The Angel/Devil complex
- Thread starter Marquis
- Start date
Ebonyfire
Ball Stretcher
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2002
- Posts
- 11,729
Aeroil said:
Here is the definition of objectification I adhere to:
Objectification refers to the way in which one person treats another person as an object and not as a human being .
In that context, it does not fit.
My slave is a human being obeying His Mistress by assuming the position of a footstool or anything else I decide. he is not an object. he is a man who is doing what I told him to do.
Eb
SpectreT
Knight in Tarnished Armor
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,905
I'm still formulating. I'm not sure the analogy holds up perfectly, but whatever's not ringing true about it, is only bouncing around in my subconscious. (no, that wasn't a pun) I don't yet have words for the tiny nits that might get picked once my thoughts are together. It's not a bad hypothesis, as far as it goes, and as it's strictly defined in the original post, it just seems to miss covering some elements. It also intentionally disregards transgressive archetypes, which could be of value to the discussion were they included.
That said, based on Marqis' descriptions of angels and devils for the purposes of this discussion, I'm an angel - balancing my halo on my horns.
And I'm not big on "High" power differentials - I'm a little more midrange, which I think will show through in any posts I make to the thread, once I get my higher brain functions wrapped around the whole concept, rather than bits and pieces.
It also brings to mind a story I read in a book once. A beaten down, worn out devil was lying in a gutter, and an angel helped him up, got him some food and drink and a place to stay and rest up. An observer asked the angel why she did this.
"Don't you see?" the angel spoke. "Without him, there is no me."
edit to add:
Also, one of my favorite BDSM-themed angel-devil pairings used female voluptuous examples of their respective breeds. The devil girl was roped up and ballgagged, looking over her shoulder at the angel girl, who was sodomizing the devil girl with a strapon. The artist clearly had a "look of love" between them.
That said, based on Marqis' descriptions of angels and devils for the purposes of this discussion, I'm an angel - balancing my halo on my horns.
And I'm not big on "High" power differentials - I'm a little more midrange, which I think will show through in any posts I make to the thread, once I get my higher brain functions wrapped around the whole concept, rather than bits and pieces.
It also brings to mind a story I read in a book once. A beaten down, worn out devil was lying in a gutter, and an angel helped him up, got him some food and drink and a place to stay and rest up. An observer asked the angel why she did this.
"Don't you see?" the angel spoke. "Without him, there is no me."
edit to add:
Also, one of my favorite BDSM-themed angel-devil pairings used female voluptuous examples of their respective breeds. The devil girl was roped up and ballgagged, looking over her shoulder at the angel girl, who was sodomizing the devil girl with a strapon. The artist clearly had a "look of love" between them.
Last edited:
Aeroil
Aerouille, Ma Chérie
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2005
- Posts
- 3,227
True, but for those of us trying to understand his little angel/demon framework, we have to use his definition, of course it won't make sense if we think of his theory if we start using different definitions, it just won't translate, its like me trying to figure out a math problem but substituting every 4 with a 5.Ebonyfire said:
Last edited:
Ebonyfire
Ball Stretcher
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2002
- Posts
- 11,729
Aeroil said:
That is not necessarily necessary or true. If his definition has no meaning to the person, it cannot be used. I am 56 years old. I only look at life using the language I understand. I have already said that the framework does not work for me. So my definition only needs to have meaning to me. Take it for what it's worth, or leave it alone. I do not care. Understood?
Last edited:
Aeroil
Aerouille, Ma Chérie
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2005
- Posts
- 3,227
Ebonyfire said:
Everybody does... that's.... I don't think it can work any other way..... Obviously, if people are misunderstanding him based on word dfinition, that's why I'd ask him for his definition, which I did, so people can use their own that means the same thing to him.
>_<
jadefirefly
Numb
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Posts
- 2,023
Ebonyfire said:
I don't think you misunderstood him, either. But nobody is trying to convince you to listen to the requested definition, or trying to make you accept it. One was asked for, is all.
No need to beat the guy into the ground for making an inquiry so that he can clarify his own thoughts on it. Once I got done sorting through all the respective ass-chewing "I'm right for me and so I don't care what you think, and I'm going to keep telling you that, too"s I completely lost track of what the hell was actually being SAID.
I, too, would like to know Marquis' personal definition of objectification as intended in his posts.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Comments on Marquis' ideas
hi,
you said, in part,
M: I now propose the theory that submissives are attracted to the "Angel" archetype, while dominants are attracted to the "Devil' archetype.
Immediate proof of this is present at a first glance observation of BDSM art, which often depicts demonic characters in positions of sexual dominance over angelic characters. Further proof of this aesthetic attraction can be found in the costumes often seen at fetish parties or costume parties, with tops dressed as demonic figures and bottoms dressed as angelic figures. Further evidence can often be seen in the avatars and handles chosen by members of this forum.
I think the correlation goes much deeper than this however.
I think the relationship between these two characters largely parallels its religious representation. Both being necessary and even symbiotic to the maintenace of order within a diverse universe.
The Angel represents purity and serenity. Angels (both the cultural archetype and the personality type I'm describing) are healers, nurturers and caregivers. They represent selflessness and sacrifice. Some positive characteristics of Angels can be found in their tolerance, their humility and their ability to remain loving and innocent in the face of adversity.
Angels are quintessentially masochistic in that their strength lies in what they can endure.
The Devil represents egoism, independence and a will to power. Devils are warriors and dictators, accepting (sometimes reluctantly, often enthusiastically) the responsibility for "distasteful" but necessary action. They represent human desires like lust, greed and territoriality.
Devils are quintessentially sadistic in that their strength lies in what they can force others to endure.
---
P: you say elsewhere that you're interested in people attracted to relationships with high power differential.
that seems like a valid pursuit. i can see some application of 'angel' and 'devil' to those at the ends of the power continuum, though i, like others, have some problem with 'angel' as lacking in assertiveness, suffereing everything. sounds more like a 'saint' or 'martyr.'
the best fit perhaps is of Satan or Lucifer to some doms and dommes; a key concept being willfulness and playing by the rules one sets oneself.
---
where i disagree is with the apparent attempt to put the "bdsm" world onto one axis or continuum. this is quite common in this forum and in the literature. somehow everything is about 'who's a dom; who's a sub.'
i think SM is a quasi separate dimension. perhaps there are others to do with fetishism and with humiliation. the history of SM supports the idea of an independent dimension since i don't see the 'sub' thing taking off until mr. masoch published his fantasies.
so i don't agree with either of the two bolded statements, e.g., the one alleging that this 'devilish,' power-exercizing, commander is a sadist. being 'hard on one's men', causing them to endure various unpleasant things and even get killed is simply a *means* for the good commander.
this is not to say a commander can't be (also) sadistic, but it's not necessary. in this forum and thread, based on my impression, i don't see Ebonyfire as particularly sadistic; yet she is in control. (maybe that's a source of her objection to your model.)
looking at your statement
MDevils are quintessentially sadistic in that their strength lies in what they can force others to endure.
P: it blurs the issue of 'endure.' good military commanders like Patton 'force' their men to endure a lot. contrast that with an SS officer running a prison camp for Jews and undesirables who relishes cruel measures (to be endured) *above and beyond what's necessary for keeping order.* (take the officer who gives the character "Sophie", her choice, in that book.)
---
so i'd suggest that you narrow the proposed scope of your theory and model; i.e., have it apply just to 'doms' and 'subs'
hi,
you said, in part,
M: I now propose the theory that submissives are attracted to the "Angel" archetype, while dominants are attracted to the "Devil' archetype.
Immediate proof of this is present at a first glance observation of BDSM art, which often depicts demonic characters in positions of sexual dominance over angelic characters. Further proof of this aesthetic attraction can be found in the costumes often seen at fetish parties or costume parties, with tops dressed as demonic figures and bottoms dressed as angelic figures. Further evidence can often be seen in the avatars and handles chosen by members of this forum.
I think the correlation goes much deeper than this however.
I think the relationship between these two characters largely parallels its religious representation. Both being necessary and even symbiotic to the maintenace of order within a diverse universe.
The Angel represents purity and serenity. Angels (both the cultural archetype and the personality type I'm describing) are healers, nurturers and caregivers. They represent selflessness and sacrifice. Some positive characteristics of Angels can be found in their tolerance, their humility and their ability to remain loving and innocent in the face of adversity.
Angels are quintessentially masochistic in that their strength lies in what they can endure.
The Devil represents egoism, independence and a will to power. Devils are warriors and dictators, accepting (sometimes reluctantly, often enthusiastically) the responsibility for "distasteful" but necessary action. They represent human desires like lust, greed and territoriality.
Devils are quintessentially sadistic in that their strength lies in what they can force others to endure.
---
P: you say elsewhere that you're interested in people attracted to relationships with high power differential.
that seems like a valid pursuit. i can see some application of 'angel' and 'devil' to those at the ends of the power continuum, though i, like others, have some problem with 'angel' as lacking in assertiveness, suffereing everything. sounds more like a 'saint' or 'martyr.'
the best fit perhaps is of Satan or Lucifer to some doms and dommes; a key concept being willfulness and playing by the rules one sets oneself.
---
where i disagree is with the apparent attempt to put the "bdsm" world onto one axis or continuum. this is quite common in this forum and in the literature. somehow everything is about 'who's a dom; who's a sub.'
i think SM is a quasi separate dimension. perhaps there are others to do with fetishism and with humiliation. the history of SM supports the idea of an independent dimension since i don't see the 'sub' thing taking off until mr. masoch published his fantasies.
so i don't agree with either of the two bolded statements, e.g., the one alleging that this 'devilish,' power-exercizing, commander is a sadist. being 'hard on one's men', causing them to endure various unpleasant things and even get killed is simply a *means* for the good commander.
this is not to say a commander can't be (also) sadistic, but it's not necessary. in this forum and thread, based on my impression, i don't see Ebonyfire as particularly sadistic; yet she is in control. (maybe that's a source of her objection to your model.)
looking at your statement
MDevils are quintessentially sadistic in that their strength lies in what they can force others to endure.
P: it blurs the issue of 'endure.' good military commanders like Patton 'force' their men to endure a lot. contrast that with an SS officer running a prison camp for Jews and undesirables who relishes cruel measures (to be endured) *above and beyond what's necessary for keeping order.* (take the officer who gives the character "Sophie", her choice, in that book.)
---
so i'd suggest that you narrow the proposed scope of your theory and model; i.e., have it apply just to 'doms' and 'subs'
Last edited:
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Huh.
I guess it's a Judeo thing, but Angels scare the fuck out of me. They are not nurturing, they will kick your ungodly ass back to the dirt you crawled from, they tend to feign disguises to check up on how we're doing, and they'll fuck us completely if their Boss tells them to do it.
When I think about archetype and domination, Angel and Devil are both Dominant archetypes. The fluffy bunny pink and white "sub" fetish look has more to do with schoolgirl/child "innocence" paradigms, which is really creepy if you dwell on it too much.
I guess it's a Judeo thing, but Angels scare the fuck out of me. They are not nurturing, they will kick your ungodly ass back to the dirt you crawled from, they tend to feign disguises to check up on how we're doing, and they'll fuck us completely if their Boss tells them to do it.
When I think about archetype and domination, Angel and Devil are both Dominant archetypes. The fluffy bunny pink and white "sub" fetish look has more to do with schoolgirl/child "innocence" paradigms, which is really creepy if you dwell on it too much.
Last edited:
Kajira Callista
Empty
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Posts
- 19,348
I guess I'm odd because i see things a little backwards...well hell it is established that i am odd so i am sure this won't make me odd-er.
Angel= higher up, sainted, saintly
Devil = bottom, bad (or unworthy or whatever it is i think i am) dark
Sooooooo I find dominants angelic or saintly because they actually like and try to bring out in me anything i see as a flaw or fault. There are tons of other reasons too but i think those evolve around my religious upbringing and i prefer not to defend myself on that subject right now.
Angel= higher up, sainted, saintly
Devil = bottom, bad (or unworthy or whatever it is i think i am) dark
Sooooooo I find dominants angelic or saintly because they actually like and try to bring out in me anything i see as a flaw or fault. There are tons of other reasons too but i think those evolve around my religious upbringing and i prefer not to defend myself on that subject right now.
