Indirect & Direct Aggression in D/s

[seXieleXie]

Girls may be biologically hard-wired to engage in sophisticated, non-violent forms of aggression that can hurt just as much as a punch in the face from a boy, a conference heard Wednesday.

i couldn't get past this first sentence. i won't pretend to know the educational backgrounds of you all, but as a psychology major with a possible minor in gender studies, i feel confidant to label this sentence bullshit.

i'm sorry, girls and boys are not hard wired into their gender roles, they are socialized into them. before little girls are tought about what is ladylike or appropriate for females, they are as straightforward about their aggression as little boys. it is only when they are not allowed to express themselves in simple, physical means that these "sophisticated" behaviors begin to show up... along about the age of 5 or 6.

okay, now i'll go read the thread more carefully

 

[artful]

Never

Artful:
"The above situation is OFTEN more a display of aggressive POWER toward a passive person,...most OFTEN there is little resistance or none by the one being bullied-hence,...I can't label THAT as competition."

It's unfair competition, immoral competition perhaps there is competition involved. Both sides are competing for self worth; one side is increasing theirs by taking it from another person.

Lack of resistance? No resistance? I have never seen anyone just lie down and let themselves be pushed around. No one just sits there and takes it while. Personally, I think that's just a comfortable story people tell themselves – if the victim is a wimp who could fix his situation by lifting weights, eating less ho-hos, and growing a backbone then it's sort of his fault for being so wimpy.

Unless someone's been subject to physical abuse for years or is undergoing serious trauma they don't just curl up in a ball and 'take it'. People fight hard for themselves; they are not 'passive'.

Artful:
" Competition does not equal aggression-There are many instances where people compete in a passive sense against those whereby there are talents displayed, art, writing, singing, timed events, etc.-There are even those who compete against their past performances,...trying to do BETTER."
Okay, I find it odd that you consider two or more people fighting to not be competition but one person typing at a keyboard to be in competition with someone or themselves.

Okay, I'll tackle these one at a time. My mother used to dance and we sometimes traveled to various contests around the state. I spent a bit of time 'backstage' in both dancing and singing competitions and can safely say that gossiping and back biting are alive and well when it comes to singing. I remember one woman had been having trouble with her throat for most of the evening (she was sick, or something was sore or whatever) but had been doing quite well for most of the day. She was singing something or another and her voice cracked in a nasty way, I remember the several women trying to hide their half smiles. Not my mother, of course, she's a saint. (She doesn’t sing either)

Writers? Perhaps you've noticed a certain phenomenon on Lit in which a writer whose story has made it to the top suddenly gets bombarded with 1s? It's not hard to figure out who might have been button happy.

Art. Do you mean 'fine art' or working 9 to 7 graphic artist? For me, competing with yourself is like having sex with yourself. Yes, it's fun, but it's not the real thing.

I totally disagree with your opinion in this post.
I however respect your opinion and will not argue.

~P.S.~I never said,quote:"Okay, I find it odd that you consider two or more people fighting to not be competition but one person typing at a keyboard to be in competition with someone or themselves", any one thing that your quote infers.

 

[Shadowsdream]

(I may be totally wrong in this, but I thought that being a submissive didn't automatically turn one into a dorrmat so that all and sundry may walk all over them. I thought that it was perfectly in order for a submissive to hold opinions, and would be encouraged to express their opinions by any Dom/me of worth. That they should exprss themselves in a calm and thoughtful manner, but express themselves nonetheless. )

I cannot agree more with this statement than if I had written it Myself!

When I see a submissive acting in an aggressive manner whether it be in real time.*******..My sub or the sub of another, the behaviour does not make Me question their submission but I will confess in the back of My mind is the thought...a good spanking is what you need!

Does this show My aggression to bad behaviour? No..it shows My concern for the pain of the submissive. Do I see *standing up for what they believe*attitude of the submissive as aggressive?

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. But the thoughts must go to the cause of the aggression, is it mean spirited without cause ( if so it is as unacceptable in a submissive as it is in a Dominant as it is in the vanilla person)..nothing to do with D/s.

Is the submissive fighting for their integrity, frustrated, unfullfilled, afraid and alone and showing this in bitchyness=agression? Would a nilla person be reacting in the same way to the same provacations? If yes=nothing to do with D/s.

If the submissive is fighting for their honesty, integrity, beliefs I cannot equate it with aggression nor can I see it as a negative reflection on their innate submissiveness.

Submissives are some of the strongest individuals I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. If they bent their knee (opinions) to fit all of humanity they would be pathetic spineless fools open to manipulation by other fools and abusers.

So back to My original statement..sometimes I see a firm spanking as a gift to erase the pain a submissive is feeling that will make them respond to something in a manner I do not like...BUT never is that thought because I doubt the submission but more because I believe in it.

A cool calm rationalization is always what I as a Dominant expect from those I take to be Mine but I would not enjoy seeing them bow to the opinions of others JUST because they are submissive.

I may have clouded the issue with My one to many coffee ramblings ~~grin~~

 

[WillowPuss]

Thank you Shadowsdream! (I say with a far bit of relief that I had got what I thought of as a fundemental issue correct!)




Last evening Robuck and I were discussing this thread. He wondered if, when he gave me a spanking or a flogging, it could/would be considered agressive behaviour. I ventured that it wasn't in the least agressive for a number of reasons -

*he never spanks or flogs when he is angry
*when he does spank or flog me he does so in love
*he would stop immediately if I safe-worded.

That, to me, is not agressive.

I have to say that I just cannot see a good BDSM relationship as being in any way agressive.

 

[Lancecastor]

Hmmmm....

Thank you Shadowsdream! (I say with a far bit of relief that I had got what I thought of as a fundemental issue correct!)




Last evening Robuck and I were discussing this thread. He wondered if, when he gave me a spanking or a flogging, it could/would be considered agressive behaviour. I ventured that it wasn't in the least agressive for a number of reasons -

*he never spanks or flogs when he is angry
*when he does spank or flog me he does so in love
*he would stop immediately if I safe-worded.

That, to me, is not agressive.

I have to say that I just cannot see a good BDSM relationship as being in any way agressive.

For the sake of discussion:

I accept you don't see the above as aggressive, that there is consent and love involved.

But isn't the act of one striking another , in and of itself an aggressive action?

LC

 

[Lancecastor]

Getting past it...

i couldn't get past this first sentence. i won't pretend to know the educational backgrounds of you all, but as a psychology major with a possible minor in gender studies, i feel confidant to label this sentence bullshit.

i'm sorry, girls and boys are not hard wired into their gender roles, they are socialized into them. before little girls are tought about what is ladylike or appropriate for females, they are as straightforward about their aggression as little boys. it is only when they are not allowed to express themselves in simple, physical means that these "sophisticated" behaviors begin to show up... along about the age of 5 or 6.

okay, now i'll go read the thread more carefully

You'll find a link to the full story on the first page of posts as well as a link to the org that did the research...a group I've not heard of before.

Your confidence in labelling the story bullshit is admirable...but I don't think your assertion is settled and done in the world of behavioral psychology...is it?

At any rate, enjoy...there are some interesting thoughts and opinions to be sampled.

Cheers
Lance

 

[WillowPuss]

Re: Hmmmm....

For the sake of discussion:

I accept you don't see the above as aggressive, that there is consent and love involved.

But isn't the act of one striking another , in and of itself an aggressive action?

LC

Possibly, if that was the sole act.
If He came up to me, demanded that I bend over and began to spank me, then possibly it would be agressive. (I say possibly as we have the kind of relationship that would make it acceptable for Him to do that at anytime if He so wished, but I would know immediately from the look in his eyes and by the tone of his voice that he was not being aggresive towards me in any way shape or form)

However, and I think this is important, He knows that I find His spanking to be a huge turn on. I am never spanked/flogged outside of playtime. I may get a playful pat on the arse occasionally, especially if he is teasing me when we are out .... another story for another day - and I feel that this is a vital difference.

I am getting a bit annoyed with myself for not expressing this clearly enough. Let me try again.

I can tell, because we have the type of open, loving and trusting relationship we do, that what may appear to be agressive to an onlooker (if ever there was one) is nothing of the kind.

 

[WriterDom]

what's a ho-ho?

 

[cellis]

what's a ho-ho?

You know those round chocolate cakes like ding-dongs.

 

[WillowPuss]

You know those round chocolate cakes like ding-dongs.

oh dear

Can somebody please enlighten a poor Brit?
I haven't heard of Ho-Hos or ding-dongs.

 

[CarolineOh]

oh dear

Can somebody please enlighten a poor Brit?
I haven't heard of Ho-Hos or ding-dongs.

Ho hos are like little chocolate jelly rolls, but with cream filling instead of jelly. Ding dongs are little round chocolate cakes with a creamy center. They are made out of that not very good, but addictive, snack food chocolate.

 

[WillowPuss]

Ho hos are like little chocolate jelly rolls, but with cream filling instead of jelly. Ding dongs are little round chocolate cakes with a creamy center. They are made out of that not very good, but addictive, snack food chocolate.

ohhhhhhhh

the sort of thing that is so good to eat that you put on lbs just thinking about it.

hmmmmmm - better close this thread quickly!

 

[WillowPuss]

Oh and thank you Caroline (sorry - forgive my lapse in manners there ... got carried away by the thought of a ding-dong)

 

[Sandia]

I have a major in ass-kissing,
with a minor in ass-kicking, and

I think girls and boys are very different...
...hardwired that way... (girls are much better than boys)

not that there's not plenty of us who don't quite "fit in."


And as far as Never being 'nilla...

HA!

next she'll be saying she's a lesbian...

 

[RisiaSkye]

I have only two points to add in this, and I promise I'll try to be brief. In order to do so, I'm not even going to weigh in on either the nature/nurture debate, or the gender determinance issue.

1) It seems to me that the immediate rejection of the term "aggression" in connection to D/s relationships stems largely from the word's negative connotations. The malice or hostility implied in the word suggests violence, and the article itself suggests that Direct Aggression translates roughly to physical violence while Indirect Agression translates as what I've always heard called passive aggressive behavior. It's the deleterious implications of "violence" and the suggestion of manipulation and dishonesty in being labelled "passive aggressive" that really bother people, I think.

However, while many have quite articulately argued that neither exists in healthy D/s relationships, it seems to me that they are talking about an ideal vision of D/s. Of course, philosophically speaking, such things shouldn't happen--there shouldn't be topping from below, or abusive Dom/mes. However, in reality, such things can and do happen. And even in the healthiest of relationships, there are times when communication breaks down or one party acts before they've fully considered their action and its consequences--like a Dom/me scening while in the wrong mental and/or emotional state and hurting a sub, or a sub pouting when they don't get their immediate desires fulfilled on the timeline they prefer.

But, be that as it may, the article raises another set of potential questions for me.

2) If we continue to look at "aggression" of either type as some variety of hostility-based and (at least implicitly) violent attack, I think we should shift the conversation a bit to potentially more fruitful ground. A majority of the physical acts of sadism (whippings, much of bondage, fireplay, branding, piercing, etc.) are inherently violent acts. And, as a masochist with a somewhat underdeveloped submissive side, I can say that at least for me, a portion of the pleasure aspect of masochism as a bottom derives from the ability to withstand stronger and stronger sensations--to not safeword, and thus to take the Top to their limits, the edge of their willingness to *inflict* violence. Doing that can be a source of pride, as well as the mental basis for the physical experience of pleasure-in-pain. In that sense, at least, it smacks of competition and the same kind of desire to manifest one's will in the behavior of another that instigates physical violence on the part of those who visit their violence upon the bodies of others.

So, if we were to approach this from a different direction--and in so doing, leave aside the defense of Utopian definitions in favor of examining even the negative portions of real people's real and imperfect lives--how might we apply the (admittedly contested) findings of this study to thinking about S & M? It seems to me that trying to talk about the implications and manifestations of violence in anything more nuanced than dividing behavior up into the emotionally satisfying but largely subjective categories of BDSM=consenting & loving=us=fabulous vs. abuse=nonconsenting & malicious=psychos we're mistaken for=evil constitutes the one real, active taboo among lifestylers. What do you make of this (unscientific and personal) observation?


Fascinating read, everybody. Great thread.

 

[morninggirl5]

i couldn't get past this first sentence. i won't pretend to know the educational backgrounds of you all, but as a psychology major with a possible minor in gender studies, i feel confidant to label this sentence bullshit.

i'm sorry, girls and boys are not hard wired into their gender roles, they are socialized into them. before little girls are tought about what is ladylike or appropriate for females, they are as straightforward about their aggression as little boys. it is only when they are not allowed to express themselves in simple, physical means that these "sophisticated" behaviors begin to show up... along about the age of 5 or 6.

okay, now i'll go read the thread more carefully

lexie, i went back and re-read the article and i guess the first time i missed the word biologicially. You're absolutely correct that most gender differences in behavior are the result of socialization.

 

[monster666]

Never, so true.

Aggression often forces us to clarity on an issue. It's a healthy way of cutting to heart of a matter. Of course unchecked, things approached with a liberal dose of aggression can get pretty ugly pretty quickly.

Lance, good thread.

Personally, I think Never is right, and gender boundaries are a little fuzzier regarding aggression than they (the pencil-necked labrat geeks of the world) would have us believe. I also have no doubt that many people who are very controlling types in their day to day lives can be very submissive behind closed doors.

I am glad we don't all fit into the neat little boxes being held open for us by "them". My box just won't be that neat, it's lopsided and it has a hole in it (for peeing and flashing of course, though not necessarily described by order of importance).

Aggression can be harmful, yep. But it's also healthy.

 

[monster666]

Also in Websters, when looking under aggressively

ag·gres·sive Pronunciation Key (-grsv)
adj.
1. Characterized by aggression: aggressive behavior.
2. Inclined to behave in an actively hostile fashion: an aggressive regime.
3. Assertive, bold, and energetic: an aggressive sales campaign.
4. Of or relating to an investment or approach to investing that seeks above-average returns by taking above-average risks.
5. Fast growing; tending to spread quickly and invade: an aggressive tumor.
6. Characterized by or inclined toward vigorous or intensive medical treatment: an aggressive approach to treating the infection.
7. Intense or harsh, as in color.



Note that the third, sixth and possibly even the fifth (when speaking of things other than tumors) definitions are not always perceived as negative.

I suggest that the meaning has a couple of very different generally perceived connotations, and that they each have a very different impact on acceptability, in or out of BDSM.

For example, I love being dominated by a assertive, bold, and energetic woman. I am not sure I'd like to be dominated by a woman inclined to behave in an actively hostile fashion.

I don't think that the type of aggression described in the article is a healthy way to behave in any relationship.

 

[artful]

Back on Track

<snips from newspaper article>

Archer said physical aggression in males and females reaches its peak around the
age of two, because toddlers are too young to articulate their displeasure
verbally.

A gender split sets in by kindergarten, with boys opting to fight out their
differences while girls adopt more subtle forms of conflict.

As boys enter adulthood, their tendency toward physical aggression decreases,
and they opt instead for the indirect aggression typical among females.

**************************************************

Sylvana Cote, a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Montreal, said
Wednesday that school-age girls may lash out at each other by spreading lies and
ruining reputations.

Other examples of indirect aggression might include social isolation, where a
group of girls intentionally exclude another female from their clique.

**************************************************

"(Studies) have shown that indirect aggression appears to do as much harm as
(physical) aggression," said Archer.

**************************************************

<snip>
(the following is not from any dictionary)
Aggressive behavior is forward impacting, it may or may not be felt necessary,
dependent solely on the judgement of the aggressor. It can be planned or
spontaneous. It is necessarily an action toward SOMETHING, whether it be
physical or verbal.

Defensive behavior is quite the opposite. It only wishes to maintain its
position.(neither advancing or retreating)

We being creatures of rational thought processes,
can at anytime, switch back and forth from one to the other. Herein lays the
problem of defining
what IS,...and what is NOT, aggressive or defensive behavior.
(For purposes of this discussion on HUMAN BEHAVIORAL AGGRESSION, as it may or may not apply to BDSM relationships, I will stick to MY definition and not use the dictionary) I know I may be attacked on this,...but it IS my opinion,...and I own it!

**************************************************

<snip>
I think Direct Aggression and Indirect Aggression are both ACTIVE,...neither being
passive as I understand the meanings.
**************************************************
Let us not overlook the newspaper article referring to a conference held by people considered to be experts in their field,...and the fact of their studies on CHILDRENS BEHAVIOR. As stated in an earlier post, "I thought it was an EYE-OPENER to the
experts themselves, to discover that the Indirect Aggressive(mental, verbal, etc.)
behavior most OFTEN used by girls was just NOW being discovered as being MORE
damaging than what they had perceived in the past."

**************************************************

The original questions put forth by Lance remain:
<snip>
Those in long term D/s intimate relationships often say that their relationship is
fundamentally different at a soul level and that the whips and leather are in effect
red herrings to the real core of what makes D/s compelling for them.

Q1: Is D/s a structured way to express the interconnection of indirect aggression
and direct aggression?

Q2: Is what happens in a D/s relationship really more properly identified or
explained not as D/s,but as Direct Aggression/Indirect Aggression?

I'd be interested to see what people think....
**************************************************
My response is,...I see no correlation!
(JMHO)

 

[Lancecastor]

Something I Didn't Expect....

This thread has produced something I didn't completely expect...dozens of in-depth responses in which posters turn somersaults to say that there is no direct or indirect aggression in BDSM culture and lifestyle.

Given that direct and indirect aggression can be found everywhere in the world, every day....it would be the ultimate irony if the only completely non-aggressive lifestyle were the one where people routinely act out and/or actually inflict pain, punishment and fear on their partner as an expression of love.

I think that's the most obtuse concept I've run across in some time...reminding me of Winston Smith in "1984" when he realizes what the Ministry of Truth really stands for.

Or as Keanu Reeves would say in any of his movies: "Whoa."

Crazy thread.

Kinky thinkin', Lincoln.

Lance

 

[beatrice51]

In response to the initial article and questions...

Aggression in girls and boys (because the article refers to younger genders) is typically born from two factors; predispostion and learned behavior. It is suffice to say that society does attempt to render little girls docile in behavior, however, it can also be said that an attempt in curbing these behaviors in boys is true as well.

A point to consider are the outlets in which it is acceptable to be aggressive, i.e. athletics, the work environment, etc... The behaviors exhibited in these arenas can be more aggressive and entirely more acceptable then any gossip and back biting no matter gender. The theory is therefore somewhat flawed, although I'm sure thouroughly researched.

Personally, I am a submissive in my private life, however I am extremely aggressive within my work environment and extra-curricular activities. The two do not correlate with any reasoning, documented or not and likewise are not even remotely comparable. Also, common sense dictates aggression/non aggression in relation to D/s is not a comensurable notion or all naturally aggressive people would be the Dominants while all non aggressive people would be submissives.

And as an added note in reference to the submissives being aggressive in replies, being a submissive does not infer giving up one's ideas or ability to think independently. A submissive should not give up their right for free thought for their Dominant other. Having permission to speak freely, well, that's a whole other topic...

 

[Lancecastor]

Wow...

In response to the initial article and questions...

Aggression in girls and boys (because the article refers to younger genders) is typically born from two factors; predispostion and learned behavior. It is suffice to say that society does attempt to render little girls docile in behavior, however, it can also be said that an attempt in curbing these behaviors in boys is true as well.

A point to consider are the outlets in which it is acceptable to be aggressive, i.e. athletics, the work environment, etc... The behaviors exhibited in these arenas can be more aggressive and entirely more acceptable then any gossip and back biting no matter gender. The theory is therefore somewhat flawed, although I'm sure thouroughly researched.

Personally, I am a submissive in my private life, however I am extremely aggressive within my work environment and extra-curricular activities. The two do not correlate with any reasoning, documented or not and likewise are not even remotely comparable. Also, common sense dictates aggression/non aggression in relation to D/s is not a comensurable notion or all naturally aggressive people would be the Dominants while all non aggressive people would be submissives.

And as an added note in reference to the submissives being aggressive in replies, being a submissive does not infer giving up one's ideas or ability to think independently. A submissive should not give up their right for free thought for their Dominant other. Having permission to speak freely, well, that's a whole other topic...

...Beatrice, for your first post as a Lit member you've really done a lot of reading...If I didn't know better, I'd think you were a regular here!

A question for you, as I've not read the whole thread....where are the posts you were referring to when you said : "as an added note in reference to the submissives being aggressive in replies" ?


LC

 

[beatrice51]

I've wondered out loud before here at the postings of a number of female board members who label themselves as submissives...I've sometimes found their words, positions, articulations ironic and/or amusing, because they sounded quite aggressive and, well, dominant and quite aggressive in what was being attempted in the discussion at hand and have suggested before that D/s labels might not be particularly accurate if one steps back and looks at behavioral dynamics.

*It actually originated in the first posting. Did I misjudge the context?

 

[artful]

Re: Something I Didn't Expect....

This thread has produced something I didn't completely expect...dozens of in-depth responses in which posters turn somersaults to say that there is no direct or indirect aggression in BDSM culture and lifestyle.
Lance

Uhmmm,...I don't think you directed that toward any of my postings,...but just in case,...I never meant for ANYONE to think their was no aggression in BDSM relationships. I only intended to express my opinion, as one who sees no correlation between that TYPE of behavior being more prevalent in a BDSM relationship as opposed to a vanilla one.

Thanks for the thread Lance,...I really have enjoyed reading and thinking about the related opinions expressed by others.

 

[Lancecastor]

This one was also fun.

Bumped by request.