Ross

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/9/2007 12:29:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stoneyc Without emotional attachment from both ends you have nothing more then self-centered deficient needs fulfillment. D/s acts that never quite expand your own boundaries and experiences. So rather than simple expression of emotion you feel that it is a needed conection that is readily apparent to both parties to make it justifiable and sucessful in the outcome? Ross

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/9/2007 12:31:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TypeAsub1 I NEED emotional attachment to submit. Therefore you can not dominate me without emotional attachment. It depends on the people involved. I would say if you gave consent you would be dominated. Now if the emotional gratifcation were present or not it would not void the fact that you indeed were dominated. One might argue that emotional domiantion would be needed for mental realm satifaction. Ross

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/9/2007 12:34:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO I realize people "play" at public dungeons, and parties with people they may not know well - but to me, that is a completely different "connection", with an understanding that the activity will be temporary, and probably a one-time thing (and not something I've done at all, at least so far). So the only interconnection needed to be dominated is physical correct? The relating on an emotional level is determined by individuals through desired communication? Ross

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/9/2007 12:36:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Not meaning to be a stick in the mud, but this is not entirely true. I am entirely capable of, and have, done things without feeling and emotion. I am quite capable of detaching myself from situations for instance which tends to lead to me being particularly ruthless when the situation warrants. And psychopaths are another one. They can function with no emotions. Simply murder in cold blood. It is an extreme example, but I am just citing it as a case in point that it is possible for people to function without emotion. So it does not mean if one is disciplined enough to be void of apparent emotion that one is a socialpathic clusterf*ck is it? Ross

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/9/2007 12:39:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LVpet When you take a submissive/slave and begin to mold them in to the type of person that you desire them to be, do you not feel pride when they accomplish goals that you have set for them? When you are in a heavy scene do you not check in with your submissive/slave to ensure that all is ok, thus exibiting a degree of concern for their well being? Do you not feel disappointment or anger when your submissive/slave disobeys? Emotions do not need to be attached to Domination to make it Domination, but emotions are attached to every facet of our lives. That would depend on if there were other objectives other than domiantion without emotion intended. Intent on just domination...whatever the time frame...emotion is not needed but projected by some hopeful of the outcome be it romantic or some other form of emotion. Ross

SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/9/2007 12:41:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marieToo Ok but if your are deliberately detaching yourself so that you can be ruthless, this is all driven by things you are feeling. No? The detachment itself, for instance---Are you not shutting down because you are feeling something that you think is innapropriate or non-productive? Aren't you detaching in order to get yourself into a 'ruthless' frame of mind? Ruthless is a perception. One need not be ruthless but can be firm in domination without emotion. Ross

lilbrattie -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/9/2007 8:10:14 PM)
hi all, This is an interesting topic. i think that there are some amounts of emotional involvement no matter what distance is attempted. Being trained creates a strong bond between the 2 people no matter what they do to prevent that, and in that bond are strong emotions (caring about someone is an emotion). A good friend of mine is close to her "Trainer" but not "with" Him, and they talk off and on all the time and even visit each other. if i'm submitting myself to a person, fully, completely, in all ways, which imo is the only way to really explore all parts of yourself and grow... there will be some sort of connection emotionally. On one site i read one Trainer stating that a period of "weaning" a submissive off of them is required in most cases, but in doing that they also keep in touch off and on and never leave the submissive that was just trained feeling alone or abandoned. Others i've heard help the submissive in the search for a Dominant that would work well with them. With all that said, it's hard to say there isn't any emotion... the act of dominating someone takes emotion... again imo that is... just my 2 cents ~ brattie ~

KnightofMists -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/10/2007 7:22:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirDiscipliner69 quote: ORIGINAL: TypeAsub1 I NEED emotional attachment to submit. Therefore you can not dominate me without emotional attachment. It depends on the people involved. I would say if you gave consent you would be dominated. Now if the emotional gratifcation were present or not it would not void the fact that you indeed were dominated. One might argue that emotional domiantion would be needed for mental realm satifaction. considering.. she is stating... she NEEDS Emotional Attachment to give Consent....... then Emotional Gratificaiton is going to need to be Present for her to consent to being Dominanted...... Without Emotional Gratification.. there is no Dominantion going to occur in Her situation. One might argue.. that you don't really pay attention to what is being said... only trying to project your own beliefs as the one true way.

DommeChains -> RE: Domination does not need emotion attached to be domination right? (2/10/2007 11:53:17 AM)
My question in regard to this approach you tout is can domination without any emotional connection be done in a responsible manner? I do not believe so. Even the most fleeting of D/s interactions requires a certain level of trust and the dominant's responsibility to the submissive to abide by the terms of their negotiation. In order to be trusted by a submissive the dominant needs to establish some degree of connection which encompasses an emotional context. D/s inherently contains a sexual dynamic which is entwined with emotions of all types and degrees. Hence my contention that your stance of emotionless dominance is bullying or abuse hiding behind a mask of D/s. Anyone can be cowed by an abuser. A quality dominant is always responsible and aware of the need for informed, uncoerced consent from a submissive. Consent based on a foundation of trust which requires some degree of emotional involvement.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125