Benevolent Dictator

[sunfox]

Why, hello Contessa ...

Hey there, my favorite Assassin.

 

[Pure]

regrets

dear tainted,

yes, I did cut a corner on the wording of the poll question. i fully have acknowledged that you were giving what you inferred to be the Marquis' position. from his subsequent posting, it's even true that he approves your summary.

the corner was cut solely for clarity (so I wouln't be saying, 'tainted thinks that Marquis thinks, so what do you think?'). no malice intended. in any longer context i would have been more pricise.

so i hope we can move on, since the issue has never depended on who said it, who did or did not accurately ascribe it.

obviously an issue isn't captured in a slogan and every relationship is unique and should be set up to suit the parties. regardless of any orginal unclarity, it appears that several persons, catalina, netzach, are supporting their own variants of the 'fair' and 'just' dom. if you should wish to say anything, please join in.

 

[bridgeburner]

Pure,

It seems to me that you're focusing on the benevolence and disregarding the dictatorship which is the root. Benevolent only describes what kind of dictatorship and in no way negates the absolute authority of the dictator.

If, for example, the Dominant gives a command that the sub questions, it is still the prerogative of the Dominant to determine the outcome of that question. That right to decide, not the choice made, is what determines where final authority rests. A Dom who refuses to entertain other points of view simply to maintain the appearance of authority, becomes nothing more than a reactant. His power is diminished because he has cut himself off from certain courses of action in order to spite his sub.


-B

 

[Pure]

replies to discussants (revised Mon, 5-17)

[Note: this posting was condensed slightly. Sorry bridgeburner! I reserve the right to major edit until a response is posted. BUT I have not changed position in the present case, merely shortened a bit, so out of fairness I'm posing the paras to which bb responded.]


First off, how any pair choose to live is their business and the varieties of relatioship, sick and healthy, are numerous, including in bdsm contexts.

Lastly, I am not talking about adherence to a code or keeping promises or avoiding lies, as some have mentioned. Those amount to consistency and, as several have said, make one 'credible.'

Nor am I talking about the necessary adjustments that each person makes in a working relationship; in this case the dom/me/s consideration of the subordinate's basic needs. If there is an 'ongoing' relationship, then obviously first is not starving the second in a dungeon.

original paras to which bridgeburnere, below, is responding

I'm saying you can't dominate someone if *their* ideas of 'fair' and 'just' play much part in determining what you do.

This isn't a hierchical idea that 'pure' domination is best in all cases; for some it may well be a gentle or intermittent thing. It's just saying that the 'amount' of domination as it were is lessened the more like one of those democratic and 'explaining' parents, the dom is.


In looking at what might be genuine domination, I'm not proposing a hierchical idea that 'pure' moment-by-moment domination is best in all cases; for some it may well be a gentle or intermittent thing.

Catalina said,
// know here if he does something that upsets me or causes me extreme difficulty and he apologises, it is out of his own feelings about his own code of behaviour he may have broken and thus disappointed himself, not me. If he has done nothing he feels is wrong, he may sarcastically apologise but make clear it is not of concern to him beyond seeing that I continue to serve him in the way he wishes. //

This sounds the closest to what I might have envisioned, in that it's clear the 'code' and its interpretation and evaluation of performance according to it is entirely in the hand of the dominant person.

Marquis said,

//My fairness refers more to a sense of justice based mostly on honesty. Although it would likely catch up with me in the longrun, I could use deceptive means of manipulating my subs. //

There may not be a difference here, That one follows a 'code' and chooses not to lie is not an issue I'm raising.

Netzach said
//As much as I enjoy the idea of mayhem and injustice in sadomasochistic play, I don't find it sustainable as the main dynamic of a serious interpersonal relationship either. I don't believe in crazymaking ambiguity as a way of relating to a submissive as an ongoing thing -- it will not work.//

Netz, with some impatience, is addressing a caricatured position-- that 'mayhem and injustice' are being recommended. Or 'crazy making ambiguity'. But I wouldn't rule out a degree of inscrutability

bb said,
//It seems to me that you're focusing on the benevolence and disregarding the dictatorship which is the root. Benevolent only describes what kind of dictatorship and in no way negates the absolute authority of the dictator. //

Yes, 'benevolent dictator' is a term of many possibilities. Some may embrace 'absolute authority', in the manner Catalina appears to describe. In which case I have no problem.

In one sentence, I simply hold that the more you concern yourself with the other's ideas, opinions etc. on fairness, and in particular, negotiate or compromise around them, the less you are dominating them.

To put it in simple practical terms, is this dom going to look for 'consensus', for the sub's saying, at the end of the day, "OK, that's fair." Is the 'dom' going to be very concerned to hear, [sub:] "I've considered your explanations and so on, and I still think what you did (will do) is not fair." (Think of the many 60s and 70s parents who worked that way.)

In closing, thanks to all the articulate persons who responded with challenging arguments.

 

[bridgeburner]

Pure,

Sorry, I had to stop mid-read and address this part of your post immediately.

I'm saying you can't dominate someone if *their* ideas of 'fair' and 'just' play much part in determining what you do.

Why not? Is it only domination when the sub is frustrated and miserable? Why does domination only mean making people do unpleasant or distasteful things? "Ah, well I was dominating you when I pissed up your ass but now that I've bought you dinner I'm just a pussy unless I force you to eat Brussels Sprouts."

I don't even treat my dog that way and yet there is no doubt about who is the Alpha Bitch in my household. It is unlikely in any event that any kind of lasting consensual relationship would form between people who didn't share some of the same values and sense of fairness. Should the Dom act against his own desires merely to ensure that he is enforcing his power over a sub? That's not dominance, that's desperation.


This isn't a hierchical idea that 'pure' domination is best in all cases; for some it may well be a gentle or intermittent thing. It's just saying that the 'amount' of domination as it were is lessened the more like one of those democratic and 'explaining' parents, the dom is.

Except that this concept of "pure" domination doesn't exist outside of rape or outright slavery --- and I don't mean slavery where someone has consented to be chattel but slavery where someone desperately wants to get away and can't. You leave no room at all for domination that isn't so egocentric as to be sociopathic. You seem to argue that anything less than total disregard of the sub is "watered down" dominance and whether it's a case of "not that there's anything wrong with that" or not, it simply isn't realistic.



-B


Edit: I notice that I was initially responding to an pre-edited post by Pure. I don't think the sense of anything has been lost though as no one's stated position has actually changed with the edit that I can see.

 

[Pure]

hi bb,

didn't mean to leave you hanging. i edited only because the post was too long, and no change of position was involved. i'm happy to defend the parts you quoted from the first draft, though the second is clearer. so I reposted.

as to:

[bb said, representing pure's thinking:]now that I've bought you dinner I'm just a pussy unless I force you to eat Brussels Sprouts.

You are saying I believe that the dom who's not a pussy has to be commanding at every moment.

This kind of standard objection was covered in the other part you quoted, where I mentioned a *relationship* may involve gentle or intermittent domination, and I'm not making an objection to that, if it suits everyone.

I said, as you quoted: This isn't a hierchical idea that 'pure' domination is best in all cases; for some it may well be a gentle or intermittent thing.

'pure', of course, was clarified to 'moment to moment'. I meant, in a loving relationship, you don't at each moment 'feel' love. One is talking about a general ambience and 'love' that is sometimes not in evidence, as during a fight.

A sexual relationship is not continuous sex, but rather 'intermittent' sex, meaning, say, once a day; that leaves 23 other hours. However if it's too intermittent, it does--I think you'll agree-- become less sexual, ie., once every six months (where the opportunity is present).

in terms of trivial scenes, i'd certainly say _A forcing B to eat brussel sprouts_ ("Eat your brussel spouts!") is more akin to domination than A and B sharing an ice cream cone! Domination, by the dictionary has a relation to 'commanding.'

Again, however, a relationship may generally be of a commanding nature, even though commands are not issued every minute or even every hour, just like in the army. 'orders' may come, say, once a day; other parts are covered, perhaps by 'standing orders' (keep bed made), and some parts of the day are not covered at all, i.e., 'free time' (but you may not leave the base).

---
as to your statement
bb: You leave no room at all for domination that isn't so egocentric as to be sociopathic. You seem to argue that anything less than total disregard of the sub is "watered down" dominance

I used the example of 'democratic' parenting, in vogue in the 1960s. I will expand that example: "What do you kids want to do? Daddy wants you to go to school, but you are valuable persons and your wishes, by rights, have to be heard." Then there is explaining and negotiation. "Daddy thinks school would prepare you for life." and compromise: "You go to this school for this week, then we'll talk about it. Maybe Daddy has to find another school that's more fun."

Yes, indeed, 'democracy' waters down authority (here, in the parent). 'Authority' and 'authoritative' being words commonly connected with dominance.

The opposite is "You kids must go to school. Get ready. I don't have time to explain about school, but notice everyone else is there! If you are late or skip, there will be consequences."

I fail to see why that sort of thing is even 'egocentric' much less 'sociopathic.'

I prefer my later formulation of the position (which I think you'll agree is in the same spirit as the lines you quote):

Pure: In one sentence, I simply hold that the more you concern yourself with the other's ideas, opinions etc. on fairness, and in particular, negotiate or compromise around them, the less you are dominating them.

To put it in simple practical terms, is this dom going to look for 'consensus', for the sub's saying, at the end of the day, "OK, that's fair."

Earlier I spoke of adjustments to basic needs. We're not taking 'American Psycho' here. We're talking about disregard for the subs 'ideas about fairness,' not disregard for the subs need to eat well. To use Ebony Fire's famous example: Just think of a dog.

 

[Netzach]

I don't know anyone who was parented this way and that's my g-g-g-g-generation. (b 1973.)

I was definitely not parented that way. However....

I think I grew up being taught a strong sense of fairness and justice from various sources. Unjust things have a way of making me particularly nuts and always have, even in childhood. I don't think I developed this in a vacuum, and a lot of my friends are the same way.

In ruling my domain, I definitely choose to consider fairness and justice as a factor. Once in a while the right answer might be "tough shit" but really, again, I assert that it's *rarely* the RIGHT answer.

If I have to discipline or feel the urge to discipline, I often stop myself and ask "what is the lesson being taught here, the message being communicated?"

If it's not one I want, I re-think the need for discipline. If it inspires irrational fear or insecurity rather than improved performance, do I need it? Hell no.

hi bb,

didn't mean to leave you hanging. i edited only because the post was too long, and no change of position was involved. i'm happy to defend the parts you quoted from the first draft, though the second is clearer. so I reposted.

as to:

[bb said, representing pure's thinking:]now that I've bought you dinner I'm just a pussy unless I force you to eat Brussels Sprouts.

You are saying I believe that the dom who's not a pussy has to be commanding at every moment.

This kind of standard objection was covered in the other part you quoted, where I mentioned a *relationship* may involve gentle or intermittent domination, and I'm not making an objection to that, if it suits everyone.

I said, as you quoted: This isn't a hierchical idea that 'pure' domination is best in all cases; for some it may well be a gentle or intermittent thing.

'pure', of course, was clarified to 'moment to moment'. I meant, in a loving relationship, you don't at each moment 'feel' love. One is talking about a general ambience and 'love' that is sometimes not in evidence, as during a fight.

A sexual relationship is not continuous sex, but rather 'intermittent' sex, meaning, say, once a day; that leaves 23 other hours. However if it's too intermittent, it does--I think you'll agree-- become less sexual, ie., once every six months (where the opportunity is present).

in terms of trivial scenes, i'd certainly say _A forcing B to eat brussel sprouts_ ("Eat your brussel spouts!") is more akin to domination than A and B sharing an ice cream cone! Domination, by the dictionary has a relation to 'commanding.'

Again, however, a relationship may generally be of a commanding nature, even though commands are not issued every minute or even every hour, just like in the army. 'orders' may come, say, once a day; other parts are covered, perhaps by 'standing orders' (keep bed made), and some parts of the day are not covered at all, i.e., 'free time' (but you may not leave the base).

---
as to your statement
bb: You leave no room at all for domination that isn't so egocentric as to be sociopathic. You seem to argue that anything less than total disregard of the sub is "watered down" dominance

I used the example of 'democratic' parenting, in vogue in the 1960s. I will expand that example: "What do you kids want to do? Daddy wants you to go to school, but you are valuable persons and your wishes, by rights, have to be heard." Then there is explaining and negotiation. "Daddy thinks school would prepare you for life." and compromise: "You go to this school for this week, then we'll talk about it. Maybe Daddy has to find another school that's more fun."

Yes, indeed, 'democracy' waters down authority (here, in the parent). 'Authority' and 'authoritative' being words commonly connected with dominance.

The opposite is "You kids must go to school. Get ready. I don't have time to explain about school, but notice everyone else is there! If you are late or skip, there will be consequences."

I fail to see why that sort of thing is even 'egocentric' much less 'sociopathic.'

I prefer my later formulation of the position (which I think you'll agree is in the same spirit as the lines you quote):

Pure: In one sentence, I simply hold that the more you concern yourself with the other's ideas, opinions etc. on fairness, and in particular, negotiate or compromise around them, the less you are dominating them.

To put it in simple practical terms, is this dom going to look for 'consensus', for the sub's saying, at the end of the day, "OK, that's fair."

Earlier I spoke of adjustments to basic needs. We're not taking 'American Psycho' here. We're talking about disregard for the subs 'ideas about fairness,' not disregard for the subs need to eat well. To use Ebony Fire's famous example: Just think of a dog.

 

[Pure]

ok, you pay some attention to your ideas of fairness and justice. that is not an issue for me.

what i suggested had to do with the consideration given the 'sub' ideas of such. i suggested the more considerations (in the sense of actually altering behavior), the less domination there is (tho no one can say a correct amt for all pairs.

i'm not sure if perceiving unfairness would cast a sub into irrational fear.

well, maybe, if we take the example of a 'punishment' for no reason. ever do that?

take the example of an expected reward denied. usually if he does xyz and submits to pqrs, he may expect an orgasm. for 'no reason' you deny/forbid it.




In ruling my domain, I definitely choose to consider fairness and justice as a factor. Once in a while the right answer might be "tough shit" but really, again, I assert that it's *rarely* the RIGHT answer.

If I have to discipline or feel the urge to discipline, I often stop myself and ask "what is the lesson being taught here, the message being communicated?"

If it's not one I want, I re-think the need for discipline. If it inspires irrational fear or insecurity rather than improved performance, do I need it? Hell no.