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

[lark sparrow]

Hi Lark

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

They are great points to measure and define what is abuse and what is lawful or consensual or normal, and these all fit into the conversation... but I am still really curious about this leadership vs dominance point. Is it black and white as Pure might have it? Is it shades of gray? How does it relate to 'natural dominance' beyond being a BDSM top/sadist? Is the 'natural Dominant' a perfect vision of benevolent, charismatic and strong leadership? What are the more natural forces behind the polished and sophisticated Mistress or Master?

 

[SilkVelvet]

Someone (Netzach I think ?) equated her style of Dominance with management and I think when it comes to this charismatic leadership point it is a good analagy.

The best managers are those whose leadership is charismatic and who have very good people management skills. They don't manage by dictating and sticking rigidly to company policy and enforcing their power over their subordinates all the time. They get feedback from their subordinates and take it on board and create an atmosphere that makes their employees want to do a good job.

So a Dominant to me, is part charismatic leader. I think that the leadership and Dominant character traits must surely go hand in hand. Why would any but the most masochistic and/or naive sub/slave submit to someone who was 100% dictator ? Who took but never gave ?

However, call me cynical, but I would hesitate to say that any Dominant (however much that Dominance is innate) is perfect or even good, without having learned by past mistakes and refined his/her people skills.

Therefore going back to the sub/slave who isn't keen on scat. There are two approaches. The You will do it because I say so and if you don't you will be punished approach. Or the more psychological approach ie you will do it because you want to please me and that will please me approach.

Carrot or stick basically. Sometimes the donkey will respond to the carrot and sometimes to the stick.

 

[Netzach]

Whew go away for a few days and look what you come home to.

I haven't read everything, I've been shamelessly skimming. My weakness, oh well.

Something that leapt out at me:

Pure, the Jungians who are hopelessly rigidly sexist are the ones without imagination and Judith Butler in their back pocket.

Archetypes and types can be rigidly "male", rigidly "female" I think they are useful to a degree as such.

However, who gets to identify with whom is *much* more up for grabs. Who said I can't identify with the Knight or the Page because of a small plumbing factor? Feh.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Whew go away for a few days and look what you come home to.

I haven't read everything, I've been shamelessly skimming. My weakness, oh well.

Something that leapt out at me:

Pure, the Jungians who are hopelessly rigidly sexist are the ones without imagination and Judith Butler in their back pocket.

Archetypes and types can be rigidly "male", rigidly "female" I think they are useful to a degree as such.

However, who gets to identify with whom is *much* more up for grabs. Who said I can't identify with the Knight or the Page because of a small plumbing factor? Feh.

Welcome back.....look forward to more of your input on this ongoing, and far from boring discussion. I was going to put some more on tonight but my inopportune migraine delayed this....just as well or you would have had more to wade through!! lol

Catalina

 

[incubus_dark]

Bows back in, a bit (who the hell said I'm not allowed to be fickle).

OK, as for my little rant back there a couple of pages: I think Pure, that I already acknowledged that we more or less have to deal with subjective observation and to quote you "soft facts" lest we have nothing to discuss. What I find ridiculous is the introduction of philosophical flights of fancy that diverge so far from this as to come hard upon spending an eve' with the fairies. Truly, such beliefs are so fictile as to be able to point in virtually any direction one wishes. That's not to say they are baseless or purposeless, but only that the are decidedly not grounds for a rational argument of any point of view outside one's opinion of them.

As for the scat play example: I parse it like so: You will lick my dirty arse. In doing so I am having you do something truly revolting. Your compliance reafirms your low status and my high status; makes you feel low and me feel high. Ergo, it's a dominance behaviour.

Obviously this fails if the subject likes to eat shit.

Alright, here's a conjecture. I'm not claiming it's true. I'm not supporting it with reference or evidence. I'm not claiming to believe it or even agree with it. It's just conjecture and in fact I just made it up:

The sexual dominant is somebody who's sense of self is sufficiently fragile as to make them need to attempt to forcefully impose it upon anybody whom they attempt intimacy. The dominant sees the object of their sexual desire as having power over them by, if nothing else, their ability to deny or otherwise control the desired resource, ie. sex. The dominant, threatened by their percieved sense of powerlessness, overcompensates and or attempts to reassert control by constructing an artificial power structure in which the power to deny is, at least on some level, removed from the sexual object. This construct is reinforced by control techniques which may be instinctively understood, or learned in childhood, but which often include sadism, both physical and mental.

The sexual subordinate is somebody who has learned, either by example in youth, or by observation in adulthood, that submission pleases the object of sexual desire and thus is a valid path to attain their goals. This may include a sense that submission avoids confrontation and thus prevents assault, either physical or mental, that may fall outside what they believe they can cope with, including assault by rejection. The submissive's sense of self is sufficiently strong that they can retain their identity irrespective of what they agree to submit to. The submissive may also find relief from the responsibility of decision making and or culpability in the direction of their relationship and life path.

Neither of these constructs are intended to include those persons whom, for whatever reason, enjoy the thrill of participating in sexual activities that they percieve as taboo and thus mimic the sexual behaviours of the persons typified by the above characterisations purely out of learned enjoyment for what they percieve as a pleasureable illicit activity that may or not convey status and belonging with an identifyable notorious subculture.

Alright, now refute me, without using the word 'kundalini' or other semantically equivalent non-sequiter, and avoiding purely semantic argument (as I will already admit that the above conjecture, being made up on the fly, is semantically messy).

 

[Netzach]

Without once invoking the arcane:

Nope. Nope nope nope and nope.

Screw hard science though.

"Experience, though none auctoritee..."

I stick to what I know 'cause I does it, I hope that carries nicely through my posts. I fudge the academics and the stats, I read some funky shit that informs my point of view, but I keep it pretty informal, I hope.

Here's my problem:

Your archetypes are both motivated by their weakness and fear, without other motivation. OK, the submissive has the benign possibility of being in it for a mental vacation, presumably from great daily responsibility. The Dom/Sado is always a sickfuck without enough personal sense of confidence and power, nursing some old psychic wound of rejection, compensating and overcompensating.

 

[incubus_dark]

Your archetypes are both motivated by their weakness and fear, without other motivation. OK, the submissive has the benign possibility of being in it for a mental vacation, presumably from great daily responsibility. The Dom/Sado is always a sickfuck without enough personal sense of confidence and power, nursing some old psychic wound of rejection, compensating and overcompensating.

Yes I know, and I certainly don't see myself that way, nor you for that matter, but were it true, would I allow myself to see it?. Just because it gives them a paraphilia don't make it not so. Try harder.

 

[Netzach]

I lost track of what I'm trying to do.

I guess I identify so much more strongly with variant III that I just kinda nod my head and go "sure that exists."

And I agree, people are usually not strong enough to admit that their motivations may not be 100% healthy or righteous or in command.

I have no qualms about saying I like to use my sexuality as a weapon against a man twice my age, size, and net worth and watch him impale himself on it willy nilly.

Because I know that in other regards, he's got the upper hand and it calms my resentment enough to adore him. That doesn't mean I want to, or should, learn NOT to operate this way, if he likes it and I like it, eh?

Personally, I think we can still be flawed but ok.

 

[incubus_dark]

I lost track of what I'm trying to do.

I guess I identify so much more strongly with variant III that I just kinda nod my head and go "sure that exists."

And I agree, people are usually not strong enough to admit that their motivations may not be 100% healthy or righteous or in command.

I have no qualms about saying I like to use my sexuality as a weapon against a man twice my age, size, and net worth and watch him impale himself on it willy nilly.

Because I know that in other regards, he's got the upper hand and it calms my resentment enough to adore him. That doesn't mean I want to, or should, learn NOT to operate this way, if he likes it and I like it, eh?

Personally, I think we can still be flawed but ok.

I'll go you one further; to think we're not OK unless we're flawless is really not OK

 

[SilkVelvet]

One step beyond.. it is entirely possible to have a happy life without ever having read a book on psychology

 

[Pure]

Well, Silk V, psychology as a discipline didn't even exist before about 1850. So lotsa people did just fine. Even in 'the psychological novel', that starts around Dostoevsky, same period, iirc.

J.

 

[Pure]

I was thinking of dominance, models, and esp. 'leadership.'

A general asserts himself, issue orders, those subordinates comply. Likewise a military sea captain.

Policemen, of whatever rank learn to dominate, 'control' situations, and 'take charge' --"Please show me your driver's license, take it out of your wallet."

A leader, like the captain of hockey or football team rallies the men, charts a course. Same, Churchill inspired and led a nation.

Now, frankly, do any of these sound like the 'consensual dom/me'.
Can you picture the policeman saying, "If the handcuffs are too uncomfortable, just say the word."

Likewise the leader, unless s/he's inept, doesn't look for conflict or contest with subordinates. A subordinate, on the team, is to do his or her job. But I agree-- it's been pointed out--the 'lack' of domination, real domination, makes this model a little better.
A captain of a commercial vessel, is likewise more a leader.

So what does fit. My mind came up with two examples.

The produce manager at the supermarket. He or She is to find out the desires of customers. Inform them. "Madam, the romaine is very fresh today." The manager and customer have to reach agreement. "No, it's too expensive." The manager's desire for money cannot override other considerations. The customer can ask, for things, "Can you get so arugula, how much would it be?"
He or she can't be sure of getting them.

Any small business owner, like of your local used bookshop, like wise operates in a similar agreed way. He can offer the books, but the sale is subject to consent, and some of the same considerations as with the produce manager apply.

In both cases, there is a kind of 'leadership'-- securing the right set of products, displaying them. But it's highly constrained, e.g., by the pocket books of the customers. In a sense the manager and the business owner 'dominate' the situation. They set opening and closing hours, decide how to serve customers, what to keep in stock. But ultimately the customer decides (reminds me of the saying, 'the sub is in ultimate control' [in ssc]'.

 

[catalina_francisco]

About Dominance against Leadership, there is and there is’nt correlation. As dominants, we tend to delude ourselves into believing that we are all great leaders, but in reality most dominants do not have a position of leadership outside their own relationship, nor might they necessarily want it, or be actively pursuing.

If I look at myself for example, yes I am respected and known in my chosen profession. I lead a very small team ( 4 persons), and yes in my previous job I used to be a manager of about 150 persons. But I have always had someone above me in my professional life; there has always been a more powerful person, someone who could have fired me or told me off for not coming on time for the 27th time in a row ( I swear every watch I buy seems to be off time, it is not my fault). Even if you have your own business you have to listen to the needs of your customers or you will lose your business and your income.

If you work for a company what are the chances that you are dominant and CEO. Let’s be honest, leadership and dominance are related, I am convinced of that, but a great leader does not necessarily make a great dominant and a great dominant does not necessarily make a great leader.

Between leadership and dominance are correlations to be found, charisma, intelligence, thoughtfulness and great personality all make a good dominant and a good leader. The main differences between the two are the intimacy, sexuality, control and power. A good leader will not normally fuck his followers; however which dominant does not fuck his followers. There is also another great difference between leadership and dominance, a Dominant will have much more control and power over his partner then a leader normally will have.

To go back to the example used before, If a police officer tells you to strip naked on the street because he gets a kick out of it, there would not be many who would follow his directions.

Hi Dark,

I have distilled your charecteristics of a Dominant.

The dominant is a person with very low self-esteem.
He controls his partner by controlling sex.
Because of his insecurities, he removes the power of objection, creates a ‘construct’ in which he has more control and power then his partner.
He uses instinctive and or otherwise learned knowledge to reinforce the model.


This does not make a pretty picture.

This model forgets one thing; it is not accepted by society to be dominant, if anything quite the contrary. So what would be his motivation, only low self-esteem? The validity of the low self-esteem being his motivation has its flaws. Someone with low self-esteem could not keep the boat afloat, the moment they would encounter resistance they could not fight back.

We seem to forget society in all of our constructs; we tend to centralize on our own little world forgetting outside influences. It is not accepted to be dominant. It is not seen as normal behaviour. So the question remains what drives a person to going against the grain of society and becoming a Dominant.

The first struggle in almost all of us is the inner one. We are forced to take a good look inside and decide if we are freaks, perverted beings, possessed by demons. Anyone with a low self-esteem will not likely find the motivation to make this journey.

IMO the most important questions we should start with are;
Why are people attracted to BDSM?
Is it an easy way to get sex?
Does it feed a need we have and if so which need are we talking about?
Is it the sadism that makes us go to the extremes we do?

This is in reality the core question, answer what has made us dominant, switch or submissive and the rest will follow. In science when confronted with unknown phenomena after having documented the phenomena we always ask the same questions, why, how and when, we make a hypothesis and then we try to proof or disproof it.

In social sciences it is the motivation that drives research, to find out what is causing certain kind of behaviour, sometimes it is genetics and sometime it is social pressure.

The question remains what kind of social pressures could lead to becoming a dominant, which is the cultural influence that makes us what we are today


Francisco.

 

[lark sparrow]

<snipped> As for the scat play example: I parse it like so: You will lick my dirty arse. In doing so I am having you do something truly revolting. Your compliance reafirms your low status and my high status; makes you feel low and me feel high. Ergo, it's a dominance behaviour.

Obviously this fails if the subject likes to eat shit. <snipped>

I agree with this part but think it goes more like: As for the scat play example: I parse it like so: You will lick my dirty arse. In doing so I am having you do something truly revolting. Your compliance reafirms your low status and my high status; makes you and me feel high. Ergo, it's a dominance behaviour.

This to me is where leadership veers off into more base displays of dominance. Neither leadership nor dominance being necessarily 'good', 'bad' or more perfect. I.e. your boss can lead you and be your superior without making you literally lick her or his ass. Your Dominant may wish you to lick his or her dirty asshole knowing your aversion to it, simply because they can and get off on it. One of the reasons they get off on it may be exactly the aversion and the 'crude' display of Dominance. The submissive or slave gets off on it, despite the aversion, because they are being dominanted past their own desires and comfort levels. However, it's still a fairly consensual practice and mutually satisfying (on different levels) for both who choose to participate.

In BDSM we most often want the foundation of a charismatic leader because it is a consensual practice between adults which has to reside within the larger scope of our lives - it's something we do because we like to do it and we get to choose our partners. However, at it's core 'nature' is the dominance and submission we crave - just like all those other animals. We have evolved to the extent where we can do both - we like to play, we like drama, we like the symbolic... we like how it stimulates our minds, bodies and hearts... sometimes play is simply good fun, sometimes play is very serious and becomes a lifestyle along with life-time commitments.

Because we have choice and we are aware of and actively embracing our values and consider it a positive, it differs from abuse, rape and all the other overt forms of nonconsensual dominance. And because of that, the consensual nature, we live within many paradoxes and can, and may at times feel the need to, push the envelope. Lick my dirty asshole, slave.

 

[Mystress.S]

What is your point? You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am a fan of MT. Not at all. I disagree with most all of her views, and personally think she was a selfish, righteous bitch. Nobody knows what happened to the millions donated to MT, she certainly did not use it to feed the poor or build hospitals... even her nuns were forced to erase their papers and re-use them.
That does not change my opinion of her, as Dominant. It does not matter that she did not go against the Church hierarchy. I do not go against the laws of my country ir its constitution, which was mostly set up by men, but that hardly makes me submissive!

Do my homework? You playing teacher-dom now? heh. No thanks.

Here is an article that may interest you...

http://members.lycos.co.uk/bajuu/

Originally posted by Pure 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?
[/B]

 

[Mystress.S]

I think you are reading a different translation than I. The old testament has changed many times, since David destroyed the groves on the hilltops and attempted to banish Goddess worship from Judeaism.

The highest emanation of the Sefirot is Ein Sof, which is the One, niether male nor female. The first manifestation, or emanation, is female. The apparent manifestation, Shekinah, is female.

http://www.al-qiyamah.org/pdf_files/shekinah--the_divine_feminine_(jps.net).pdf

Go back far enough, the Hebrew Genesis was a retelling of the Sumerain genesis, which had a serpent giving birth to Adam and Eve, and teaching them the mysteries of sex and agriculture. Matriarchy predated everything else.

Semantics: is Yaweh male, or is the masculine honorific simply an artifact of translation? Scholars differ on that point, it appears to be subjective.

In addition to the eternal, mystical Silence and the Holy Spirit, certain gnostics suggest a third characterization of the divine Mother: as Wisdom. Here the Greek feminine term for “wisdom,” sophia, translates a Hebrew feminine term, hokhmah. Early interpreters had pondered the meaning of certain Biblical passages—for example, the saying in Proverbs that “God made the world in Wisdom.” [The Gnostic Gospels: Vintage Books, 1981, p. 64]

http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/philosophia/sophia.htm

Shakti is translated "Cosmic Energy." She implies "power, ability, capacity, strength prowess; regal power; power of composition, poetic power, genius; the power or signification of a word or term; the power inherent in cause to produce its necessary effect…hakti is the female organ; shakti is the active power of a deity and is regarded, spiritually and mythologically, as his goddess-consort and queen." The Tantras say, "the female principle antedates and includes the male principle, and…this female principle is the supreme Divinity"

Tantric doctrine stipulates mortal women are "life-itself" and Goddess-like, because they embody the principle of Shakti. The sages "hold women in great esteem and call them Shaktis and to ill treat a Shakti, that is, a woman, is a crime." A Tantric synonym for "woman" was Shaktiman, "Mind of Shakti" or "Possessor of Shakti."

In Hindu Shakti is the eternal and supreme power, variously described as manifest energy, the substance of everything and all pervading. The Vedic meaning of Shakti is "energy." In Hinduism Shakti is a term for the manifestation of the creative principle. However, the concept of Shakti is derived from the hoary past and brahminized in later centuries. The concept of the supreme power as female, a mother, a womb, a vulva is not found in the pre-eminently patriarchal scriptures of the Aryans, but arises, to be made respectable by the higher castes, from the submerged prehistoric mother cults of the earliest people of the subcontinent.

Originally posted by Pure
Angelique said,

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

Actually, no.

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.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi LS,

You make some very valid points, and I find myself agreeing with your logic.

Because we have choice and we are aware of and actively embracing our values and consider it a positive, it differs from abuse, rape and all the other overt forms of nonconsensual dominance. And because of that, the consensual nature, we live within many paradoxes and can, and may at times feel the need to, push the envelope. Lick my dirty asshole, slave

Again you bring us back to the essence of BDSM, the consent. This is in essence where it all comes down to consensual Dominance/submission. But it also leads to a contradiction in terminus, we want consent and we do not want it, a paradox as you have claimed.

Let’s go back to the scat example. There are very few humans who would willingly eat shit. Catalina being one of them, and still I have the power to order her to eat it and I know she will.

Why will she do this? Because she gets a kick out of obeying me of course, but it goes farther than that. We have solved the paradox in our own way. Catalina has become my slave out of her own free will; she has decided to give me the fullest power over her out of her own free will.

We have no limits between us, she trusts me not to force her to do anything which might hurt her mentally. So in our own little way we solved the paradox. She will obey me in all, if I would order her to jump off a bridge she would, but she also knows in her heart I would never ask her to do anything of the sort.

It comes down to the second important rule inside BDSM, trust. She trusts me to make the decisions and not to push my power over her to a point where she could be mentally or permanently physically hurt.

Francisco.

 

[Netzach]

Hey, I'm a Kabbala fan, and I'm still not getting the relevance here.

Yes there are feminine aspects of the divine *in 13th c Biblical COMMENTARIES by Jewish mystics* They are not as evident in the five books.

Whether or not I like it, Sophia is a blip in that text. That's part of why I like the other text.

But I can also make the leap to say I like the fire and brimstone, irrational and rigid SOB that Yaweh is. Boy can He be a pill and we don't get any choice but to accept.

Nifty.

I like that style of Top. It keeps me grounded in reality, it models and reflects reality. You can be as good as you want and you still have to scrub the floor, go to bed without sex and be kicked in the ass.

A constant diet of that would not work, but it certainly has its place and time, for me.

 

[Mystress.S]

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. Francisco.

Not what I said, actually... the imperative is "Know thyself." To get to really know yourself requires stripping away quite a few layers of culural programming... as most of us who have come through the journey of self discovery enough to acknowledge our orientation, have discovered.

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.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Not what I said, actually... the imperative is "Know thyself." To get to really know yourself requires stripping away quite a few layers of culural programming... as most of us who have come through the journey of self discovery enough to acknowledge our orientation, have discovered.

Thank you for correcting the quote.

Francisco.

 

[Mystress.S]

Hello Angelique,

It's unclear if youre claiming that the female principle is superior, as some fem doms do: "no defense against it" "ultimate".

As to whether you have embodied or been seized by Kali or some form of this principle, I have no idea
In all, none of us here has studied your hundreds of pages, but we're exploring some of your ideas, and maybe you'll give us a chance before devouring us.

J.

I have experienced it... and I'm not planning to devour you, any more than I'm interested in taking Francisco's head. I'm puzzled that you seem to suggest I would. Your stuff... is there some part of you secretly wanting that? Like a SAM who acts out to get a spanking?

From a purely tantric, spiritual healer viewpoint, I have a thing I call "karma vampire judo." The idea is that, if you swing a punch at a Judo Master, the Master will not resist, but instead will grab your arm and pull, adding to the momentum so you end up flat on your face. How to defend against it? Don't swing a puch at a Judo Master! Inaction, not action... which is the Male principle.

Energetically speaking, someone who is projecting stuff onto me, is taking a swing at me and handing me a thread of their related karma... and if I choose, I can grab onto that thread and pull the whole issue and all related issues right out of them, like unraveling a sweater on a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

Using this technique I have done some pretty remarkable work, like healing the clinical depression of my slave #1... and occasionally I may choose to use it on a persistent adversary, particularly if I get the sense that they are taking the adversarial stance as a way of unconsciously asking me to... but generally I prefer to be paid for my talent. Dom control stuff... heh.

The Judo master could be said to be using the power of receptivity, which in Hinduism, is feminine... but the actual gender of the Master matters not at all.

According to Tantric principles, women have 10x the spiritual energy that men do. It is simply a function of procreation, the necessity of nurturance, goes along with having a womb and breasts. Whether a woman actualizes it, is another thing altogether. Most of us only use 10% of our brain power, according to some scientific studies... so, a male who actualizes all of his 10% of women's spiritual power may be stronger than a woman who uses none of hers... and a male is also more likely to act, choose to use it... which is why there are so many prominent male spiritual leaders.

My opinion is that men are more likely to seek to be dominant, because of various biological, hormonal and cultural factors... but that women tend to be better at it, but less likely to seek it. It is said that the best person to lead, is someone who does not want the job...

It appears to me, that this thread is about actual human behaviors, not mysterious spiritual principles.

It has been interesting, but it is time I got back to my work... I have a Tribe of slaves and Priestesses, 90 students, a dozen lists, five web domains, (actually, 19 domains... ) a household and businesses to manage... Thank you for your hospitality.

If anyone is interested in pursuing a study of my matriarchal Kundalini tantra, there is an on-line course at www.fire-serpent.com

 

[catalina_francisco]

I for one have tremendously enjoyed reading your material and your opinions. I understand that you have a busy schedule and appreciate the valuable time you have already contributed to our thread.

I think it is important to hear from as many viewpoints as possible and from as many sources as possible.

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

Hello, Angelique,

We're looking at your claim

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

In support you refer to a good website at which Michael Claire says the following, quoted at the end.

Against your claim, are the following items.
1) the website, the homepage by Claire, is about a 'lost goddess' of 'early Christianity.' It does not say 'Judaism.'

2) A source quoted at the website, Freke (see below) says,

Amongst the original Christians the divine was seen as having both a masculine and feminine face. They related to the Divine Feminine as Sophia,

It says 'original Christians', not Jews.

3) Pagels, whose quote you used in your posting actually says, see below:
//certain gnostics suggest a third characterization of the divine Mother: as Wisdom. //

"Certain gnostics" is a long way from "Judaism". It's unclear, from the one quote, if the gnostics in question are roughly in the Jewish or the Christian tradition.

4) In relation to another citation, and url, of yours re Kabbalah that says, the 'ain sof' is supreme and the 'chochmah' is the first manifestation or emanation. Agreed.

But we are talking Jewish Kabbalism of, iirc, the twelfth century+. That is a *stream*,of Judaism.

In any case these Kabbalists called 'chochmah' an emanation, and your claim is that 'Judaism' has "sophia" (a Greek term) as a *goddess*. The emanations, manifestations, principles, etc., in the tree of life are not, to my knowledge, gods or goddesses, since the would detract from the "One." They are, as your own source says, 'aspects' of the One, which is what I said.

5) None of your or Claire's quotes show Wisdom as supreme; only one source, Ringgren, talks of a being 'beside God', not a goddess. Pagels, whom you rely on, quotes from the same passage as I,

//Early interpreters had pondered the meaning of certain Biblical passages—for example, the saying in Proverbs that “God made the world in Wisdom.”// (Pagels)

Even if--as is not the case--Wisdom were a goddess, the passage says, "God made the world" and 'in Wisdom' . That scarely makes Wisdom supreme. An obvious reading is that I gave, namely Wisdom is a co-eternal aspect of God.

Doherty, massively cited by Claire says,
//a part of himself[God] called “Wisdom”. //

Rinngen, also quoted, presents things a little differently,
“a concrete being, self-existent beside God.” He attributes this to 'near Eastern religions'.

Even if the 'being' were thought to be a 'goddess', it is 'beside God,' not supreme, quite clearly.

Claire, at the end of his article, [not quoted] cites a number of sources that are in line with what I've said, e.g., from the Sophia/Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira

//‘I [Wisdom] came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and I covered the earth like mist. //


In sum, you've provided no good evidence for your claim, and your own sources, Claire and Doherty tend to refute it, or suggest it's a misfired attempt to talk of Gnostic Christianity.

Best,
Pure.

=====
[The first part of the first page at the website referenced by Angelique.]
------
http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/philosophia/sophia.htm

by Michael Claire

Sophia

Early Christianity’s Lost Goddess


Sophia, from the "Book of Wonders"


Today, relatively few persons are aware that many early Christians worshipped a feminine face, or aspect, of divinity. This Mother goddess was known by several names, and was associated with other identities such as the eternal Silence, and the Holy Spirit. (This is analogous to Christ in manifold guises as the Messiah, the Lamb, the Son of man, the Good Shepherd, and so on.) In particular, the Mother goddess was identified with Sophia, which in Greek means “wisdom.” Thus Elaine Pagels informs us:


In addition to the eternal, mystical Silence and the Holy Spirit, certain gnostics suggest a third characterization of the divine Mother: as Wisdom. Here the Greek feminine term for “wisdom,” sophia, translates a Hebrew feminine term, hokhmah. Early interpreters had pondered the meaning of certain Biblical passages—for example, the saying in Proverbs that “God made the world in Wisdom.” [The Gnostic Gospels: Vintage Books, 1981, p. 64]



Here Pagels suggests an important source for the goddess tradition – the passages in Proverbs, and other ‘Wisdom’ literature such as Sophia According to Solomon (“Wisdom of Solomon”), which personify divine wisdom as a goddess. Accordingly, Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy observe:

Amongst the original Christians the divine was seen as having both a masculine and feminine face. They related to the Divine Feminine as Sophia, the wise Goddess. Paul tells us, ‘Among the initiates we speak of Sophia’, for it is ‘the secret of Sophia’ that is ‘taught in our Mysteries’. When initiates of the Inner Mysteries of Christianity partook of Holy Communion, it was Sophia’s passion and suffering they remembered. [...]The prayer would be offered: ‘May Sophia fill your inner being and increase in you her Gnosis.’ [Jesus and the Goddess: Thorsons, 2002, p. 3]

This description indicates that the Sophian tradition had reached a considerable degree of development, mirroring that of the early Jesus tradition. Before such development took place, the figure of Sophia, or Wisdom – which gradually came to be personified and even to engender an entire corpus of new mythology [...]– was originally a spiritual principle similar to the Pagan-Christian concept of the Logos. With regard to the emergence of the figure of Sophia, Earl Doherty states:

...knowledge of [the Jewish God] and of his Law was thought to have been brought to the world by a part of himself called “Wisdom”. This figure (it’s a she) evolved almost into a divine being herself, an agent of creation and salvation with her own myths about coming to earth—though not in any physical incarnation. [The Jesus Puzzle (online version), II]

Expanding on these comments, Doherty states:

Judaism had its own intermediary figure going back centuries, certainly as old as Plato. ... among the scribes of the period following the Exile, God was presented as making himself known and working in the world through a part of himself they called “Wisdom”. This was no “Son” of God, however, for the figure of Wisdom was a female. ...

Wisdom took on a status and personality of her own. Some scholars claim that she was never anything more than a poetic personification of certain activities of God, but the language used of her speaks more than this. Helmut Ringgren, whose seminal book Word and Wisdom (1947) is widely cited in this field, says (p.104) that Wisdom was not an abstraction but “a concrete being, self-existent beside God.”

Personified Wisdom also represents part of a widespread tendency in Near Eastern religions to strip off certain aspects of a deity and turn them into separate divine figures. They began life simply as qualities of a higher god, but gradually, as more was said and thought about them, they took on a life of their own. ...

Wisdom may also have been pushed into the spotlight by a scribal establishment which wanted to counter a fascination for the Phoenician goddess Ishtar. [...] The figure of Wisdom probably owes something to an expurgated Ishtar.

{end excerpts}

======

 

[incubus_dark]

Hi Dark,

I have distilled your charecteristics of a Dominant.

The dominant is a person with very low self-esteem.
He controls his partner by controlling sex.
Because of his insecurities, he removes the power of objection, creates a ‘construct’ in which he has more control and power then his partner.
He uses instinctive and or otherwise learned knowledge to reinforce the model.


This does not make a pretty picture.

This model forgets one thing; it is not accepted by society to be dominant, if anything quite the contrary. So what would be his motivation, only low self-esteem? The validity of the low self-esteem being his motivation has its flaws. Someone with low self-esteem could not keep the boat afloat, the moment they would encounter resistance they could not fight back.

We seem to forget society in all of our constructs; we tend to centralize on our own little world forgetting outside influences. It is not accepted to be dominant. It is not seen as normal behaviour. So the question remains what drives a person to going against the grain of society and becoming a Dominant.

The first struggle in almost all of us is the inner one. We are forced to take a good look inside and decide if we are freaks, perverted beings, possessed by demons. Anyone with a low self-esteem will not likely find the motivation to make this journey.

Francisco.

Hi Francisco and everyone else,

I agree, it's not a pretty picture, but that doesn't make it automatically false. The construct I presented does not necessarily imply low self esteem, though that may indeed be the case. Perhaps it implies something more along the lines of self doubt with aggressive overcompensation. Thus, the motivation is to reafirm the self image and compensate for those circumstances that threaten said self image. And too, in many societies, and until recent times in ours, many things that we consider now to be the presserve of the dom, were considered the norm and this still lurks in the cultural background.

Even were low self esteem a primary factor, there are no grounds to assume that this negates the functionality of the conjecture. It would depend on how the dom compensates for this low self esteem and I have encountered many instances where low self esteem is compensated for by the individual presenting an aggressive or assertive persona. Many wife abusers are thought to do so out of low self esteem combined with learned behavioural patters, whereas many who have learned similar behavioural patterns though whose self esteem seems to be normal, don't manifest abusive behaviour. And too, Denis Nilson, Jeffry Dahmer and Ed Gein were all profiled and later analysed to have low self esteem, yet managed to impose their will on mutliple paramours. Conversely, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and Fred and Rosemary West enjoyed similar exploits but who enjoyed good self esteem. This suggests that low self esteem does not negate the conjecture and possibly suggests that self esteem may be irrelevant to it.

Your arguments are good, but they don't yet appear to refute the conjecture. Try harder, please; I really, really want this conjectural construct refuted.

Another technique in science, when the nature of the problem is poorly defined and too broad for evidential testing, or where evidence is scarce (like the problem posed by the questions of this thread), is to propose a conjectural model, or a series of them, and attempt to refute them. This is because it is more difficult to refute than to argue one's opinion, and if achieved, gives solid grounds for ruling out some possibilities. Thus, if we rule out what is not, we just may reveal what is, or at least come closer to it.

I'll refine the conjecture a little: Lets assume the models proposed are the extremes and that there is a spectrum tending towards the societal norm, and furthermore, a spectrum involving additional and even less pleasant traits, tending towards those more negative behaviours. So, our doms and subs don't have to be exactly like the models, but as they are less like them, their bahviour is either more or less extreme, depending on the nature of their deviation.

If we can refute this model, we can either refine it as we go towards an irrefutable, and thus potentially proveable model, or use it to rule out characteristics in a new proposal. How else might we conclusively answer the questions Pure originally proposed? I've no idea.

 

[Netzach]

I don't even remember the questions originally posed or what I'm trying to refute.

Damn you all, you are hurting my head like a Barthes sandwich!

(Perhaps we could put the Goddess in her own compartment, I don't remember why she tiptoed in again, but it's not my thread to kvetch about)

ID, so perhaps we're putting too much of, oh, a value judgement on the idea of compensation?

Perhaps "balance" is a more neutral word than "compensating" or "overcompensating?"

I think that there's some validity in this, this is my experience as a female Top, especially. (No I will not wander off into a differrence Feminist haze, I promise) Simply put, though, you lose a sense of self through being "trained to be a girl" You lose touch with having a right to your own preferences, with a sense of entitlement, with a sense of selfishness, with a sense of...well, what I might even call "violence."

I'm sure that male Tops face a lot of self-negation as well, I just think that certain of these constructs are less rigorously enforced for most men I talk to.

I don't know what pulls me more toward excercising power than feeling powerless or an irrelevance of having power. I suspect there are certain things in my childhood, definitely, that I am revisiting and refuting every time I make a decision and stick with it. However, I think that the larger part is determined *in response* to my partner and his *submissive* responses.

I can't be certain I'd be so far to the one side of the spectrum, were he not as far toward the other. It's not that I'm serving his desire, or even constantly aware of it, but I will say that submission is, for me, a stimulus. Then again, if I weren't so far toward this end of the spectrum would I find him attractive, would I be drawn in?

Chickens, eggs.