Natural Dominant; Natural Submissive; do they exist? are they exemplars?

[Mystress.S]

Hello Angelique,

What I have understood, the female dominant uses her divine godly power to dominate, coming in touch with her ‘receptiveness’ and giving herself over to her ‘Kundalini” . A question that seems to pop into my mind is how you see the roles of man? Can they be dominant or not? Would it be possible for a man to achieve you own elevated state or is it another road you see for the male dominant.

Thank you for being so specific about your confusion. Your understanding is not quite accurate. Women are usually, already pretty well in touch with their receptivity... though not necessarily to the degree of embodying Kali. It is men who have a harder time connecting with it. Men are trained to be active, and it is harder for a man to learn to surrender and just Be.

In my system, both genders give themselves over to the Divine Beloved, the unconscious mind that is the opposite gender of the body, and its power is infinite. The power of the ego mind is limited and short sighted. The male leaders I mention, are Dominant... Gandhi kicked the British out of India!! ... via receptivity, sitting there like the La brea tar pit, immovable. Laying down in front of the cavalry.

Their dominance is feminine, as opposed to the male dom agression of Bush and Hitler. Most of the great spiritual leaders like the Dalai Lama, are very feminine in their leadership style.

I do not have an issue with males being in leadership positions, so long as they are not acting from classic male aggressive ego.

The process of Kundalini tends to be androgynizing... it balances the genders and brings out the best attributes of both genders.

Whereas, women who surrender to thier Divine Beloved, get in touch with their male strength, and sometimes aggression. They become more active... like Mother Theresa, or the Suffragettes, or so many wonderful feminist leaders. The difference is that the male agression is coming through a feminine vessel... not motivated by testosterone or ego ideas of conquest.

The best leaders are not leading out of a grandiose desire for power and fame, but out of a vision of a greater good that serves the many.

Also I understood the Kundalini Tantra to be a way to attainment, a road to becoming what you want to be, and the person who determines the goal is the one that sets his own two feet on that road.

Heh. No. Yes and no. The requirement of Kundalini, is surrender. It does not make you into who your ego wants you to be, all such goals must be set aside. It makes you into something greater than you could ever imagine, for yourself. The ego is devoured. In becoming nothing, one becomes a vessel of Divine Will.

On a related note... it is recognised in some spiritual systems, that women are naturally more in touch with spirit, and do not require the training that men do. Womens intuition comes naturally, our bodies in tune with the moon and the tides.

For example, among the Ayathusca shaman of South America, there is always a woman who sits beside the Shaman, translating his visions. She does not drink the herb, she does not need it, to follow along with him and speak of what is seen.

With the North American natives who smoke the peace pipe, the pipe is not passed to a menstruating woman... not because she is unclean, but because her power would knock the man who smoked next, on his ass.

In Judeaism, the Goddess Sophia = wisdom is supreme.

I once read, "The Muslim religion makes sense, when you realize Allah is female." Women are draped in the veils just like the shrine at Mecca is veiled. To protect men from the power of women's beauty. I do not agree with the repression, but understanding where it is coming from makes it easier to understand the culture. Motherhood is the most sacred thing, and practices like female circumcision are to protect men and women from the awesome, devouring power of female sexuality... and along the way, avoid the north american problem of unwed mothers and teenage pregnancy.

Like I say, I do not agree with the actions, but I understand the motive behind it... and the motive makes some sense, even if the results are excessive.

Patriarchy loses all its bite, once you realize it is motivated by men trying to gain equality with womens tremendous natural power! That they try to do it by repressing women, is unfortunate.

 

[Mystress.S]

Hi Francisco,

Relevant to the point (that the philosophy is unsuited to the 'fem dom') is the Mystress S ceased being a pro domme a little before really fully coming into this viewpoint.

Heh. No. I retired because my sessions were causing Kundalini awakening in my clients, and they were tending to fall in love with me at an alarming rate. I was successful, because I dominated through my male side, which in turn meant that I was showing up as a manifestation of the Divine Beloved within my clients. Channelling their dream Goddess.

I came out of retirement briefly, exclusively doing sessions with men who sought to become awakened via D/s... but dealing with the calls from men who had no clue about Kundalini became tiring, and I stopped.

Since then, my power and sensitivity has increased to the point where I cannot play with someone who is not on a spiritual path. I take on too much karma from them that they are not ready to surrender, and we both get chaotic results.

Being a Pro-dom served its purpose in my evolution, and now the skills and experiences are used for my present work as a spiritual leader, teacher and guide.

 

[lark sparrow]

Oh, and Netzach:

Originally posted by Netzach
It's not that complicated or foreign a notion to me. My ideal submissive is something of a middle manager actually.

There are a lot of things *I* don't want to think about, be bothered with, have to decide, actually. Rather than finding someone to control these aspects of my life for me, I look for someone to *manage* them for me. I don't think this disproves Dominance at all. I don't think Dominance is defined by running every detail, in fact, that's the essence of administrative servitude and I get enough of a dose at work, thank you.



Excellent point and yes, me too.

I have to agree here as well. I do it at work in upper-middle to middle management as well as in BDSM as a lifestyle. It seems to be my niche. Controlling people becomes a chore very quickly and I simply do not care enough to do it, managing things comes very naturally. In a work environment I often find myself aligned with the leader, and 'sharing' the power by being an extention, but being the ultimate leader holds no interest for me - nor does being at the bottom of the food chain or power structure.

Natural dominance or submission to some means means a level of 'co-dependence' that could be considered clinical. To others, natural dominance or submission is held within the context of BDSM as a lifestyle - they are functioning, consenting adults within a symbiotic 'power exchange' relationship - 'interdependence'.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hello M. S.

I just wanted to say that I enjoy your contribution to our discussion and find them very valuable. There is a lot I would still like to ask you. But I have first a couple of hundred pages to read.

If I may say, you have impressed me with your views and the clearness of your opinions and thought patterns. I do not agree with everything you are saying but that is to be expected since persons are different in essence.

Patriarchy loses all its bite, once you realize it is motivated by men trying to gain equality with women’s tremendous natural power! That they try to do it by repressing women, is unfortunate.

I find that any system that is based on something as general as gender is pretty short-sighted. IMO it is not the fact if you have balls or breast that is important but more the charisma, the intelligence, the vision and the courage that makes a leader. In history there have been many examples of women and men doing extraordinary acts out of love for others, even going as far as to lay down their lives for their beliefs.

I think I was trying to make the same point about the prototypical dom/me as a complex person, far from the 'natural' expression of a single drive; similarly, a concert pianist.

IMO this is correct and it is not, the natural Dominant may be a very complex person, I do not consider myself to be a simple person, but that which has created him was his drive, his 'natural' expression of a single drive. The drive, this ‘gene’ as some call it, is very complex and not simple. It influences everything in my life and surroundings.

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

Angelique said,

//In Judeaism, the Goddess Sophia = wisdom is supreme. //

Actually, no.

Chochmah is the divine wisdom, I.e, God's wisdom.

Sometimes she is personified, as in Proverbs 8:22+


"The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, the first of his works of old.

I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

When there were no depths, I was brought forth;

...

When He appointed the foundations of the earth;
Then I was by Him, as a nurseling"

Tanakh, JPS, 1***, 1955


She is not a goddess.

As is clear from the passage, she is not supreme, the One, Yahweh (LORD) is supreme (she is "made" "brought forth" by the LORD etc. ) Of course, more precisely, "she", wisdom, is a divine attribute -- in a loose sense, co-eternal.

Best,
J.

 

[lark sparrow]

Hi Francisco,

you said

//I do not believe however that dominance is a gender specific state,//

I don't either. My point, including in my last posting, is that some of the 'philosophies' of these doms or dommes have a real problem with this point. IE was an example. As I argued, Mystress Serpent seems, in her current system of thought**, also to have a problem (not personally, but in her conceptual framework), as evidenced in the excerpts--e.g, Mother Teresa as an example of domme.

Ms Mallory, I'm still thinking about, but her 'dominant' examples are all men, are they not?
<snip>.

Both men and women dominate, but the theory is that they tend to do it differently in general terms.

excerpt from Mistress Steel:

Though I have focused this article upon the more 'visual' male Dominant model this does not mean that the criteria described above are not equally valid in many ways for the female Dominant. However, the female dominant is not the 'same' as the male dominant. Often the female dominant will amass a power base that is completely irrational or invisible to their male counterparts. A good example of this would be Evita Peron who literally dominated her country through 'popular appeal', or Mother Theresa who inspired the adoration of millions of men, women and children through actions of uniquely female actions, human dignity and grace. A female Dominant often leads through the devotional 'feeling' of her followers. She captures the 'imagination, hopes, dreams and promises of the future'. An excellent example of this type of female domination in modern times would be Oprah Winfrey and the beloved Princess Diana.

http://www.steel-door.com/dominant_model.htm

and....

It is a difficult subject. What I can express with clarity is that in the scope of my life I have met no man I could not solve and in most cases step around and beyond. I am not certain what created this force within me, though I know that my husband tempered it. I do believe that the potentials of the High End Dominant/submissive originate within the DNA. Those that seem to carry the traits the strongest appear to descend from families of historical dominance. I believe that most women are naturally 'commanders' of their realm. Generally this is perceived to be their homes, children, families. They are the organizers, propellers, shelterers, comforters. They are the creators of life. They are the glue that holds the world together.

Within this, other things are also true. The majority of women carry a submissive strain split that allows them to tolerate the 'dominant' man. And, most women emerge from conditional training toward how to 'submit' to men. The result is a confusion of instinct, social training, and angst. Emerging from this are a tiny number of women that stand up to openly reveal themselves. They are the antithesis of the bitchy, arrogant, self-serving female. This is the woman that comes to believe that the elements that are instinctively natural to her, enhance, improve and stabilize the world around her. If I follow my natural self it is to direct, inspire, control and insist on actions from those around me. Sometimes this is a subtle thing, other times it is exceedingly overt.

When I was young I struggled greatly with this, for I felt there was a de-feminizing quality to it. Until I realized that the judgment or the critique was the viewpoint of others. To equate strength in a woman to masculinity is the cruelest of all. For what emerges from within me is the heart of my womanhood. This judgment is the final effort to control the uncontrollable dominant female through words of shame. There came a moment when I sundered the barriers and boundaries binding me. When I ceased viewing my own strength as anything but the purity within me. At that moment my laughter returned, my joy of life, my exuberance in the wonders surrounding me. In essence I gave myself permission to be free.

The true dominant is the ultimate giver. Within me I know the power to elicit the deepest glorious responses from another human. I give to them the total freedom to be themselves. Giving this engages my whole essence. To find a mate whose natural response is true, who has a clarity of self to desire and glory in being totally loved, taken, cared for, chastened, prodded, held, is a priceless deeply sought honor. Even as the women have been conditioned to respond against themselves, so too have the men been conditioned that they must stand above a woman or not be a man.

It is possible that I could make a reasonable life with a non-submissive man, but only if I withdrew core pieces of my soul. It is less possible that I could do even this much with a man that diminished the female, it is likely that I would learn him then try to take him apart. That would be devastation. The only possibility of true happiness is with a special man that believes within his very soul that he could give himself wholly to the right woman.
....

http://www.steel-door.com/Dominant_Female.html

 

[Pure]

Material on Mother Teresa.

Most is hagiography, but there are the Hitchens interviews at

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featpostel_56_p2.htm
====

There is a Time magazine interview at


http://www.catholic.net/RCC/people/mother/teresa/interview.html
[excerpt]


Time: If you speak to a political leader who could do more for his people, do you tell him that he must do better?

Mother Teresa: I don't say it like that. I say share the joy of loving with your people. Because a politician maybe cannot do the feeding as I do. But he should be clear in his mind to give proper rules and proper regulations to help his people.



Time: It is my job to keep politicians honest, and your job to share joy with the poor.

Mother Teresa: Exactly. And it is to be for the good of the people and the glory of God. This will be really fruitful. Like a man says to me that you are spoiling the people by giving them fish to eat. You have to give them a rod to catch the fish. And I said my people cannot even stand, still less hold a rod. But I will give them the fish to eat, and when they are strong enough, I will hand them over to you. And you give them the rod to catch the fish. That is a beautiful combination, no?

Time: Feminist Catholic nuns sometimes say that you should pour your energy into getting the Vatican to ordain women.

Mother Teresa: That does not touch me.

Time: What do you think of the feminist movement among nuns in the West?

Mother Teresa: I think we should be more busy with our Lord than with all that, more busy with Jesus and proclaiming His Word. What a woman can give, no man can give. That is why God has created them separately. Nuns, women, any woman. Woman is created to be the heart of the family, the heart of love. If we miss that, we miss everything. They give that love in the family or they give it in service, that is what their creation is for.
---

There is a nice, detailed critical book on Mother Teresa by an Indian, native of Calcutta, Aroup Chattterjee,

http://website.lineone.net/~bajuu/
aroup chatterjee
"The mother of all myths" by Aroup Chatterjee

http://website.lineone.net/~bajuu/CHAP10.htm
"The mother of all myths," ch 10 Critique

He notes such well attested facts as her cosying up to the Duvaliers in Haiti, and campaigning against the legalization of
*divorce* in Ireland.

At no point has she been at odds with the Catholic hierarchy, being on its extreme (fundamentalist, as it were) right.

She is, I grant, a single minded and persistent person, who, in her way, loved the poor, but was mainly, in her mission, concerned with religious ministry during their transition of dying. For instance, she never used any of the millions raised to build a major hospital in Calcutta.

There, Angelique, I've done my homework, have you done yours?

 

[incubus_dark]

There are always exceptions to the rule as we have stated in posts before, but last time I checked, hyenas had not been added to the human family and the quote referred to and used was referring to gender specifics in men and women.

Catalina

Lemur and bonobo society are also matriarch rule. Check it out.

Hyenas may not be part of the human family, but bonobos certainly are.

 

[incubus_dark]

As this thread moves deeper into philosophy, if it engages the original question at all, it does so more and more from the perspective of beliefs, opinions and truths couched in ever more ambiguous jargon. These things, while perhaps useful in making people feel good, or bad, about themselves, have little or at best ambiguous grounding in fact, and thus so too will any answer or opinion formed from them. What then, is the point? One may as well say, "I believe it to be like so, because I wish it that way", and once everybody has done this we arrive, albeit by the most circumlocutory route, more or less exactly at the point from whence we started.

 

[s'lara]

As this thread moves deeper into philosophy, if it engages the original question at all, it does so more and more from the perspective of beliefs, opinions and truths couched in ever more ambiguous jargon. These things, while perhaps useful in making people feel good, or bad, about themselves, have little or at best ambiguous grounding in fact, and thus so too will any answer or opinion formed from them. What then, is the point? One may as well say, "I believe it to be like so, because I wish it that way", and once everybody has done this we arrive, albeit by the most circumlocutory route, more or less exactly at the point from whence we started.

*pops out from her lurk of the past few days*

The option to disregard the "jargon" is available to us all. Lets be reminded that the chief purpose of engaging in discussions of this sort is to hear differing perspectives on a subject. Opinion is not often grounded in fact. Conversely, opinion is usually fueled by personal beliefs and this is the well-spring of debate. If the discussion veers from the original topic and off into related tangents, so be it. The point is to continue the discussion and bring something to the table in the most coherent manner possible. Thus far, i've seen evidence of several clear-minded opinions within this thread. If the nature of the opinions serve no purpose to you as an individual, disregard them. However, all statements made herein have some validity even if only to the person who made them.

 

[incubus_dark]

*pops out from her lurk of the past few days*

The option to disregard the "jargon" is available to us all. Lets be reminded that the chief purpose of engaging in discussions of this sort is to hear differing perspectives on a subject. Opinion is not often grounded in fact. Conversely, opinion is usually fueled by personal beliefs and this is the well-spring of debate. If the discussion veers from the original topic and off into related tangents, so be it. The point is to continue the discussion and bring something to the table in the most coherent manner possible. Thus far, i've seen evidence of several clear-minded opinions within this thread. If the nature of the opinions serve no purpose to you as an individual, disregard them. However, all statements made herein have some validity even if only to the person who made them.

So you think the purpose of asking a question is so that everybody may give the answer they wish to be true, irrespective of what, if any, the underlying facts of the matter may be? This would have interesting repercussions for the advancement of knowledge if nothing else. Still, I'll take your wise advice and bow out with a polite thank you for your opinion.

 

[Pure]

Hi Dark I,

you said,
[the current postings are]//more and more from the perspective of beliefs, opinions and truths couched in ever more ambiguous jargon. These things, while perhaps useful in making people feel good, or bad, about themselves, have little or at best ambiguous grounding in fact, //

All right, as far as it goes. I didn't intend to get into how religions treat women, or 'the feminine principle', but some person's frameworks discussing domination are very eclectic and wide ranging.

As to fact. They aren't that easy to come by in psychology and sociology. They are going to be 'soft' facts, mostly.

In any case, many of the interesting questions of life are not resolvable by a 'look up the facts' approach. Sometimes all that happens is questions get clarified.

We started with, are there 'dom/mes by nature', or subs. Those who are through and through 'domly', dominant to the bone etc.
[or sub].

The newer question is about a dominating urge or instinct in humans, and its 'natural' status, and what it would mean to be a person fully and completely in its thrall, seized by it.

Extremely interesting to me are the questions what 'domination'--natural or not-- looks like and how this urge or tendency is distributed by sex.

A lot of unclarity imo is due to various kinds of things being labeled as covertly or secretly 'dominant.' We've seen a nun's obedience to superiors and a mom's urge to keep family together and protected as 'dominant.'

Indeed the term itself becomes a catch-all for 'the ideal human being'.

In this area I agree with your apparent implication, that dominance must be linked to observable actions and patterns. I personally don't believe it makes sense to say, both "She's dominant and assertive, whereas he's dominant but shy." "She's dominant in getting her way, whereas he's dominant in devoting himself to someone else's way, and making that what he wants." Terms have to mean something, else it's like discussing who's 'cool' or what's 'fly.'

I return to such basic ideas as domination (interpersonal) is the prevailing of one's desire over another, imposing (will) on another, subjecting/subordinating another.

One area that's not much resolved is the claim that the genuine or true or 'by nature' dominant is going to be long in self control, if not prudent and wise. I wonder why this is being claimed?? Again the attempt seems to be to say the 'dominant' personality is to include a number of ideal qualities such as self control, being mentally balanced, respecting one's elders, not bullying one's wife, and donating to the relief of the poor.

Others' thoughts are welcome, of course.

J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hyenas may not be part of the human family, but bonobos certainly are.

They certainly are Incubus_Dark.
Source:
http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html

Social Organization among Various Primates

BONOBO
Bonobo communities are peace-loving and generally egalitarian. The strongest social bonds are those among females, although females also bond with males. The status of a male depends on the position of his mother, to whom he remains closely bonded for her entire life.

CHIMPANZEE
In chimpanzee groups the strongest bonds are established between the males in order to hunt and to protect their shared territory. The females live in overlapping home ranges within this territory but are not strongly bonded to other females or to any one male.

GIBBON
Gibbons establish monogamous, egalitarian relations, and one couple will maintain a territory to the exclusion of other pairs.

HUMAN
Human society is the most diverse among the primates. Males unite for cooperative ventures, whereas females also bond with those of their own sex. Monogamy, polygamy and polyandry are all in evidence.

GORILLA
The social organization of gorillas provides a clear example of polygamy. Usually a single male maintains a range for his family unit, which contains several females. The strongest bonds are those between the male and his females.

ORANGUTAN
Orangutans live solitary lives with little bonding in evidence. Male orangutans are intolerant of one another. In his prime, a single male establishes a large territory, within which live several females. Each female has her own, separate home range.

 

[catalina_francisco]

As this thread moves deeper into philosophy, if it engages the original question at all, it does so more and more from the perspective of beliefs, opinions and truths couched in ever more ambiguous jargon. These things, while perhaps useful in making people feel good, or bad, about themselves, have little or at best ambiguous grounding in fact, and thus so too will any answer or opinion formed from them. What then, is the point? One may as well say, "I believe it to be like so, because I wish it that way", and once everybody has done this we arrive, albeit by the most circumlocutory route, more or less exactly at the point from whence we started.

You are correct in that we seem to travel long roads to come to the beginning. But during the journeys we all get to know each other better, develop mutual understanding and respect which will make the rest of the journey easier.

I actually agree with you that we tend to be moving away a bit from the original question. This is of course because all the material brought up is so dammed interesting, and how often do we get the opportunity to exchange thoughts with persons as interesting as all posters on this board are.

I think we should consider making another thread where we can discuss the spirituality of BDSM which is a subject that is as interesting as this one.

I would like to thank you Incubus_Dark for putting us back on our tracks. We need your hard logic and scientific background to keep us philosophers (or wannebe philosophers like myself) from not getting lost too much.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

One area that's not much resolved is the claim that the genuine or true or 'by nature' dominant is going to be long in self control, if not prudent and wise. I wonder why this is being claimed?? Again the attempt seems to be to say the 'dominant' personality is to include a number of ideal qualities such as self control, being mentally balanced, respecting one's elders, not bullying one's wife, and donating to the relief of the poor.

Hi Pure,

These idealistic qualities in dominants come from a belief that to control, one must first control each self. Ms S would state it comes from becoming more in touch with your receptive side.

The thrive is what makes us want to become better Dominants, the 'gene' gives us innate charecteristics to make it easier, It is our mind and belief systems that give us the last step to become that what we want to become.

Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi Pure,

These idealistic qualities in dominants come from a belief that to control, one must first control each self. Ms S would state it comes from becoming more in touch with your receptive side.

The thrive is what makes us want to become better Dominants, the 'gene' gives us innate charecteristics to make it easier, It is our mind and belief systems that give us the last step to become that what we want to become.

Francisco.

As a note I would also like to say that without the mind and belief systems, a Dominant could go terribly wrong and become abusive to others.

Francisco.

 

[SilkVelvet]

...without the mind and belief systems, a Dominant could go terribly wrong and become abusive to others. Francisco. [/B}

Question then.. does anyone think wife abusers etc in society are natural Dominants gone wrong ??? Men who have not discovered a positive way of channelling their innate dominant traits ??? Or are they all insecure and weak men who dominate physically to bolster their own egos ???

 

[catalina_francisco]

Question then.. does anyone think wife abusers etc in society are natural Dominants gone wrong ??? Men who have not discovered a positive way of channelling their innate dominant traits ??? Or are they all insecure and weak men who dominate physically to bolster their own egos ???

I think 99 % of them are just how you describe them, insecure, weak and assholes. But I also believe a small percentage might have to do with the fact that they have an urge to dominate and a taste for sadism and just do not know how to positively channel it.

Not that it is an excuse of course; I have been in vanilla relationships and not been abusive. I know Dominants who have been in relationships and have not been abusive. They were just extremely unhappy.

I have often thought what would have happened to me if I had these urges and for example it would have been combined with alcohol or any other drug. I believe that maybe under the wrong circumstances I might have become abusive.

My father was abusive, his father was abusive. It is a well known fact that children of abusive parents can become abusive. So yes the thought has crossed my mind.

However Catalina being a trained professional in the field of Domestic Violence, with first hand experience of working with abused women, heterosexual, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender, as well as children, and males perpetrators, does not agree with me.

Francisco.

As this is an area which I could, and have written reams about, I will try to limit my answer so as not to get too far off the track or bore anyone to tears….may be my passionate area of expertise, but is definitely not everyone’s cup of tea.

Abusive men are abusive for a variety of reasons, none of which come down to being a frustrated Dominant in the BDSM sense. I believe Dominants derive pleasure not only from the visual proof of their dominance of a submissive, but to a large degree from knowing s/he enjoys the experience for their own perverse reasons. The key is it is consensual, and no Dominant I have known has ever expressed a desire to cross that line, and have expressed their inability to find any satisfaction from dominating anyone who is not consenting.

This being said, abusers do operate from the dynamics of power and control, the same as a Dominant, but the difference is it is non consensual. There is a huge misconception that an abuser abuses because they cannot control their anger, thus they get sent to Anger Management courses by courts. These courses do have their place if run by trained professionals, who are not only aware of the dynamics, but able to see through the manipulations they will be faced with.

So why do I discount anger and loss of control as a reason? If an abuser were truly out of control, they would be unable to control any aspect of that behaviour. If that were so how come they usually wait until there is no-one else around, behind closed doors, why do they often choose to injure in places that can’t be seen, why do the majority of them choose to only abuse their partner, not their friends or employers or neighbours, why do many of them take the children out of the room first…not uncontrolled behaviour as it is then clearly premeditated? Anger is not selective in it’s target…to say so would be saying the abuse was the victim’s fault because they were such a bad person to bring out the anger, that the perpetrator never felt anger except toward their partner…all a bit far fetched.

Like rape, it is related to power. The abuser has a need to control their partner, to have power over every aspect of their being, often isolating them through a number of techniques to increase the chance of success without detection. The need to control is driven by inner insecurities, fear, not anger or mental illness. To me, despite being a feminist, actually because I am I believe, I have empathy for the perpetrator and a strong desire to see more funding put into helping them…..they too have their story and were certainly not born to abuse, but also should not be excused for their behaviour. After all, I can counsel a million women, support their statements with my documented evidence in court, help them plan their future choices, and escape if they choose that avenue, but until someone helps the abuser, the abuse will continue unabated. Research shows that the perpetrator, especially in heterosexual abuse, does not stop at one but moves from one woman to another, abusing each one, and often continuing to abuse them after they have begun a relationship with another. I have counselled women who are being abused and stalked by ex-partners, who are abusing their new partner and the one who came between the 2 relationships, all at the same time….they cannot relinquish that control

The sad fact of life is that children from these relationships not only suffer themselves, even if they are not direct victims of physical violence, and is a good argument against the ‘staying for the children’ scenario. They grow in a household or environment where they are socialised on a number of scales from accepting it is unavoidable to being brainwashed in a sense to believe it is acceptable, even a matter of choice. Some argue that these children do not become abusers because of their environment, but because of genetics. I do not believe this as socialisation is the strongest factor of influence….a child is not born to abuse. Society itself also plays a role in this attitude of acceptability and blame, by turning the other way or asking what the victim did to make the perpetrator so angry he ‘had’ beat her, as does the legal system which does not use its powers to their fullest force to protect the victim of violence. Their response is usually after the victim is finally killed and it becomes a murder case…up to that point it is minimal to non existent response and certainly nothing compared to a response made about abuse at the hands of friend or stranger…in other words it is ignored and excused, tossed in the ‘too hard’basket.

Children learn from these behaviours within the home and society. A family may have three children, two are okay as adults, and one becomes an abuser….why? Often through a subconscious choice they make from witnessing the abuse…a choice they believe is necessary to abuse, or be abused. Sometimes through the coaching of the perpetrator that this is how you treat a woman, or she really likes it, and undeniably the breakdown of the child’s security in self. And so the cycle continues. There is much more to be said about this continuance of the cycle and how it survives and influences children, but we have to keep some limits on space here.

Catalina

 

[lark sparrow]

I have mentioned the difference between dominance and leadership.

Here's an article I ran across for consideration:

.....

Animal behaviorists know that every species is predisposed to certain kinds of social interaction. Chickens have their pecking order. Wolves pair up but run in packs. Elephant matriarchs lead the herd while adult males wander off to attend to their own concerns. Honeybees sacrifice their lives to the well-being of the hive and the reproductive efforts of one queen.

Where do human politics fit into this scheme?

Our evolutionary history is one of social primates that underwent a profound transition toward learning, culture, awareness and choice. Evolutionary behaviorists tend to focus on our primate heritage, observing chimpanzees and baboons to look for the origins of human social behavior. For example, Richard Byrne and Andrew Whiten ("Machiavellian Intelligence") conclude that the need to outmaneuver one another in the social hierarchy constituted the main selective force driving the evolution of human intelligence.

...

The assertion of dominance among beasts of lesser brain is a fairly straightforward physical contest. The clash of bighorn sheep can be heard for many miles on a crisp fall day. Among the more intelligent apes, however, dominance is not that simple. Although physical size and strength play a role, an air of assertiveness and apparent willingness to take on an adversary count for much in the primate struggle for dominance.

Even more decisive, perhaps, is the ability to put together strategic alliances: two or three individuals who share a common interest in toppling someone else's applecart join forces to see one of their own become top ape.

Starting to sound like politics, isn't it? But wait; there's more.

Anthropologist Margaret Power ("The Egalitarians") reviewed reams of data on wild chimpanzee social behavior, from studies conducted by noted researchers including Jane Goodall, Frans de Waal, and others. Power observed that what we loosely term "dominance" is really two distinct phenomena: dominance and charismatic leadership.

Dominance, she said, accrues to the chimpanzee bully who uses intimidation, harassment, and outright force to gain the upper hand. Charismatic leadership is exerted by chimps, male or female, who are able to project calmness and reassurance, using force only as needed to settle disputes. The personality traits of dominant chimps are diametrically opposed to those of charismatic leaders: insecurity, hostility and defensiveness vs. calmness, confidence and concern for others. Groups of chimpanzees foster either charismatic leadership or a dominance hierarchy depending on the level of stress they are experiencing.

It's embarrassing to recognize ourselves so clearly in the personalities of chimpanzees. Luckily, the evolution of humanness added several significant refinements onto the proto-politics of our primate ancestors.

First, it gave us the means and the mandate to move away from physical disputes into the realm of symbolic discussion and debate resolution.
...

Second, it gave us the means and mandate to maintain a social structure that fosters charismatic leadership, not a dominance hierarchy. Chimpanzees don't have a choice. We do.


http://www.commondreams.org/views/112800-103.htm



A BDSM Dominant really flucuates between or encompasses both of these states. We want someone to really dominate and often hurt, push, subjugate and humiliate us to that end, but ultimately within respect, understanding, good will, consent, etc... through 'charismatic leadership'.

 

[catalina_francisco]

A BDSM Dominant really flucuates between or encompasses both of these states. We want someone to really dominate and often hurt, push, subjugate and humiliate us to that end, but ultimately within respect, understanding, good will, consent, etc... through 'charismatic leadership'.

While I can see it is easy to draw a comparison, it doesn't ring true for me as I see the human counterpart as acting in a consensual environment which negates intimidation and harrasment attributed to the description of the dominant, bullying chimp. That more resembles an abuser descried in my former post. But as always it is in the interpretation of the reader and diversity is always good for stimulationg thought.

catalina

 

[Pure]

Catalina siad,

Lark S
BDSM Dominant really flucuates between or encompasses both of these states. We want someone to really dominate and often hurt, push, subjugate and humiliate us to that end, but ultimately within respect, understanding, good will, consent, etc... through 'charismatic leadership'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



While I can see it is easy to draw a comparison, it doesn't ring true for me as I see the human counterpart as acting in a consensual environment which negates intimidation and harrasment attributed to the description of the dominant, bullying chimp.

I like that point, Catalina. If a 'real' dominant, hurts, pushes, and humiliates people--i.e., is something approaching a nasty bully, how odd to look at the bdsm counterpart, the 'bdsm-ssc-dom/me' who says, "Sure I'll hurt and push you, but I want your permission and consent, and look, if it gets too much, just say Red and we'll stop."

The latter is more akin to an actor play a part, maybe that of a bully, and just like an actor playing a gunman, there is no real harm.

For the bdsm person to be a counterpart, several, rather uncommon conditions would have to hold. The 'sub' cant exit on command. The subs limits are not sacred. The subs pleasure is by no means equal, if indeed it's relevant. (Can you picture a true bully asking -- was it good for you?).

Further, this is NOT what the IE folks have in mind, since you can't 'bully' someone who can't conceive of resisting. If your 'natural' through-and-through slave is 100% compliant, how can s/he be bullied or even pushed around. How do you 'push around' someone who's saying, "whatever you want, master, just say the word.'

J.

 

[lark sparrow]

While I can see it is easy to draw a comparison, it doesn't ring true for me as I see the human counterpart as acting in a consensual environment which negates intimidation and harrasment attributed to the description of the dominant, bullying chimp. That more resembles an abuser descried in my former post. But as always it is in the interpretation of the reader and diversity is always good for stimulationg thought.

catalina

Yes, much of it is in the interpretation.

Chimpanzees in a group are in a consensual environment. They are free to leave and often do - they live in what is termed a 'Fission-Fusion Society'. Sorry to bore but primatology has been of great personal interest to me in the past.

"A fission-fusion society is one in which the social group size and composition changes throughout the year with different activities and situations. This is the social pattern typical of chimpanzees. Individuals enter and leave communities from time to time. Adult males occasionally wander off and forage alone or join a few other males in a hunting party. Females casually change membership from one group to the other. This occurs especially when females are in estrus and seeking new mates. As a result, foraging and sleeping groups reform frequently. Male chimps are the relatively stable core of the community since they rarely join other troops.

What allows for the generally loose relationship between chimpanzee communities is that they apparently recognize a wider range of social bonds than do monkeys. They often have relatives and friends in several different neighboring troops. When chimpanzee communities come together, they usually exchange friendly greetings rather than show aggression. However, it would be a mistake to assume from this that chimpanzee society is always peaceful. The adult males within each community are frequently engaged in complex political activities involving scheming and intimidation in order to move up the dominance hierarchy. They develop short-term alliances with other males by mutual support, sharing meat, and allogrooming (grooming others). It isn't always the largest and strongest male who makes it to the top of the hierarchy. Often teamwork used to frighten and impress is more effective than an individual's muscles in achieving chimpanzee goals. This is an indication of their intelligence."

Riddle me this though, within the thought of interpretation.

Let's take for example, scat 'play'. Particularly wherein the submissive or slave is not all that into it. Lick my dirty asshole. Would it be more likened to a 'charismatic leader' skill? Or would it be more likened to a 'Dominance heirarchy'? Outside of a BDSM context would most consider it abusive? Unnecessary? A crude and base display of dominance?

 

[SilkVelvet]

Let's take for example, scat 'play'. Particularly wherein the submissive or slave is not all that into it. Lick my dirty asshole. Would it be more likened to a 'charismatic leader' skill? Or would it be more likened to a 'Dominance heirarchy'? Outside of a BDSM context would most consider it abusive? Unnecessary? A crude and base display of dominance?

'Normal' surely is whatever two consenting adults get up to sexually within the framework of society's laws by mutual consent. Abuse then must be anything which is either not mutually consensual or against the laws of the country within which the sexual partners are resident .

 

[lark sparrow]

'Normal' surely is whatever two consenting adults get up to sexually within the framework of society's laws by mutual consent. Abuse then must be anything which is either not mutually consensual or against the laws of the country within which the sexual partners are resident .

Hi Velvet

Where did you see 'normal' in that statement? Or 'lawful'? The question pertains to leadership versus dominance, at least in my mind.

 

[SilkVelvet]

Hi Lark

I was looking at the bit about outside Bdsm and er praps I kinda leapt ahead there oops
velvet x