Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
replicant said:
I'm not buying it...that might work for YOU, but that is not the dynamic of my relationships. You should reconsider labelling your style as the only valid expression of D/s.
The best ways to dominate.
- Thread starter Lancecastor
- Start date
I'm not buying it...that might work for YOU, but that is not the dynamic of my relationships. You should reconsider labelling your style as the only valid expression of D/s.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Lancecastor said
//It's interesting to see so many dominants here who find Replicant's p.o.v. unusual or contrary to their thinking...because the train of thought that says there can be no Dominance without a willing submissive and his/her consent & limits is a standard and well-known one.
Submission is a gift from the submissive to the D, just as dominance is a gift to the sub...you can't have one without the other, no matter what the Internet Doms might post.//
Replicant can't quite make of his mind whether "the sub is the most powerful" or whether there's 'mutual control'. Seems to lean toward the former. The 'mutual gift' poetry of yours suggests the latter.
In neither case does there seem to be 'domination' in the sense of 'calling the shots' or 'imposing one's will' or 'commanding.' Indeed in the first case, 'sub as powerful', the alleged sub is arguably dominating. (In fact, many a pretty young female 'sub', in virtue of the supply/demand situation, can indeed get her way if she wants.)
I don't speak as an "Internet Dom" of course, merely an explorer.
The issue of consent does not negate my point about domination.
Nor does it suggest predominant power in the consenter.
If you consider the example of surgery--even small surgery in which one is conscious--the patient gives consent to the specified operation and anything medically necessary. At that point the patient no longer controls the hand of the surgeon. (If the surgeon fucks up, he can be sued.) The surgeon, then is 'calling the shots', doing as he wills in carrying out the specified operation, though the overall situation is consensual.
J.
//It's interesting to see so many dominants here who find Replicant's p.o.v. unusual or contrary to their thinking...because the train of thought that says there can be no Dominance without a willing submissive and his/her consent & limits is a standard and well-known one.
Submission is a gift from the submissive to the D, just as dominance is a gift to the sub...you can't have one without the other, no matter what the Internet Doms might post.//
Replicant can't quite make of his mind whether "the sub is the most powerful" or whether there's 'mutual control'. Seems to lean toward the former. The 'mutual gift' poetry of yours suggests the latter.
In neither case does there seem to be 'domination' in the sense of 'calling the shots' or 'imposing one's will' or 'commanding.' Indeed in the first case, 'sub as powerful', the alleged sub is arguably dominating. (In fact, many a pretty young female 'sub', in virtue of the supply/demand situation, can indeed get her way if she wants.)
I don't speak as an "Internet Dom" of course, merely an explorer.
The issue of consent does not negate my point about domination.
Nor does it suggest predominant power in the consenter.
If you consider the example of surgery--even small surgery in which one is conscious--the patient gives consent to the specified operation and anything medically necessary. At that point the patient no longer controls the hand of the surgeon. (If the surgeon fucks up, he can be sued.) The surgeon, then is 'calling the shots', doing as he wills in carrying out the specified operation, though the overall situation is consensual.
J.
Sandia
Very Experienced
- Joined
- May 24, 2002
- Posts
- 6,461
The first kind of dominance is just silly social bullshit. "Being the most dominating person in the room" may be (or may not be) great for business, but it doesn't necessarily - or even usually - translate into being dominant in bed.
The second kind of dominance - controlling somebody in a relationship - seems dangerous and ephemeral to me, but I'm happy for anyone who does it and is happy with what they do. My guess is that it calls for a lot of structure, and a lot of rules, sort of like an ultra-strict Southern Baptist family, or something like that. My main concern is for naive or deluded subs who are looking for a father figure, rather than a man who wants to use them in bed. The perfect dom is a myth.
The third kind of dominance is just good sex. It happens because the sub wants it to - needs it to - is dying to have it happen, and loves it when it does. She loves it because she wants to be used, she wants to please her man.
As for Pure's question about topping from the bottom, I'd say that in an SSC relationship the subs always (really) in control, but if it's a good relationship it won't feel that way to them, at the moment that the power exchange is happening. She'll feel like she's out of control, and at a moment like that, who's to stand and judge?
I wouldn't criticize anyone who indulged in a non-SSC relationship, but I wouldn't encourage it either; it's the kind of thing I like to read about, but wouldn't want to try in real life.
Sort of like robbing a bank, or trying to outrun the cops.
I liked what you said, Pure, about being unpredictable. I thought it was it was an interesting and insightful thing to say.
The second kind of dominance - controlling somebody in a relationship - seems dangerous and ephemeral to me, but I'm happy for anyone who does it and is happy with what they do. My guess is that it calls for a lot of structure, and a lot of rules, sort of like an ultra-strict Southern Baptist family, or something like that. My main concern is for naive or deluded subs who are looking for a father figure, rather than a man who wants to use them in bed. The perfect dom is a myth.
The third kind of dominance is just good sex. It happens because the sub wants it to - needs it to - is dying to have it happen, and loves it when it does. She loves it because she wants to be used, she wants to please her man.
As for Pure's question about topping from the bottom, I'd say that in an SSC relationship the subs always (really) in control, but if it's a good relationship it won't feel that way to them, at the moment that the power exchange is happening. She'll feel like she's out of control, and at a moment like that, who's to stand and judge?
I wouldn't criticize anyone who indulged in a non-SSC relationship, but I wouldn't encourage it either; it's the kind of thing I like to read about, but wouldn't want to try in real life.
Sort of like robbing a bank, or trying to outrun the cops.
I liked what you said, Pure, about being unpredictable. I thought it was it was an interesting and insightful thing to say.
replicant
I am Silent Bob.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2000
- Posts
- 5,757
Ds as a lifestyle has always been from my understanding about a sub choosing her Dom based upon whether he/she fits what they are looking for in a Superior. The Dom simply makes it known that he/she is available for instruction or looking for a sub to share experiences/life with. It's not a hard concept in my opinion. The problem that I see pop up the most is that ego's ruin the ideals. A Dom can only be as powerful as a sub is willing to submit to them. When you start a Ds relationship for business (Mutual Interests), pleasure (More Traditional Relationship), discipline (Learning Experience), spirituality (Seeking Enlightment or Contentment), or a mixture of the above you verbally or in writing agree upon a contract of how far a sub is willing to go. This can be shortened or lengthened at a later date if mutual consent is given. The sub then *gives* control of themselves to their Dom to do as they see fit as long as it is within the agreed upon terms. There is also an agreed upon safe word so that at anytime during the relationship if shomething goes too far the sub says the word and the activity is immediately stopped.
Those 2 major things definitely undermine the theory of Pure Domination, but they are much needed aspects. If you just Dominate someone for the sake of imposing your will and making them your slave, then you have crossed from Ds into S&M as it is no longer truly consentual and potentially damaging. With safe words and agreements a sub is always the most powerful in the relationship. If you have accepted your relationship in a different way or believe these words to be false, then that is your perrogative.
My stance on this is not "wishy-washy". A Dom is as Superior as their prior agreement allows, but they are not *ALL CONTROLLING DICTATORS" as many Doms would want you to believe. Mutual understanding of the relationship limitations is *Absolutely* necessary or you are not in a healthy situaton.
Those 2 major things definitely undermine the theory of Pure Domination, but they are much needed aspects. If you just Dominate someone for the sake of imposing your will and making them your slave, then you have crossed from Ds into S&M as it is no longer truly consentual and potentially damaging. With safe words and agreements a sub is always the most powerful in the relationship. If you have accepted your relationship in a different way or believe these words to be false, then that is your perrogative.
My stance on this is not "wishy-washy". A Dom is as Superior as their prior agreement allows, but they are not *ALL CONTROLLING DICTATORS" as many Doms would want you to believe. Mutual understanding of the relationship limitations is *Absolutely* necessary or you are not in a healthy situaton.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
OK, getting really annoyed now.
I DO SM. CONSENSUAL, NON-HARMING, SM.
D/s never "becomes" SM because it's not SM. SM is a violence participants agree on ahead of time, it's the difference between boxing and a bar fight. If you are using SM as a slight, it's obvious you don't get it and don't want to get it.
D/s is a set or rules, strictures, philosophies and a way of being that has nothing to do, apparently, with leather whips chains bonds or fucking, it can exist completely independently of ALL those things
(which is why I'm not into it. Or not into it to the point I feel very affiliated. I got into this for the whips, chains, bondage, fucking and painplay, so there)
D/s is a happy accident for me, it's so mindbogglingly simple and everyone makes it like it's complicated.
I say, he does.
Bingo, bam, there's the Tao right there. When I say and he doesn't, I have a few choices:
Get really pissy, pick a "punishment" and condition him to bend to my will. (some people are into this and put up with it, not my boy, no....)
Find out why not and either enlighten him as to why he really can and should, or change my worldview enough to realize why he can't and shouldn't. (The ok, what's the problem here, approach)
Find a new partner who will. (if it's a really really BFD, then this may be the best option...say the "no I won't" is "no I won't have sex with you ever again")
Yes. You are right. Whether he wants to do something or not is completely within his control. To think that I control anything, other people, TV ratings, the weather....is absurd.
However....this is where I present a third option here...
just because he controls this, does he have "ultimate control of the relationship?" I don't think he does. I think I do. I can choose what to do with the unwillingness, where to go. As long as I don't do something heavy handed, mindbogglingly dumb, and ethically wrong, I have his devotion and his willingness. Because I earned it and work to mainting having earned it.
Would we really want it any other way?
I DO SM. CONSENSUAL, NON-HARMING, SM.
D/s never "becomes" SM because it's not SM. SM is a violence participants agree on ahead of time, it's the difference between boxing and a bar fight. If you are using SM as a slight, it's obvious you don't get it and don't want to get it.
D/s is a set or rules, strictures, philosophies and a way of being that has nothing to do, apparently, with leather whips chains bonds or fucking, it can exist completely independently of ALL those things
(which is why I'm not into it. Or not into it to the point I feel very affiliated. I got into this for the whips, chains, bondage, fucking and painplay, so there)
D/s is a happy accident for me, it's so mindbogglingly simple and everyone makes it like it's complicated.
I say, he does.
Bingo, bam, there's the Tao right there. When I say and he doesn't, I have a few choices:
Get really pissy, pick a "punishment" and condition him to bend to my will. (some people are into this and put up with it, not my boy, no....)
Find out why not and either enlighten him as to why he really can and should, or change my worldview enough to realize why he can't and shouldn't. (The ok, what's the problem here, approach)
Find a new partner who will. (if it's a really really BFD, then this may be the best option...say the "no I won't" is "no I won't have sex with you ever again")
Yes. You are right. Whether he wants to do something or not is completely within his control. To think that I control anything, other people, TV ratings, the weather....is absurd.
However....this is where I present a third option here...
just because he controls this, does he have "ultimate control of the relationship?" I don't think he does. I think I do. I can choose what to do with the unwillingness, where to go. As long as I don't do something heavy handed, mindbogglingly dumb, and ethically wrong, I have his devotion and his willingness. Because I earned it and work to mainting having earned it.
Would we really want it any other way?
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Replicant.
I've reproduced a part of your text, below. I appreciate your spelling out your views, and giving them some thought.
First, may I ask what it is 'Dom's' do? Is it just to order 'lie still while I fuck you' or "on your knees to give me a bj"?
Do your doms whip their subs, for instance?
Second, you've set up a topsy turvy world, where DS is clean and SM is not, apparently ignoring the clear statements of most BDSM organizations. Indeed, on your view, they shouldn't even say 'S & M' since that's bad and maybe illegal, the way you see it. {The import of this is that Lance's claim that your views are mainstream is substantially off the mark.}
So far as I can see, SM is primary historically, e.g, in the form back as far as Roman times, or further [e.g., in India]. Erotic whipping. Much is consensual in that the person asks for it. Dominance is implicit in S, I would argue.
Dominance (separate from S) is a later and derivative concept, as related to sexual kink; publicized by Sacher Masoch and his slavery contracts.
(Of course pure, natural dominance, male overpowering female and lesser males, is as old as the hills. That's why I say 'kinky dominance.') Dominance divorced from the infliction of pain and humiliation (shame, degradation, etc.), and in some cases even divorced from sex--comes from a place I cant exactly identify--some 'new age' DS stew that was cooked up in recent decades. (Except for 'dommes' who act this way to avoid charges of prostitution.)
You seem to be saying that consent and safewords necessarily give predominant power to the sub.
//With safe words and agreements a sub is always the most powerful in the relationship.//
This is only true in the case of moment by moment control, using safewords like orange and red. Not all 'safety signals' ( I use a broader concept) are set up or intended to be instantly effective, or for routine use.
Your statement below, as Netzach notes is truly puzzling in several ways
//If you just Dominate someone for the sake of imposing your will and making them your slave, then you have crossed from Ds into S&M as it is no longer truly consentual and potentially damaging. //
1) you speak of a motive 'imposing ones will', and claim that precludes consent-- 'no longer truly consentual[sic]'. Why?
Maybe you mean, 'If you impose your will to override someone's consent, then it's non-consensual.' But that's unexciting.
2) What does one dominate for (if not to 'impose ones will' [and get off, thereby])? spiritual enlightment of both parties?
3) You make SM nonconsensual by definition, and Netzach has commented on that. It offends known statements of principle of 'leather' organizations. You seem to say inflicting pain is inherently non consensual, which is non-sense.
Otherwise youre simply saying "If you inflict pain without consent it's nonconsensual." True, but uninteresting.
--------
My beliefs about your statements are not the issue; it's what they mean, and how, if at all, they agree (or don't) with known principles of BDSM and the several components thereof.
It's your 'perrogative' [sic] to call any kinky thing you please 'dominance'--and your right to enjoy the hell out of it-- but one should be clear in what region your views are situated.
Best,
Pure.
--------
Replicant:
A Dom can only be as powerful as a sub is willing to submit to them. When you start a Ds relationship for business (Mutual Interests), pleasure (More Traditional Relationship), discipline (Learning Experience), spirituality (Seeking Enlightment or Contentment), or a mixture of the above you verbally or in writing agree upon a contract of how far a sub is willing to go. This can be shortened or lengthened at a later date if mutual consent is given. The sub then *gives* control of themselves to their Dom to do as they see fit as long as it is within the agreed upon terms. There is also an agreed upon safe word so that at anytime during the relationship if shomething goes too far the sub says the word and the activity is immediately stopped.
Those 2 major things definitely undermine the theory of Pure Domination, but they are much needed aspects. If you just Dominate someone for the sake of imposing your will and making them your slave, then you have crossed from Ds into S&M as it is no longer truly consentual and potentially damaging.With safe words and agreements a sub is always the most powerful in the relationship. If you have accepted your relationship in a different way or believe these words to be false, then that is your perrogative.
My stance on this is not "wishy-washy".
I've reproduced a part of your text, below. I appreciate your spelling out your views, and giving them some thought.
First, may I ask what it is 'Dom's' do? Is it just to order 'lie still while I fuck you' or "on your knees to give me a bj"?
Do your doms whip their subs, for instance?
Second, you've set up a topsy turvy world, where DS is clean and SM is not, apparently ignoring the clear statements of most BDSM organizations. Indeed, on your view, they shouldn't even say 'S & M' since that's bad and maybe illegal, the way you see it. {The import of this is that Lance's claim that your views are mainstream is substantially off the mark.}
So far as I can see, SM is primary historically, e.g, in the form back as far as Roman times, or further [e.g., in India]. Erotic whipping. Much is consensual in that the person asks for it. Dominance is implicit in S, I would argue.
Dominance (separate from S) is a later and derivative concept, as related to sexual kink; publicized by Sacher Masoch and his slavery contracts.
(Of course pure, natural dominance, male overpowering female and lesser males, is as old as the hills. That's why I say 'kinky dominance.') Dominance divorced from the infliction of pain and humiliation (shame, degradation, etc.), and in some cases even divorced from sex--comes from a place I cant exactly identify--some 'new age' DS stew that was cooked up in recent decades. (Except for 'dommes' who act this way to avoid charges of prostitution.)
You seem to be saying that consent and safewords necessarily give predominant power to the sub.
//With safe words and agreements a sub is always the most powerful in the relationship.//
This is only true in the case of moment by moment control, using safewords like orange and red. Not all 'safety signals' ( I use a broader concept) are set up or intended to be instantly effective, or for routine use.
Your statement below, as Netzach notes is truly puzzling in several ways
//If you just Dominate someone for the sake of imposing your will and making them your slave, then you have crossed from Ds into S&M as it is no longer truly consentual and potentially damaging. //
1) you speak of a motive 'imposing ones will', and claim that precludes consent-- 'no longer truly consentual[sic]'. Why?
Maybe you mean, 'If you impose your will to override someone's consent, then it's non-consensual.' But that's unexciting.
2) What does one dominate for (if not to 'impose ones will' [and get off, thereby])? spiritual enlightment of both parties?
3) You make SM nonconsensual by definition, and Netzach has commented on that. It offends known statements of principle of 'leather' organizations. You seem to say inflicting pain is inherently non consensual, which is non-sense.
Otherwise youre simply saying "If you inflict pain without consent it's nonconsensual." True, but uninteresting.
--------
My beliefs about your statements are not the issue; it's what they mean, and how, if at all, they agree (or don't) with known principles of BDSM and the several components thereof.
It's your 'perrogative' [sic] to call any kinky thing you please 'dominance'--and your right to enjoy the hell out of it-- but one should be clear in what region your views are situated.
Best,
Pure.
--------
Replicant:
A Dom can only be as powerful as a sub is willing to submit to them. When you start a Ds relationship for business (Mutual Interests), pleasure (More Traditional Relationship), discipline (Learning Experience), spirituality (Seeking Enlightment or Contentment), or a mixture of the above you verbally or in writing agree upon a contract of how far a sub is willing to go. This can be shortened or lengthened at a later date if mutual consent is given. The sub then *gives* control of themselves to their Dom to do as they see fit as long as it is within the agreed upon terms. There is also an agreed upon safe word so that at anytime during the relationship if shomething goes too far the sub says the word and the activity is immediately stopped.
Those 2 major things definitely undermine the theory of Pure Domination, but they are much needed aspects. If you just Dominate someone for the sake of imposing your will and making them your slave, then you have crossed from Ds into S&M as it is no longer truly consentual and potentially damaging.With safe words and agreements a sub is always the most powerful in the relationship. If you have accepted your relationship in a different way or believe these words to be false, then that is your perrogative.
My stance on this is not "wishy-washy".
Last edited:
FungiUg
Waves at Cats
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2001
- Posts
- 10,242
Netzach said:
Most of your posting I agree with. I just wanted to raise a query against this one bit.
In a relationship, the "ultimate control" is the ability to end it. All people in a consensual relationship have the ability to walk away and end it. So who has "ultimate control"? Everyone in the relationship.
In your example, NetZach, you are quite correct. You have those choices. Just as he has the choice of respecting your orders (thus perpetuating the consensuality), or disobeying/saying "no" (this challenging the consensuality.) He can also just walk away.
So... yes, you have ultimate control. But so does he.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
FungiUg....
I totally agree with your additional commentary. I've been viewing control as control within the relationship though, not control over whether there IS one...
...if that's the ultimate control of a relationship then the relationship ceases to be. It's been taken to its conclusion.
Yep, anyone can walk at any time in my relationships.
But what I mean is that while the relationship is viable, strong and on track, I'm driving it. It doesn't mean that every single thing I say goes really *does* go though, or that I don't have to re-think things when the co-pilot has new information or a problem with what I want.
There's give and take, but that doesn't mean that the co-pilot is in charge. I find that whole "sub's really in charge" thing problematic when it negates the Dominant. The sub really has to be *respected* is how I think of it.
I totally agree with your additional commentary. I've been viewing control as control within the relationship though, not control over whether there IS one...
...if that's the ultimate control of a relationship then the relationship ceases to be. It's been taken to its conclusion.
Yep, anyone can walk at any time in my relationships.
But what I mean is that while the relationship is viable, strong and on track, I'm driving it. It doesn't mean that every single thing I say goes really *does* go though, or that I don't have to re-think things when the co-pilot has new information or a problem with what I want.
There's give and take, but that doesn't mean that the co-pilot is in charge. I find that whole "sub's really in charge" thing problematic when it negates the Dominant. The sub really has to be *respected* is how I think of it.
FungiUg
Waves at Cats
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2001
- Posts
- 10,242
Thanks NetZach.
Again, I'm going to agree with you and disagree with you at the same time.
I'm going to agree that you are driving the direction of the relationship. You are "in control."
At the same time, your submissive is allowing you to set the direction. He's going along with your direction setting. So in a way (or just because I am a perverse bugger), he also is "in control."
There's no way I can or will argue about respect, though. Any relationship (in my opinion) that is not founded on respect is doomed.
Again, I'm going to agree with you and disagree with you at the same time.
I'm going to agree that you are driving the direction of the relationship. You are "in control."
At the same time, your submissive is allowing you to set the direction. He's going along with your direction setting. So in a way (or just because I am a perverse bugger), he also is "in control."
There's no way I can or will argue about respect, though. Any relationship (in my opinion) that is not founded on respect is doomed.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Fungi,
I like your points, and appreciate their clear presentation. But let me tell you some problems I have with your formulations:
Fung 1
In a relationship, the "ultimate control" is the ability to end it. All people in a consensual relationship have the ability to walk away and end it. So who has "ultimate control"? Everyone in the relationship.
===
Fung 2
I'm going to agree that you are driving the direction of the relationship. You are "in control."
At the same time, your submissive is allowing you to set the direction. He's going along with your direction setting. So in a way (or just because I am a perverse bugger), he also is "in control."
The conclusion seems to be that dom and sub are equally in control in respect of the existence of the relationship, because of their individual ability to end it. (And perhaps, in virtue of this, equally in control, overall.)
I find this a rather abstract (oversimplified) argument that ignores such things as the 'probability' of excercise of that option; the costs of such exercize, the availability of alternatives, esp. 'replacement'.
Consider, a captain of a cruise ship and a passenger. He has a launch, or can direct the ship into a harbor, as means of his leaving. The passenger, you, has access to a life preserver. You can end the relationship by jumping overboard and getting picked up, hopefully by a passing fishing vessel. Indeed maybe you don't have a preserver, and will have to swim to shore, if it's possible.
If the passenger is rich, of course, he can be picked up from the deck by private helicopter, and can re-hire his 'passage' on another boat. A stowaway from Cuba has fewer options, having spent his last dollar getting aboard.
This argument, so far, does not even look at the psychology involved, e.g., the passenger's fear, founded or not. (Look at the abused wives who strongly fear leaving, sometimes for good reason, sometimes not.)
It's not unlike the situation of a child and its parents. The child can indeed leave and maybe do OK, from say, age 10 or even 5. But the costs are high unless a favorite aunt takes the kid in and keeps it off the street.
Once the relationship is assumed to continue, then, as N says, you're dealing with power within the relationship. This is a somewhat separate issue, but connected. Again you can argue that refusals give power within a relationship. The legal passenger can, indeed refuse a meal she doesn't like and go eat crackers in her cabin. Yet the captain, and the head cook are in fact, exercising considerable power over what people eat. The factors are to do with convenience, cost, etc.
What is the connection I spoke of. Well, if the 'jump ship' option is too costly, then the power *within* is increased. The captain can, perhaps direct the serving of trully crappy food, have midnight lifeboat drills, etc. He just says "The life preserver is there; anyone who wants off, help yourself."
So, rather than abstract 'opt out' arguments, I look at real 'costs' and 'options' (involved in exercising the will) and possible alternatives (i.e., that may be willed) to the goals of the parties.
that is objective power; the subjective dimension is there also, what the persons *perceive* to be the alternatives.
In any relationship, then, the evaluation of who has predominance, i.e, greater control will be complex, and the 'equal control' conclusion, from simplistic ('abstract') considerations will generally be suspect.
It's worth looking at the general point of the discussion: claims like replicant's that a sub's initial consent or subsequent 'walk away' option render the sub (more) in control, even, iirc, replicant claimed, 'supreme'. In light of the above, such a position is, in almost all cases, untenable. (But yes, I suppose Pam Anderson can walk away, if so inclined, and get a new Daddy any time.)
Best,
J.
I like your points, and appreciate their clear presentation. But let me tell you some problems I have with your formulations:
Fung 1
In a relationship, the "ultimate control" is the ability to end it. All people in a consensual relationship have the ability to walk away and end it. So who has "ultimate control"? Everyone in the relationship.
===
Fung 2
I'm going to agree that you are driving the direction of the relationship. You are "in control."
At the same time, your submissive is allowing you to set the direction. He's going along with your direction setting. So in a way (or just because I am a perverse bugger), he also is "in control."
The conclusion seems to be that dom and sub are equally in control in respect of the existence of the relationship, because of their individual ability to end it. (And perhaps, in virtue of this, equally in control, overall.)
I find this a rather abstract (oversimplified) argument that ignores such things as the 'probability' of excercise of that option; the costs of such exercize, the availability of alternatives, esp. 'replacement'.
Consider, a captain of a cruise ship and a passenger. He has a launch, or can direct the ship into a harbor, as means of his leaving. The passenger, you, has access to a life preserver. You can end the relationship by jumping overboard and getting picked up, hopefully by a passing fishing vessel. Indeed maybe you don't have a preserver, and will have to swim to shore, if it's possible.
If the passenger is rich, of course, he can be picked up from the deck by private helicopter, and can re-hire his 'passage' on another boat. A stowaway from Cuba has fewer options, having spent his last dollar getting aboard.
This argument, so far, does not even look at the psychology involved, e.g., the passenger's fear, founded or not. (Look at the abused wives who strongly fear leaving, sometimes for good reason, sometimes not.)
It's not unlike the situation of a child and its parents. The child can indeed leave and maybe do OK, from say, age 10 or even 5. But the costs are high unless a favorite aunt takes the kid in and keeps it off the street.
Once the relationship is assumed to continue, then, as N says, you're dealing with power within the relationship. This is a somewhat separate issue, but connected. Again you can argue that refusals give power within a relationship. The legal passenger can, indeed refuse a meal she doesn't like and go eat crackers in her cabin. Yet the captain, and the head cook are in fact, exercising considerable power over what people eat. The factors are to do with convenience, cost, etc.
What is the connection I spoke of. Well, if the 'jump ship' option is too costly, then the power *within* is increased. The captain can, perhaps direct the serving of trully crappy food, have midnight lifeboat drills, etc. He just says "The life preserver is there; anyone who wants off, help yourself."
So, rather than abstract 'opt out' arguments, I look at real 'costs' and 'options' (involved in exercising the will) and possible alternatives (i.e., that may be willed) to the goals of the parties.
that is objective power; the subjective dimension is there also, what the persons *perceive* to be the alternatives.
In any relationship, then, the evaluation of who has predominance, i.e, greater control will be complex, and the 'equal control' conclusion, from simplistic ('abstract') considerations will generally be suspect.
It's worth looking at the general point of the discussion: claims like replicant's that a sub's initial consent or subsequent 'walk away' option render the sub (more) in control, even, iirc, replicant claimed, 'supreme'. In light of the above, such a position is, in almost all cases, untenable. (But yes, I suppose Pam Anderson can walk away, if so inclined, and get a new Daddy any time.)
Best,
J.
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,534
Pure said:
Actually, I think it not only includes the things you listed above, but many more, like goals, indulgence in kink preferences, etc. Sometimes, it is about seeing the "whole forest" instead of "the trees."
If a sub doesn't like anal and the Dom does, then both have a decision to make. How important is anal (tree) to the overall relationship (forest).
Both Dom and sub must decide if this "limit" is a deal breaker. A Dom can demand whatever they want, but if a sub does not want to do it, they don't have to. It's as simple as that.
