Unhealthy Dominance

[s'lara]

Good thoughts going around this subject. i'll just add my own reflections.

Power is heady isn't it? It takes a strong will not to abuse it in the "unhealthy" way described by ADR. What i find to be a prevalent theme in descriptions of a "healthy" Dominant is this pristine behavior we come to expect of individuals who serve the public (think priests, police officers, politicians [don't laugh] and doctors).

i find this kind of ... not sure what to call it ... deification (?) unrealistic. Some Dominant's can be selfish, manipulative and unkind. They are People with flaws like everyone else. It is kind of foolish to believe that a Dominant does not possess or has not in the past exhibited at least one of the traits we see in the unhealthy Dominant.

What makes a healthy Dominant? i believe it to be a sense of responsibility, maturity and willingness to recognize their weaknesses. A healthy Dominant does not allow Their sub/slave/bottom to deify them and place them in a position to be revered as a something other than human. It is a long fall from grace if ... no ... when the Dominant displays an unsaintly mannerism.

*shrugs* No one is perfect. However, in a D/s relationship, where much is on the line for the submissive and the Dominant, the Dominant should strive for a balance best suited to Him/Her and their sub/slave. Obviously, the unfit behavior outlined in ADR's first post should not be a part of that balance.

lara

 

[A Desert Rose]

Not to mention it's often a sign of a Dom who's MARRIED and has to vanish for a bit to hide it from his wife

Quite a perceptive post, James.

 

[A Desert Rose]

.... However, in a D/s relationship, where much is on the line for the submissive and the Dominant, the Dominant should strive for a balance best suited to Him/Her and their sub/slave.

lara

Yes, this sums it up pretty well.

Thank you.

 

[A Desert Rose]

So then, to some who have posted...

Is every kind of dominance unhealthy (in your opinion)? Is that what you are saying?

 

[rosco rathbone]

So then, to some who have posted...

Is every kind of dominance unhealthy (in your opinion)? Is that what you are saying?

I dunno anything about "dominance", but my psychosexual need to humiliate, hurt and control is always crashing headfirst into my desire for fair and adult relationships.

 

[A Desert Rose]

I dunno anything about "dominance", but my psychosexual need to humiliate, hurt and control is always crashing headfirst into my desire for fair and adult relationships.

Because I know you know I have always liked you, Rosco, you will take the following in the spirit with which I mean it:

I have a feeling there are a great many things that go crashing headlong against each other in that brain of yours.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Without trying to focus too much on 24/7 TPE I will give my opinion. I can find myself agreeing with most if not everything ADR has said. IMHO it is counterproductive to cut off communication and use it as a punishment.

Having said that, there is even something more counterproductive, and that is anger. A dominant should never punish in anger or with a hot head. I have done in the past often that which has been described by JM. For two reasons it gives me the Dom time to cool off and it gives the submissive reflection time to think about what is going to happen and what the sub did wrong.

IMO femme Domme's tend to have more of an emotional control over their feelings than males do. Sometimes nature is against us, I have found them to use this trick less as a cool off period and more as a reflection time for the sub.

A Dom is not a perfect being and will make mistakes along the way, in a 24/7 relationships there will be times when a Dom does not want to be dominant and will just want to have peace and quietness. For example I tend to get periods where I do not want to talk with anyone; there are days when I am so tired from working I really do not have the energy to be dominant because being Dominant takes energy and lots of effort. Even if it is second nature you just have those days. To build a successful relationship reality has to be a big part of it.

It is all very well to read stories and to have fixed ideas on how a TPE will exist but the reality is that it is something unique to every couple. The Dom and sub together have to work on it and both have to have a good dose of realism built into their character.

Francisco

 

[Pure]

Just take this word "controlling", which is on the original 'unhealthy' list.

Dr. Phil and your therapist will give you no accolades for being a 'controlling' person.

Even worse, would be a person who wanted to control many, very detailed, 'minor' aspects of their partner's life. The husband who says and enforces 'don't wear pants; wear only skirts' would be labeled as close to being abusive, as showing one of the indicators of 'domestic violence.'

Yet the practice of the 'dom' is defined in terms of exercising control, perhaps very pervasively. His 'don't wear pants, only wear skirts' is a standard piece of domly procedure reported or fictionalized thousands of times.

 

[James G 5]

Quite a perceptive post, James.

Yeah, one of the nasty situations I see WAY too much, and another reason I'm down on "online domination" and "falling in love" online

 

[A Desert Rose]

Just take this word "controlling", which is on the original 'unhealthy' list.

Dr. Phil and your therapist will give you no accolades for being a 'controlling' person.

Even worse, would be a person who wanted to control many, very detailed, 'minor' aspects of their partner's life. The husband who says and enforces 'don't wear pants; wear only skirts' would be labeled as close to being abusive, as showing one of the indicators of 'domestic violence.'

Yet the practice of the 'dom' is defined in terms of exercising control, perhaps very pervasively. His 'don't wear pants, only wear skirts' is a standard piece of domly procedure reported or fictionalized thousands of times.

I don't have a therapist, Dr. Phil makes me puke and I hate Oprah. That being said and settled....

If my SO told me he "preferred me in a dress rather than pants." it would not be considered abusive or controlling. Don't you agree? (Although, it is controlling because he wants to see me dressed in a manner that he likes.)

When a Dom/me says "I want to see you in dresses only," he is being controlling.

I, therefore, have to surmize that it is a question of semantics and the presentation of the words and not anything else that you take issue with.

And then of course, it is a question of whose definition of controlling we are using. To a submissive, she/he does not see her/his Dom/me's directives as controlling. The reason for that is the Dom/me is only able to control because he/she is given that right to do so. (You know, the age old question.... who REALLY has the power? What came first... the chicken or the egg? But let's don't go there, okay? That's a whole other thousand thread titles here.)

 

[fallon2]

A Good Master

A good Master will always have what is best for the sub in the back of his mind. He knows how far to go and when to hold back. The good Master understand the desires and needs of the sub better than the sub does. His gratification comes in when the sub "thanks" (in various ways) the Master. A good Master always leaves the sub better off than when he found her.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: A Good Master

... A good Master always leaves the sub better off than when he found her.

Another gentleman Dom at this board. Well said.

 

[fallon2]

I just told a new

I just told a new friend (I hope) that respect has to be there for a relationship between the two to work and be successful. What do you folks think?

 

[catalina_francisco]

Re: I just told a new

I just told a new friend (I hope) that respect has to be there for a relationship between the two to work and be successful. What do you folks think?

Without respect, it is near impossible to have a relationship worth anything.

Catalina

 

[wicked woman]

Re: A Good Master

Originally posted by fallon2
A good Master will always have what is best for the sub in the back of his mind. He knows how far to go and when to hold back. The good Master understand the desires and needs of the sub better than the sub does. His gratification comes in when the sub "thanks" (in various ways) the Master. A good Master always leaves the sub better off than when he found her.

I wouldn't have thought it was possible...but I've experienced it myself. Thanks Fallon for putting it into words. And yes He was gratified when I thanked Him.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: I just told a new

I just told a new friend (I hope) that respect has to be there for a relationship between the two to work and be successful. What do you folks think?

Yes, you did. ;-)

I have meet a few Dom's who thought that the simple fact that they called themselves Doms, was enough to ensure respect.

Like other subs I know, I don't treat men as Doms unless they are my Dom. (I treat all men and women with respect unless they are assholes. hehehe.... )

And to be my Dom means it is *earned*.

 

[lilnymph28]

I've been in relationships with Doms who used this exact method of control and domination. It is a cruel method of emotionally blackmailing the submissive into acquiescence. My fear of being left alone kept me from making decisions for myself, kept me from being able to use the word no, and stand up for myself. Part of me still believes that if I say no, my partner or Dom will leave. Saying no is hard regardless for a submissive, but I've learned that I need to stand up for my own limits, that my personal safety is paramount, be it physical, emotional, or mental. The hard part of being truly submissive is finding a Dom who truly understands what that means and will protect and treasure the submissive.

 

[magdalene]

I don't think so

So then, to some who have posted...

Is every kind of dominance unhealthy (in your opinion)? Is that what you are saying?

No, I don't think so. I think it's unhealthy if it's hurting one or both partners (and I don't mean in a good way). I think it's unhealthy if it's not consensual, if it's damaging to self-esteem, if there is a lack of respect for either partner. I think it's unhealthy if it feels wrong to either of the people involved.

Personally, I don't want to be dominated because I want to be abused. I want to be dominated in a way that makes me feel good. I feel liberated and empowered by that. I think that's a healthy thing. If I didn't feel liberated or empowered, if I felt trapped and weakened in a relationship, then I would consider it unhealthy. It's important to me to feel safe at all times in a relationship. If I feel unsafe, I would consider it unhealthy.

Magdalene

 

[A Desert Rose]

The post of mine that you quoted was not meant for you. But thank you for your response.

The person who it was meant for did respond and then not again.

 

[James G 5]

Re: Re: I just told a new

I have meet a few Dom's who thought that the simple fact that they called themselves Doms, was enough to ensure respect.

That wasn't working for me
So I've decided to call myself "Sir LordNMaster"
That way, when I tell the bitches to fall to their knees they'll do it respectfully

 

[Quint]

Arg. I can't generalize, not even in the confines of my own relationship. Sometimes I thrive on random selfish control that leaves me no better off and may even involve changing comfortable behavior in myself. I have no idea when that becomes unhealthy, or if it starts off that way and I just happen to like it so don't say anything.

 

[Never]

I suppose it depends on whom you allow to define abuse. Will it be those in the relationship or those outside of it? Either way has its pitfalls.

 

[Pure]

Hi Fallon2,

Reading your posting, I can imagine it reading as follows.

A good therapist will always have what is best for the client in the back of his mind. He knows how far to go and when to hold back. The good therapist understand the desires and needs of the client better than the client does. His gratification comes in when the client "thanks" (in various ways) the therapist. A good therapist always leaves the client better off than when he found her.

Along similar lines, Magdalene wants someone who makes her
"feel good. I feel liberated and empowered by that[what he does]."

I guess we can call the guy whatever, Sweet Jesus, Therapist, Master, Savior.

I had thought we were talking about someone indulging a perverse even cruel desire.

J.

Fallon2's original posting:


A good Master will always have what is best for the sub in the back of his mind. He knows how far to go and when to hold back. The good Master understand the desires and needs of the sub better than the sub does. His gratification comes in when the sub "thanks" (in various ways) the Master. A good Master always leaves the sub better off than when he found her.

a part of magdalene's original posting:


Personally, I don't want to be dominated because I want to be abused. I want to be dominated in a way that makes me feel good. I feel liberated and empowered by that. I think that's a healthy thing. If I didn't feel liberated or empowered, if I felt trapped and weakened in a relationship, then I would consider it unhealthy. It's important to me to feel safe at all times in a relationship. If I feel unsafe, I would consider it unhealthy.

 

[Netzach]

Sign me up for false domination camp any day of the week then.

My relationship, I will happily attest, is a boring pile of normalcy in a candy coated shell of sadistic glee.

If I want my partner to change his behavior I tell him, and usually he either does this out of respect, or sometimes comes up with a compelling and accurate argument that I'm being a butthead in which case I may elect to back off. There's no shame in that.

The service thing, though, that's incomparable. I get my shoes spitshined and my back rubbed and the women I meet are always jealous that my guy is so damn nice. I slyly remark that I have him well trained, but it goes over most people's heads. And train I didn't.

I guess i just landed me a natural service sub. I don't have to beat the tendency into him or punish, because it's always been there, and that's how he is.

I think it's why chivalrous do-goodism in MaleDoms just never made so much sense to me, and why I was never able to sub to a guy. The minute that behavior appeared I was in control of the dynamic. I know when I'm being served. The manipulatrix takes over and she has always won to date.

Dysfunctional, sure, another reason we don't play in that sandbox.

 

[Pure]

Netzach said in part,


Sign me up for false domination camp any day of the week then.

My relationship, I will happily attest, is a boring pile of normalcy in a candy coated shell of sadistic glee.

If I want my partner to change his behavior I tell him, and usually he either does this out of respect, or sometimes comes up with a compelling and accurate argument that I'm being a butthead in which case I may elect to back off. There's no shame in that.

The service thing, though, that's incomparable. I get my shoes spitshined and my back rubbed and the women I meet are always jealous that my guy is so damn nice. I slyly remark that I have him well trained, but it goes over most people's heads. And train I didn't.

I guess i just landed me a natural service sub.
---------------

OK, lemme ask you a couple questions: In a couple, do you ever find that A generally gets his/her way with B? or, that B, does most of the 'accomodating'?

Call that 'power inbalance'. It's of course possible that the picture is mixed, according to areas (A gets his way in some; not in others).

Mainstream writers about relationships, advice books, etc, and marriage counselling material usually say that too much of a power inbalance is 'unhealthy.' They want trade off, or they want a good deal of 'mixing' by area.

It's 'unhealthy' because the topdog is likely to exploit that position against the bottom dog.

Now, in your para about behavior change, you say he sometimes changes to suit you, sometimes not. You don't say if you sometimes change to suit him, but maybe you do, or that's what 'backing off' is. So there's some balance.

Your next para says he does most of the serving of you. In this respect then, you're having your way. There is 'inbalance' or as you say, incomparability.

Now, what about the idea that he just likes serving, or is 'naturally' that way or is trained that way. Does that mean there is not any 'inbalance'. Another poster raised the issue of 'consent'; he consents to serve. Again, does that mean 'no inbalance.'

This is tricky. Suppose we ask the bottom: do you have desires of your own? (Or, do you ever put forward desires of your own?) If the answer is "Yes," then service sometimes 'costs' those desires, necessitates their being laid aside.

Suppose, however, the bottomdog says, "I don't have any desires of my own; I desire only to carry out the desires of the other. I was born [or trained] that way."

I agreed that's a puzzle, considered in conventional terms, but conventional wisdom about 'healthy' might generally say: If you're a mature person, well functioning, you have to have some desires of your own. While it's odd to talk of power inbalance, if one party is 'off the map; one might however, say that one party having desires of his/her own, or no power is itself unhealthy in the person and in the relationship.

Males who wish to have their way have been known to head to the Phillipines to find a wife of traditional values, who'll defer to them in all matters. This wife 'naturally' lets the husband have his way.

To summarize this ramble: by the mainstream books, and even Netzach's own set-up, a balance of power, NOT one person getting his/her own way is considered healthy. If a person in a relationship has no desires except to fulfill the others, that might not be called 'inbalance of power' but would likely be called, nonetheless, 'unhealthy' since one party is have been disempowered, or is immature enough NOT to have developed their own desires.

I'm not sure if this is making sense. Time to hit the sack.

J.