The Angel/Devil complex

[Ebonyfire]

Devils are quintessentially sadistic in that their strength lies in what they can force others to endure. [/i]

What about avenging angels? They can be sadistic too.

Eb

 

[Marquis]

Sorry master, I haven't gotten you your Xbox 360 yet.

That's fine, we'll proceed with your castration scene as planned.

 

[Aeroil]

Do you have the space cleared out so you can keep them above your headboard? you promised me you'd keep them there always!

 

[Marquis]

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.'

This is close to the image I was going for. I think it's important to point out that no one does or should embody the Angel or Devil archetype with the totality of their being.

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.)

I was using the terms "masochistic" and "sadistic" in both a very broad and a very general sense, redefining them to a degree, and it is entirely my fault that I've been met with such confusion for that reason.

I agree with you about differing dimensions of BDSM and I think that's actually crucial to my theory having any credibility (if it can, indeed, be shown to have any).

There are elements of the BDSM acronym that encompass fetishes (like bondage) that do not necessarily make any implications on a power exchange. Likewise, I think there are many fetishes that have come to be commonly understood to fall under the "BDSM" umbrella that have not only no power element necessary, nor any direct relation to any of the words the acronym stands for.

The "furries" fetish comes to mind.

I was trying to narrow my discussion to those people who are attracted to HPDRs, but I can see that some inconsistencies arise even there.

The proverbial lawyer/executive with a traditional vanilla marriage who seeks the services of a pro-Domme would be excluded from the framework I'm trying to create, but it's hard for me to pinpoint why his relationship, albeit part time, with his Domme is not a valid one.

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'

This was my intention from the beginning. I have great respect for your skills in logic and articulation, if you have any suggestions on how to rephrase my theory to possibly salvage something valuable from it, I would be thrilled to hear them.

 

[Marquis]

To be honest with you, I think that this thread will be too inbibed in what people think of when they hear (read) "Angel" and "Devil"

You're right this is turning out to be quite a problem, made even more complicated by imperfect articulation of my ideas.

 

[Marquis]

Do you have the space cleared out so you can keep them above your headboard? you promised me you'd keep them there always!

If that's your desire then you best work on my Xbox 360, and it better be the version with the harddrive and wireless controllers.

Otherwise I'll be giving your reproductive organs to Ebonyfire, and God knows what she'll do to them.

 

[Marquis]

I, too, would like to know Marquis' personal definition of objectification as intended in his posts.

I reserve a formal definition for a time when I have the intellectual energy to post one.

I will say, however, that having your sub assume the role of furniture certainly qualifies as objectification in my book.

 

[Pure]

hi marquis

the archetypal psychology of dominant and submissive persons is certainly worthy of discussion

if i may summarize some of my own and others' impressions of your proposed linkages.

many saw the point of devil = dom, though i'd be happier calling this entity "Satan" [literally, the adversary]. he, of course, is a rebel against the father figure {see below}

some of us had trouble with 'angel' esp. as regards suffering; alternatives are the Innocent, the Baby, the Child, the Lamb. maybe the Maiden {also Saint, or Martyr}

----
backtracking a little, the most obvious archetypes are--for dom-- Father or Mother, as Quint pointed out. for sub--Child. Father might be Jupiter or Saturn, as a figure. Jupiter connotes expansiveness, authority, largesse, and largeness, which fits the physical specifications of some dom folks.

one obvious problem here is that, at least for the Greeks, the fathers of myth rarely fuck their children. the Oedipal son does fuck the Mother---hmmm. how to work that in. Oedipus = Dom, and Jocasta= Sub?

but as has often been said, some proportion of Dominant persons are not in it for sex outlet (the vanilla Dom).

the 'fucking' problem, marquis, does swing me back towards your proposed Satan identification *for the sexual Dominant*. also this helps explain the problem you raised in the other thread. the Dom gone mad, the mr. Norman is like a Satan who thinks he is God. Same for people like Lake and Jamelske.

---
isn't it odd that both the Father and the Adversary of or Rebel against Father seem involved in the Dominant's psyche?


---
after thinking about the Sadist, the best archetype, besides Saturn/Kronos (which denotes cruelty), seems to be the Demon {a devil}. Saturn devoured his children; therefore [as above for Dom] Child may correspond to the Sadist's object.

----

===
all in all. given the variety of Doms both the Parent and the Adversary/Satan --esp the latter--are possible identifications. i do think this is a valuable piece of your model to date!

best,
j.

 

[Marquis]

many saw the point of devil = dom, though i'd be happier calling this entity "Satan" [literally, the adversary]. he, of course, is a rebel against the father figure {see below}

I se "Devil" as a functionally analogous but less inflammatory way of saying "Satan." I do think the "Lucifer" mythos is inherent in them both.

some of us had trouble with 'angel' esp. as regards suffering; alternatives are the Innocent, the Baby, the Child, the Lamb. maybe the Maiden {also Saint, or Martyr}

I think that an appreciation (spiritual, physical, mental or emotional) for suffering is important to my characterization. Perhaps "Angel" does not project this image for most people, making it confusing. I primarily chose "Angel" as the aesthetic opposite to "Devil".

backtracking a little, the most obvious archetypes are--for dom-- Father or Mother, as Quint pointed out. for sub--Child. Father might be Jupiter or Saturn, as a figure. Jupiter connotes expansiveness, authority, largesse, and largeness, which fits the physical specifications of some dom folks.

one obvious problem here is that, at least for the Greeks, the fathers of myth rarely fuck their children. the Oedipal son does fuck the Mother---hmmm. how to work that in. Oedipus = Dom, and Jocasta= Sub?

I have several problems with the parent/child analogy. For one thing I am trying to step away from the Superior/inferior model of thought and look at the dom/sub roles as opposite but "equal" states of being.

I think there are some interesting ideas to be found in the Oedipus/Jocasta model, and Rosco and I have discussed it before. Not necessarily in the traditional Oedipal/Electra complex sense, but perhaps this is something that could explored further.

also this helps explain the problem you raised in the other thread. the Dom gone mad, the mr. Norman is like a Satan who thinks he is God. Same for people like Lake and Jamelske.

Bingo.

isn't it odd that both the Father and the Adversary of or Rebel against Father seem involved in the Dominant's psyche?

I don't think this is strange at all. To use the Oedipus model again for a second; Oedipus being a dom doesn't make Laius a sub.

In fact, putting morality aside, I don't see a great deal of difference between the characters of God (who I assume you mean when you refer to the Father) and Satan as presented in the bible. Both seem engaged in a struggle to win the allegiance of man through various (often similar) means of influence.

To further the biblical analogy, I think Jesus would then be a quintessential example of the "Angel" archetype as I've delineated (I alluded to this earlier with my statements about love from pity and love from fear). Religiously speaking, is not Satan's primary sin desiring to be a god himself, while Jesus' prestige lies in his ultimate submission to God?

 

[jadefirefly]

Listen. I take a dim view of people fucking with me. That includes you.

interesting. I always assumed "fucking with" implied either name calling, insults, or generally harrassing or being a complete tool.

You know -- what you were doing? It's a funny world.

Ask me if I care what view you take of me. I'll bet you can already guess, though. So I'll just point out that I take a dim view of people who have already decided they're done with a discussion/debate/thread and keep coming back anyway, just to pound their thoughts into someone else who is trying to follow the discussion still.

Why don't you go harrass the folks who "don't understand" Dommes? I'm sure that's better entertainment. But if you really feel better sitting in here threatning me, I'm sure I can try to be flattered by the attention.

 

[satindesire]

You're right this is turning out to be quite a problem, made even more complicated by imperfect articulation of my ideas.

I don't know if this will be any comfort to you...(I hope so) but I don't think it was because your articulation was 'imperfect' per say, as much as it was too open to interpertation to other people. It's actually a VERY good model, just far too acute, you know what I mean?

Listen. I take a dim view of people fucking with me. That includes you.

Hey, don't you think you're taking this all a little too personally? I didn't read any sort of maliciousness in any statements towards you. Try to relax and not be so sensitive, everyone here is trying -hard- to communicate on what's turning out to be a very difficult discussion to render useable, and getting hot under the collar won't help anyone.

What about avenging angels? They can be sadistic too.

I personally don't think that the typical Judeo/Christian Avenging angel is sadistic at all. Since they're God's creations and love humans just as much as God does, one would suppose that them taking pleasure in harming a beautiful thing that God has so much love for would be heartbreaking to them.

I think of Avenging Angels like...hmm...how to articulate this...Like well meaning older brothers and sisters. If Mom and Dad put them in charge to make sure you get your licks in for being bad, they might not like it one bit, but they have to do it. Of course, this is IMHO.

Added in edit: I hope you meant the typical Judeo/Christian Avenging Angel. If I mistook you, I really apologize!

Hope that makes sense. >_<

You know, even though we're really being -mean- to Marquis and NOT really discussing what he wanted to, this is turning out to be a really interesting thread. Me being a Christian, I suppose I have a special interest in what other people veiw when the image of Angels, Devils, Lucifer, and God comes up.

I'm sorry Marquis. It's just not turning out what you wanted, is it?

 

[incubus'_sub]

Hell, don't sic her back onto me. I never said we didn't understand either, just that it is not to our own sexual taste.

I don't like to eat cheese either, don't like the taste. However I do accept that others do & enjoy it. I don't consider that to be an insulting or derogatory statement about other peoples' tastes either, but I'm sure someone will think so.

Marquis, they're all yours. Hijack over, sorry.

 

[jadefirefly]

*hug I_S* I wasn't trying to be mean to you, sorry!

 

[satindesire]

Hell, don't sic her back onto me. I never said we didn't understand either, just that it is not to our own sexual taste.

Sweetie, don't feel bad. The BDSM world is full of all kinds, not everyone practices and understands everything! We still love ya.

 

[Aeroil]

Hell, don't sic her back onto me. I never said we didn't understand either, just that it is not to our own sexual taste.......

To be perfectly honest, & not wishing to offend anyone here, we just don't "get" female Dommes or male subs......

---

interesting. I always assumed "fucking with" implied either name calling, insults, or generally harrassing or being a complete tool.

You know -- what you were doing? It's a funny world.

Ask me if I care what view you take of me. I'll bet you can already guess, though. So I'll just point out that I take a dim view of people who have already decided they're done with a discussion/debate/thread and keep coming back anyway, just to pound their thoughts into someone else who is trying to follow the discussion still.

Why don't you go harrass the folks who "don't understand" Dommes? I'm sure that's better entertainment. But if you really feel better sitting in here threatning me, I'm sure I can try to be flattered by the attention.

wee, such a rarity that someone sticks up for me ^_^ thanks jade. You are right, not once have I ever tried to be mean in this thread, doesn't look like to me that you have attempted that either.

Marquis, I understood what you were talking about pretty well, but it does indeed seem that there are too many people with different definitions on Angels and Devils, it might be better to pick some better symbols, or just elaborate really really well so people don't start sticking their own 5's into your equation full of 4's

 

[jadefirefly]

I feel like sticking a 6 in there. Is that okay?

 

[Pure]

good afternoon, marquis,

M In fact, putting morality aside, I don't see a great deal of difference between the characters of God (who I assume you mean when you refer to the Father) and Satan as presented in the bible. Both seem engaged in a struggle to win the allegiance of man through various (often similar) means of influence.

P: Well, one is 'number one' and the other is number two, capiche?

or perhaps you have gnostic tendencies?


M: To further the biblical analogy, I think Jesus would then be a quintessential example of the "Angel" archetype as I've delineated (I alluded to this earlier with my statements about love from pity and love from fear). Religiously speaking, is not Satan's primary sin desiring to be a god himself, while Jesus' prestige lies in his ultimate submission to God?

P: Yes, J is treated a the "lamb" of the OT (Is 53:7) "Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him, to cause him to suffer" (53:10).

I have no idea about historicity, but the Jesus (or Christ) figure of Catholicism, for example in Mel Gibson's SM frolic, is certainly the masochist par excellence.
-----

PS. Note: For me, "Satan" is preferable, since it connote 'rebel,' whereas "Devil" connotes 'evil.' The OT has passing refs to 'demons' or 'devils' (Deut 32:17), compare Matt 7:22, but not to one super- or uber-demon.

The NT has refs to 'Beelzebub' (Beelzeboul) " prince of demons"
("ruler of demons") Matt 12:24. This concept seems to have arisen in the intertestamentary period (says Anchor BD), and greatly elaborated as one approaches the Middle Ages.

 

[Kajira Callista]

Religiously speaking, is not Satan's primary sin desiring to be a god himself, while Jesus' prestige lies in his ultimate submission to God?

Religion...I always swear to shut my mouth and tie my fingers and here we gooo....
Jesus does not submit to God because they are one in the same... Well one of three. Ya know...Father Son and Holy Spirit.
If you were referring to when he was one of us then I have to say that the only thing he did submit to was his Fathers (God) will.
Maybe Jesus was a switch...or maybe we are back to the Parent/child thing again. *shrug*

 

[Marquis]

P: Well, one is 'number one' and the other is number two, capiche?

or perhaps you have gnostic tendencies?

I'm not catching the reference to gnosticism, but my knowledge on the topic is a bit limited.

I don't think their relative importance or "alpha" level has relevance to their position on the dom/sub spectrum. In a wolfpack the alpha female submits to the alpha male, likewise with the beta down to the omega. I've argued this point many times on these boards, but being a weak dom doesn't make you a sub (nor does being a demanding sub make you a dom).

P: Yes, J is treated a the "lamb" of the OT (Is 53:7) "Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him, to cause him to suffer" (53:10).

I have no idea about historicity, but the Jesus (or Christ) figure of Catholicism, for example in Mel Gibson's SM frolic, is certainly the masochist par excellence.
-----

PS. Note: For me, "Satan" is preferable, since it connote 'rebel,' whereas "Devil" connotes 'evil.' The OT has passing refs to 'demons' or 'devils' (Deut 32:17), compare Matt 7:22, but not to one super- or uber-demon.

The NT has refs to 'Beelzebub' (Beelzeboul) " prince of demons"
("ruler of demons") Matt 12:24. This concept seems to have arisen in the intertestamentary period (says Anchor BD), and greatly elaborated as one approaches the Middle Ages.

I'm not sure I agree with your connotation, and whatever the case, they are certainly to be perceived differently by different people.

Religious trivia aside, do you see my theory taking greater shape, as I've presented and framed it.

If so, I'd like to begin exploring some other related questions.

 

[Pure]

hi marquis,

i think the best part of your model is the paralleling of dom and devil (Satan). i have great probs with 'angel' (not to say, 'angle') as correlative, proposed to fit subs. Perhaps, imo, 'saint' (or devote') would work, for 'sub.'

i'm a bit unclear as to the aim of the theorizing, but presumably it's to account for dom and sub behavior, desires, etc. that said, the essential problem is that self labeled 'doms' and 'dommes' come in so many varieties. for instance some doms are highly conventional, like their 'subs', and not at all 'bad boys' or 'wild ones' (Brando). i think, to start off, you're going to have to tackle the old question, "who are the real[genuine] doms".

this return to the basic 'which are the 'highly power differential' relationships, and i personally think deviations from the norm are uncommon. iwo, many a 'dom' has no more power [no higher differential position] than the traditional husband. man a sub is no more into 'submitting' than is the traditional wife.


on the gender question: that's a tough one, but certainly 'devil' can be a woman, as in "she devil". Again, there is a problem of conventional 'sweetie pie' dommes. Saint or devote' would apply equally to a man.

---
as to sadist/masochist, my preferred is Demon/Child (or Waif or Innocent). there is no question as to female sadists, incubus and co. (perhaps?) notwithstanding. the problem is around 'dom' and gender. created by Sade are such notables as Juliette, Delbene, etc.
---

i would be delighted if you continued your llines of thought in these matters; you have to go by your own compass and not be overly influenced during the creative process.

best,
j.

 

[Ebonyfire]

But if you really feel better sitting in here threatning me, I'm sure I can try to be flattered by the attention.

Whatever dear. Threatening you? You are really off base. But I will not bother to set you straight. Go ahead and play child.

 

[Aeroil]

How ironic, the 56 year old calls someone a child in one of the most childish ways possible.

 

[Ebonyfire]

How ironic, the 56 year old calls someone a child in one of the most childish ways possible.

Coming from you that means absolutely nothing! You may fool the other people around here, but you do not fool me. Keep it coming lightweight!

 

[Aeroil]

Coming from you that means absolutely nothing! You may fool the other people around here, but you do not fool me. Keep it coming lightweight!

Explain how please.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Explain how please.

Get a book.