D/s . . . an unequal relationship

[FurryFury]

It's no surprise I totally disagree once again with the previous poster.

I'm always amazed when people try to devalue others.

 

[Netzach]

I would say the relationship is strongly unequal - the people in it have equal human worth, but different roles and one person's will takes priority over the others more often or always.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

FurryFury

If youre sincere then you believe Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler is as valuable as Mother Theresa or you or Jesus Christ et al.

The concept of equal value is absurd and delusional.

 

[Netzach]

Is there a name for the concept of having to go search out the freaky out-lyers on the giant bell curve of what's being talked about to bait people into an argument? Or are we talking about D/s relationships between Mother Teresa and Jeffrey Dahmer in the hereafter?

 

[JMohegan]

I would say the relationship is strongly unequal - the people in it have equal human worth, but different roles and one person's will takes priority over the others more often or always.

Yes. Exactly.

I read something tonight that set my mind to wandering. A comment from a switch that basically said that she could only see herself as a switch because outside of the bedroom she viewed herself and her lovers as equals.

Nice to see you again, BeachGurl.

I don't have the benefit of the original remark in context, but from the sentence quoted here I would assume the switch was referring to equality in reference to the power dynamic. (Surely she doesn't view herself as lesser, in terms of human worth, even *inside* the bedroom. Right?)

I have never been interested in a personal relationship with a partner as equal. I suppose, given enough time & effort, I could learn the requisite skills for success in such a pairing, but frankly it makes me irritable just to think about.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

NETZACH

I'm positive you'll spin it however it benefits you, but people arent equally valuable nor equal....their traits etc are distributed. The issue is really preference when it comes to D/s. Preference pulls the plug on all the bull-shit about equality and value. People like what they like...period.

Reference Gerald Edelman's TOPOBIOLOGY. In it he pretty well proves identical twins arent identical...viz., unequal.

 

[FurryFury]

FurryFury

If youre sincere then you believe Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler is as valuable as Mother Theresa or you or Jesus Christ et al.

The concept of equal value is absurd and delusional.

As usual, your post is ridiculous.

 

[FurryFury]

Is there a name for the concept of having to go search out the freaky out-lyers on the giant bell curve of what's being talked about to bait people into an argument? Or are we talking about D/s relationships between Mother Teresa and Jeffrey Dahmer in the hereafter?

LOL!

BTW, I recently read where Mother Teresa had a crisis of faith (or many) just before she died.

I found that very interesting.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

FF

You'd dispute me calling you a gentleman and a scholar.

 

[Netzach]

NETZACH

I'm positive you'll spin it however it benefits you, but people arent equally valuable nor equal....their traits etc are distributed. The issue is really preference when it comes to D/s. Preference pulls the plug on all the bull-shit about equality and value. People like what they like...period.

Reference Gerald Edelman's TOPOBIOLOGY. In it he pretty well proves identical twins arent identical...viz., unequal.

My spin is nothing compared to the fascists who like to spin the idea of equality into "identical" somehow. Can someone please let me know when "equal" became conflated with "identical to?"

It's a grand excuse for continuing to serve up a lot of people shit and say it's a sundae.

 

[Marquis]

I would say the relationship is strongly unequal - the people in it have equal human worth, but different roles and one person's will takes priority over the others more often or always.

You know, I wonder about this often, the whole "whose will reigns supreme" thing. I suppose the basis of most relationships is to create a situation where there is overlap between meeting your own desires and the desires of another. Get enough space in the middle of the Venn diagram, and I think it becomes fairly difficult to determine who is truly "dominating" the relationship, in that sense.

I tend to think I'm someone with a very strong ontological presence. I often feel like my existence honestly bowls over some of the weaker people I do encounter on a daily basis. However, I'm not attracted to those kinds of people and generally speaking I would say that if a person's internal UMPH, their juice, their identity could be symbolized by a candle's flame burning inside their chest, that my most satisfying relationships have all been with people whose flame is about the same size as mine, despite the deeply satisfying appearance of my supremacy.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

NETZACH

Look no further than the dictionary: equal...being identical to in value.

Want some whipped cream on your sundae?

 

[JMohegan]

You know, I wonder about this often, the whole "whose will reigns supreme" thing. I suppose the basis of most relationships is to create a situation where there is overlap between meeting your own desires and the desires of another. Get enough space in the middle of the Venn diagram, and I think it becomes fairly difficult to determine who is truly "dominating" the relationship, in that sense.

This is why I say that D/s is ultimately defined in those moments when the partners disagree, or display strong preferences at odds with one another.

No matter the size of the Venn middle space, these moments will occur, and the critical question for any relationship becomes - what then?

 

[DeservingBitch]

My spin is nothing compared to the fascists who like to spin the idea of equality into "identical" somehow. Can someone please let me know when "equal" became conflated with "identical to?"

It's a grand excuse for continuing to serve up a lot of people shit and say it's a sundae.

*wondering if can get away with quoting Netz on this in my dissertation*

 

[Marquis]

This is why I say that D/s is ultimately defined in those moments when the partners disagree, or display strong preferences at odds with one another.

No matter the size of the Venn middle space, these moments will occur, and the critical question for any relationship becomes - what then?

Then I think you compromise and negotiate like any kind of relationship, on the trust and most basic level. I think the language and manners in which BDSM-folk compromise and negotiate take on a fairly different form than what might be seen in the vanilla world, but I honestly just don't buy that there are mutually satisfactory relationships happening where one person really does have that kind of unconditional power.

This is a complicated topic, and kind of circular in a way. I completely agree with you in that the strength of a person's principles relating to their position in the relationship is never more sincere than when it is inconvenient. I just think it goes both ways. I know that I can only expect my subs obedience under the most difficult of circumstances if I'm also willing to provide my commitment, protection, control and whatever else is expected of me under equally challenging circumstances.

And that, I think, is what keeps the relationship equal on that spiritual level that subs need to actually feel equal on when they're getting their face ground into the shower drain by your heel while you piss into her ear.

 

[intothewoods]

This is why I say that D/s is ultimately defined in those moments when the partners disagree, or display strong preferences at odds with one another.

No matter the size of the Venn middle space, these moments will occur, and the critical question for any relationship becomes - what then?

You know, all long term relationships are defined in those moments when the partners disagree. Well, those moments, and times of crisis.

I think Marquis is right - there has to be give and take. The give and take just looks different, right?

Interesting post, both of you.

 

[ecstaticsub]

A relationship--any relationship vanilla or otherwise is equal as long as both people have the ability to end it, to just walk away.

 

[JMohegan]

Then I think you compromise and negotiate like any kind of relationship, on the trust and most basic level. I think the language and manners in which BDSM-folk compromise and negotiate take on a fairly different form than what might be seen in the vanilla world, but I honestly just don't buy that there are mutually satisfactory relationships happening where one person really does have that kind of unconditional power.

This is a complicated topic, and kind of circular in a way. I completely agree with you in that the strength of a person's principles relating to their position in the relationship is never more sincere than when it is inconvenient. I just think it goes both ways. I know that I can only expect my subs obedience under the most difficult of circumstances if I'm also willing to provide my commitment, protection, control and whatever else is expected of me under equally challenging circumstances.

And that, I think, is what keeps the relationship equal on that spiritual level that subs need to actually feel equal on when they're getting their face ground into the shower drain by your heel while you piss into her ear.

I agree with your comments, as they apply to sustainable and mutually satisfying relationships.

I also like the phraseology used to describe a relationship that is "equal on that spiritual level," indicating something deeper than the surface inequality of many kinky dynamics.


ITW - yes, the D/s give and take looks different, but for me it *feels* profoundly different too. Hard to explain in a way that won't sound contradictory, but to me it feels like give and take on my own terms, in my own time, and in my own way.

 

[Marquis]

but to me it feels like give and take on my own terms, in my own time, and in my own way.

I want to say something like, "letting us feel that way is the smartest thing they ever did" but I'm guessing you won't go for it.

I usually wouldn't either, but to be totally frank, I'm swooning right now. Like, on some I-want-to-eat-pussy type swooning and I NEVER eat pussy.

 

[Homburg]

Is there a name for the concept of having to go search out the freaky out-lyers on the giant bell curve of what's being talked about to bait people into an argument? Or are we talking about D/s relationships between Mother Teresa and Jeffrey Dahmer in the hereafter?

Straw Man Fallacy. It's a favourite tactic of his.

 

[JMohegan]

I want to say something like, "letting us feel that way is the smartest thing they ever did" but I'm guessing you won't go for it.

I usually wouldn't either, but to be totally frank, I'm swooning right now. Like, on some I-want-to-eat-pussy type swooning and I NEVER eat pussy.

Grinning here - I'm happy for you, man.

You're right, I won't go for the statement in quotes (as expressed so simplistically), but I do think you have a point in a way.

"Letting us feel that way..." implies at best a slightly disingenuous, and at worst overtly manipulative, basis for participation in the dynamic. From a sustainability of the relationship perspective, I don't consider that to be realistic. If she doesn't genuinely relish the mirror feeling (that the give and take is on my terms), how long could the ruse be maintained?

On the other hand, it is true that falling in love gives your partner a power over you that can not be denied. In a relationship with a guy like me, the "smartest thing" for her to do would be to recognize that this type of power grows and strengthens, and its impact increases to our mutual benefit, if and only if she resists any temptation to wield it.

 

[intothewoods]

On the other hand, it is true that falling in love gives your partner a power over you that can not be denied. In a relationship with a guy like me, the "smartest thing" for her to do would be to recognize that this type of power grows and strengthens, and its impact increases to our mutual benefit, if and only if she resists any temptation to wield it.

Hmmm...these are some tricky relationships!

 

[FungiUg]

FUNGIUG

People arent equally valuable. Nothing can be more untrue.

Nothing could be more true.

Our value as people is entirely subjective, and can vary depending on who you talk to about a specific person.

In other words, it is equally impossible to attach a specific value to an individual person.

I'm happy to be shown to be wrong, but I will expect to see some evidence. Otherwise you too are just attaching subjective valuations. And if everybody's valuation is subjective, then that is our value. "Subjective". Hence, everybody has equal value.

I have never yet seen any system that can "value" a person. I've seen attempts, and they usually involve stupid things like "oh, your skin colour is darker than mine, therefore you are of less value". And "oh, you are submissive therefore of less value" is just as stupid in my eyes.

 

[FungiUg]

I NEVER eat pussy.

Hot sauce. It makes all the difference.

 

[FungiUg]

My spin is nothing compared to the fascists who like to spin the idea of equality into "identical" somehow. Can someone please let me know when "equal" became conflated with "identical to?"

I know I'm poly, but I really need to stop falling in love with more people. Well, okay, I've been pathetically in love with NetZach for ages... I guess that's okay.

Equality and identity are very different in my books.