The Angel/Devil complex

[Aeroil]

How senseless this entire thing is >_<

 

[Ebonyfire]

How senseless this entire thing is >_<

Then why don't you find something to do?

 

[Kajira Callista]

How senseless this entire thing is >_<

I agree... come teach me how to fence instead.

 

[Aeroil]

Man, I'm a terrible teacher, but I could teach you some Foil. Don't ask me to teach you Epee, I never had actual lessons and just play it by feel, which of course means I get eaten alive by anyone with some finesse, Warrioroil was taken during an Epee tournament that I came last in. 'course, I'd learned Epee a week before that tourney, I at least have a few months experience with it now.

 

[Marquis]

One more fine thread fallen prey to Ebonyfire's ceaseless raging and Aeroil's constant trollbaiting.

 

[Aeroil]

And Debonairism!

haha, fine, I'll make a serious post in a few secs

Edit

I think you may be able to go somewhere with the theory as you framed it, I understood what you were talking about pretty well, but the only way to know is to try.
Also, you must immediately start editing posts that try to be too literal, lay down the hammer, man!
(wish I had a hammer emoticon)

 

[Pure]

hi marquis

i'm biased, but it seems to me you should use your moderator powers to move sections of threads or whole threads which contain only chatter, whether good natured or ill. I think the latter cases, e.g., here, just now, are especially clear. They could be moved to the cafe, and let folks bicker to their hearts content, tell jokes, discuss pets, whatever. If they are only 'flames', then possibly they could be moved to 'mod queue', which is essentially oblivion.

i don't blame any one person, since the 'back and forth' always requires two eager, if inconsiderate, participants. deciding who said the first insult is putting oneself in the role of kindergarten teacher trying to find which kid first threw sand, in the sandbox.

if mods do not keep threads *in this forum on topic*--with the assistance and support of all-- they are merely spam and lit-offenses [private info., etc.] deleters. i'm sure there are objectors to such a plan, but i wonder why a couple dozen threads in the cafe are not enough outlet for your playfulness.
===

IOW, my friends, put some 'muscle' into you 'welcome' statement

We do not encourage off topic material (excessive flirting or personal conversation that interrupts serious topics) in BDSM Talk threads. Light conversation, flirting, off topic type threads, and funtimes are appreciated and to be had in the BDSM Cafe . Flame wars are also discouraged.

 

[SpectreT]

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 continues your threads of thought in these matters; you have to go by your own compass and not be overly influenced during the creative process.

best,
j.

Parts of this read like another vote to introduce transgressive archetypes into the discussion. Limited as we are by the original framework, there's just not much discussion available. Including the opposites, and some frame of reference to include those who are neither Alpha nor Omega, but somewhere in between, would add some dimensions, and give everyone more to work with. I think that might have been the crux of the issues I had with the original post, too.

 

[Pure]

i think that's right spectre, about transgression. putting it another way, unless the person has some 'self will' (Satan's prerogative), then said dom/domme is likely a Daddy or Mommy figure [in which case s/he remains a dom *of that type*] or a more or less equal, play partner, despite the roles [in which case there is no nonnormal degree of domination]--example of this latter case: you play the cop, i play the prisoner.

 

[Marquis]

i'm biased, but it seems to me you should use your moderator powers to move sections of threads or whole threads which contain only chatter, whether good natured or ill. I think the latter cases, e.g., here, just now, are especially clear. They could be moved to the cafe, and let folks bicker to their hearts content, tell jokes, discuss pets, whatever. If they are only 'flames', then possibly they could be moved to 'mod queue', which is essentially oblivion.

i don't blame any one person, since the 'back and forth' always requires two eager, if inconsiderate, participants. deciding who said the first insult is putting oneself in the role of kindergarten teacher trying to find which kid first threw sand, in the sandbox.

if mods do not keep threads *in this forum on topic*--with the assistance and support of all-- they are merely spam and lit-offenses [private info., etc.] deleters. i'm sure there are objectors to such a plan, but i wonder why a couple dozen threads in the cafe are not enough outlet for your playfulness.
===

IOW, my friends, put some 'muscle' into you 'welcome' statement

We do not encourage off topic material (excessive flirting or personal conversation that interrupts serious topics) in BDSM Talk threads. Light conversation, flirting, off topic type threads, and funtimes are appreciated and to be had in the BDSM Cafe . Flame wars are also discouraged.

Curious, is that how you operate on the forum you moderate?

I can see the value in it, but I have a few problems with it.

For one, I think it could be a bit stifling and I don't want to discourage people from speaking freely, despite the occasional problems that creates.

More importantly, I don't have the time or inclination to edit every inappropriate post. It's often extremely tempting, but my general policy is that if I can't do it all the time, I shouldn't do it at all. Selective enforcement would certainly leave many members of the forum feeling disenfranchised.

 

[Marquis]

Parts of this read like another vote to introduce transgressive archetypes into the discussion. Limited as we are by the original framework, there's just not much discussion available. Including the opposites, and some frame of reference to include those who are neither Alpha nor Omega, but somewhere in between, would add some dimensions, and give everyone more to work with. I think that might have been the crux of the issues I had with the original post, too.

What are you referring to when you say transgressive archetypes?

I get the sense you are talking about switches, but my understanding of the word would point to people operating outside the accepted range of behavior, like the Normans.

If you're talking about the Normans, I think they fit into my framework well, if you're talking about switches or moderates, I have an answer for that too.

 

[Pure]

Curious, is that how you operate on the forum you moderate?

yes, in general.

i'm not fanatical about bits of chit chat, but insulting, flaming, 'characterizing' posts are deleted. off topic threads are moved {bad ones, to oblivion}.

i'm quite careful that 'content' is respected [left alone], even if heatedly expressed {if anything were deleted, it would be the insulting phrase, not the rest}. but the last run of posts, here, shows the usual 'content free' character of insult exchanges.

that said, 'my' forum has a narrower topic--writerly issues. an open ended bdsm forum when anyone may walk in and post requires more latitude, but not allowance of flames, or 'sez who?'.

 

[Marquis]

Your point is taken, but I don't see the problem as so pervasive that I'll be instituting any change in the near future. I'm comfortable with merely removing totally irrelevant threads and letting the relevant ones progress naturally.

I respect people's right to say "fuck you," and sometimes I even find it entertaining.

 

[SpectreT]

What are you referring to when you say transgressive archetypes?

I get the sense you are talking about switches, but my understanding of the word would point to people operating outside the accepted range of behavior, like the Normans.

If you're talking about the Normans, I think they fit into my framework well, if you're talking about switches or moderates, I have an answer for that too.

Not the Normans. Not exactly exactly switches, either (Some curiosity there, though, I'll admit), but perhaps I didn't understand the following correctly:

<snip>
An earlier attempt to understand this phenomenon showed Dominance as an essentially masculine characteristic, while submissiveness as essentially feminine. People attracted to HPDRs were then, often people with an unusually high adherence to the impulses of their gender. They were essentially, extremely sexist, from a biological/psychological standpoint, not a social or political one.

While I think there is often a correlation there, I don't think it's quite "tight" enough to show causation. Even trying to discount the existence of female dominants and male submissives as aberrant or reactive/rebellious does not truly present a cogent understanding of this phenomenon.
<snip>

...which seemed like a quick recap of the "gender bias" hypothesis (which isn't total bunk, but isn't on all fours either, as you pointed out).

As to "transgressive", I was more refering to those situations where the roles do not support the hypothesis. These examples, one of which follows your hypothesis, the other of which is transgressive, are from my post made amid the bickering:

<snip>

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.

Moreover, my post essentially had a "wait and see" opening paragraph, so it didn't truly need a response. I'm putting these out here for discussion, though.

 

[Quint]

...........

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Aaaaaaand angelpowers, revive!

Sttttreeetchhhhh.

Who are subs and who are doms, at their core?

Including the opposites, and some frame of reference to include those who are neither Alpha nor Omega, but somewhere in between, would add some dimensions, and give everyone more to work with.

Human, and i think that covers the poles and spectrum for you SpectreT.

Hmmm...I like the notion but am thrown by personality archetypes such as the "Daddy/Mommy Dom," who I can't in any way call a Devil. Not sure if there's a submissive equivalent that denies the "Angel" archetype, as the more greedy, lusty, and self-serving a submissive gets, the more who cry "wolf in sub's clothing."

Think cherubic innocence spoiled rotten Quint, i.e. the gorgeous golden curled lass on aisle five that just had a meltdown because Mom won't allow "desire of the moment" into the grocery cart. Sound familiar to a Sammy?

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 ... 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.

Sorry, i just had a rolling "Anya " flashback here.

What are we made of?

What a straight line ... Essentially, the same thing with minor variances across the board, but the sum of those parts can be quite interesting from model to model, unlike "human" attempts at mass production.

How are we different from the vanilla populace?

Based on the "vanilla" adjective, shall i assume you mean our erotic predilections, or should i toss proclivities in the furball just to get "natural" in the mix as well?

It is thus my proposition that people attracted to HPDRs are often found to have a personality complex that causes them to identify with one of the aforementioned archetypes.

Here are a few examples of mysterious phenomenon that this theory may help explain:

1. The paradox of submissives wanting to be "forced" to do things they enjoy, and enjoying things they are "forced" to do

Not all do, but i can think of some examples, to include humiliation play that add zing to the flavor.

2. The paradox of dominants wanting to earn the affection of their partners by torturing them

Hmm, not in my world, or at least not on a conscious level. i'm not all that interested in gaining a partner's affection as much as enjoying the hell (pun intended) out of myself (squared) when i go there.

3. The achievement of intimacy through objectification

Unlike Eb, i can go here and don't mind, although on the surface, the two "bolded" words seem incongruous with one another.

 

[Never]

incubus'_sub:
"Each to their own & we certainly respect everyone's own sexuality. Does that mean that we can't mention our own particular views because it doesn't encompass the entire spectrum?"

I think this is a non-question. You know you can mention your views as you already have.

I think the question you're asking is, "Can I mention my particular views and be certain that no one will criticize me for them?"

The answer is no.

If you express your views on this forum then other people will comment on them. As those views are a part of you, they might even comment on you within the limits of this forum.

 

[cfuhrer]

Oh gosh...I need a lot more coffee and at least two more readings to reply to this one.

hehe you're not the only one... will give more thought and respond later.

 

[cfuhrer]

I am now going to make an addition to this theory and say that Devils thrive on a love inspired by fear, while Angels thrive on a love inspired by pity.

Doubtlessly I have to qualify this explanation to prevent myself from being misunderstood. Pity has a terrible connotation, but it's denotation is not negative. My usage of the word pity is congruent to Nietzsche's usage of the same word in The Anti-Christ. He explains that pity is the technic of Christianity, because it proposes compassion as the most powerful human force. This coincides with the oft held belief that you make a greater affect on your enemy by turning the other cheek, than by striking him back.

I dont know that I necessarily agree with the love-pity/ love-fear thing, but now I have to go to storage and pull out all of my college texts to see if the paradigm you set the charactarization in is one I can support.

Sounds pretty solid, even if at first blush I dont agree.

 

[Marquis]

Major reference: The Anti-Christ, Nietzsche.

 

[cfuhrer]

Please realize that I am catching up on four pages of thread as I am posting all of my comments tonight, so please forgive if someone has already mentioned the things I am posting

My slave is a human being obeying His Mistress by assuming the position of anything I decide. he is a man who is doing what I told him to do.

Eb

edited for effect

Eb you said earlier that you do not force but isn't obeying orders merely a way of avoiding being forced... or orders a watered down form of "force"??

The way I read "force" in Marquis innitial post was an absence of the angels choice in the activities they undertake. IE: My D may not physically force me to go down on him but the choice to do so may not be completely mine either.

 

[Never]

cfuhrer:
" My D may not physically force me to go down on him but the choice to do so may not be completely mine either."

How is you going down on him not completely your choice?

 

[Marquis]

cfuhrer:
" My D may not physically force me to go down on him but the choice to do so may not be completely mine either."

How is you going down on him not completely your choice?

There are multiple levels of coercion:

Heavy: Suck me off or I'll blow your brains out

Light: Suck me off or I'll be unsatisfied

Typical D/s style: Suck me off or I'll find a sub who will

 

[Never]

If a person honestly believes they're not in control of their actions then they shouldn't be in a D/s relationship.

 

[Marquis]

If a person honestly believes they're not in control of their actions then they shouldn't be in a D/s relationship.

Well that's something of a truism, if a person honestly believes they're not in control of their actions they should probably be in a padded room.