Unhealthy Dominance

[A Desert Rose]

I am sorry I won't have time to reply to some of this stuff... there are lots of good posts and thought provoking things posted in here of late.

I do see in my mind's eye.... a choir of white robed backup singers behind every one of Pure's posts. He is also The Cleaning Lady, right? (That, for those who do not know me, was humor and posted tongue-in-cheek.) I do so feel like he is here to redeem us all and to provide salvation to the wayward subs. And you all know the sexual history of *some* tele-evangelists, don't you? Fair warning when Pure is posting: keep a hand on your tushies, ladies.

The original thread post came from a website devoted to Dominants. I agree with everyone, that the behavior listed there can be considered abusive in any type of relationship... traditional or a D/s. But this is a forum that is consistant to D/s lifetyle and bdsm kinks.

In closing, I refuse to repent. I do not need redeemed and I found my own salvation. But please, and to Pure specifically, continue on your quest. It makes people think and evalute their positions.

 

[MissTaken]

Gosh!

Do I respond to the discussion on safewords? (No, my thoughts have been posted elsewhere, however, I would be happy to join in another thread on safewords.)

The discussion concerning power exchange? (No, Pure and I have wrassled over that one for years.)

Or the original thread topic? (Aha!)



Punishment is intended to control a behavior, whether with children or in D/s.

Discipline is meant to teach whether with children or adults.

So, what is the difference between withdrawal of affection and "Time Out" as used with children.

Placing someone in Time Out with no time limit , no understandable reason for the act and no food for thought during quiet time is controlling and counter productive to either punishment or discipline.

Placing someone in Time Out as a means of stopping a behavior until you are ready to address the behavior calmly and rationally is more productive, but not the preferred choice.

Using Time Out with discussion before and after, time limits to the time out etc, is what works to not only stop a behavior but change it in the long term.


Control is and can be healthy depending on the context and skill with which you administer it.

Oh and as for the fallibility of Dominants?
That all Doms are bound to make mistakes?
Sincere apologies are the difference between ADR's first post and abuse. It is the Dom who doesn't recognize his or her own fallibility that can be dangerous.

In summation, respect is the piece missing in an abusive relationship, versus a power exchange.

 

[MissTaken]

.

In closing, I refuse to repent. I do not need redeemed and I found my own salvation. But please, and to Pure specifically, continue on your quest. It makes people think and evalute their positions.

Oops, I read this after I posted.

 

[Pure]

Catalina said,

//Well I guess the point is submissives do not routinely engage in TPE as understood in this context


which is the one which works for me, nor do some slaves, while others do and live according to their commitment to their word to give 100% power to another, and yes this for them does include life and death decisions made by the one who holds that power.//

Referring to the first lines set off. With all due respect, that would not be *my point. I'm not saying that 'submitting' is typically less than total, that, say, only a portion of ones power is 'given over' or 'exchanged' etc. I'm saying many 'submissions' are in fact occurring in scenes where the alleged sub is mostly or completely in control.

An analogy Tanos made is good. One person is putting their toe in the water, standing beside a pool. The other is swimming in it.
The first person is NOT engaged in a 'partial' or less -than-total swimming; nor is the first person's experience LIKE the swimmer's only less intense.

J.

 

[Pure]

ADR said in part (whole posting at the end)

I do see in my mind's eye.... a choir of white robed backup singers behind every one of Pure's posts. He is also The Cleaning Lady, right? (That, for those who do not know me, was humor and posted tongue-in-cheek.) I do so feel like he is here to redeem us all [...]
In closing, I refuse to repent. I do not need redeemed and I found my own salvation. But please, and to Pure specifically, continue on your quest.

I think ADR mistakes me (but, ADR, depending what you're smoking, I can't argue about what singing you may hear in your mind).

Those who know me, know I don't concern myself with their morals or nor with their personal improvement. My morals etc. are NOT examplary or especially good; likely far inferior to the standards of Ms Rose.

I'd rather have an argument than a 'conversion' or any 'improvement' in the morals of those I'm talking to.

J.

===
A Desert Rose, complete posting:

I do see in my mind's eye.... a choir of white robed backup singers behind every one of Pure's posts. He is also The Cleaning Lady, right? (That, for those who do not know me, was humor and posted tongue-in-cheek.) I do so feel like he is here to redeem us all and to provide salvation to the wayward subs. And you all know the sexual history of *some* tele-evangelists, don't you? Fair warning when Pure is posting: keep a hand on your tushies, ladies.

The original thread post came from a website devoted to Dominants. I agree with everyone, that the behavior listed there can be considered abusive in any type of relationship... traditional or a D/s. But this is a forum that is consistant to D/s lifetyle and bdsm kinks.

In closing, I refuse to repent. I do not need redeemed and I found my own salvation. But please, and to Pure specifically, continue on your quest. It makes people think and evalute their positions.

 

[A Desert Rose]

My morals etc. are NOT examplary or especially good; likely far inferior to the standards of Ms Rose.

J.

This is true.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

This is true.

Don't feel too flattered...

 

[A Desert Rose]

Don't feel too flattered...

All things considered, I don't.

;-)

 

[Quint]

<snip>
Oh and as for the fallibility of Dominants?
That all Doms are bound to make mistakes?
Sincere apologies are the difference between ADR's first post and abuse. It is the Dom who doesn't recognize his or her own fallibility that can be dangerous.

In summation, respect is the piece missing in an abusive relationship, versus a power exchange.

Eeyup. I'm with you there. There are times when "sexy is backtalk met with backhand"* and there are times when the backhand was a reaction at the wrong time. That is not sexy for either of us on anything other than the immediate skin-deep gratification--he caused pain, which we like, but also emotional trauma, which we don't. In all of those wrong times, there is discussion, apology, and a lesson learned.

*Quote by evesdream, Wordslut Extraordinaire

 

[Netzach]

Tanos is an interesting fellow, I agree with him on many things and I disagree with him on many others.

To start with, it is impossible to unilaterally take power without breaking a dozen law not to mention consent. I know that Tanos does not want to be associated with people like Jon Jacobs & Polly Peachum. So I personally think he should rewrite that part.
For the rest there is not much difference between what he says and I say.

Francisco.

I personally re-frame this as a unilateral *extraction* of power. "Take" is such a open and shut, quickie kind of word. It doesn't work. It implies people chained in basements, a kind of JJ Polly-ism that I personally don't like.

It doesn't really deal with the process side of PE, at least as it might apply to femsubs (a lot of male subs are different and need dramatic gestures that trigger fight/or/flight head on to have the "aha" moments)

the process of taking power in TPE terms, as I understand them, involves building a soft cushion on a rock solid foundation, so that there *need not be fears*, so that the submissive submits via a reassurance and a realization that fears inhibiting this are not rational and unfounded, that Master really does have things under control and won't dish out more than the slave can take, creates a sense of submission as an act of faith.

"Taking power" implies that this isn't a slow, arduous, and often not linear process to my linguistically nuanced brain, whereas "extracting" does imply that Dom Dude better have a whole lot of patience and steel nerves.

 

[Netzach]

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.

I would attest that that accurately describes my relationship. Why it's healthy as opposed to unhealthy, is that the TopDog party is liable to examine her motives frequently and gauge herself in "exploiting" the services of the omega half. Also, both parties have recognized tendencies, desires, and motives in themselves that follow these lines. I'm happier when I feel I have final say on some deeper, macro level (where it matters, if that makes sense) he's happier when he knows he's treating his partner like a Goddess and it makes her happy and proud. It's out in the open and it has an outlet in SM, it's communicated about, it's not a tacit expectation, and if and when it becomes burdensome to the bottom party, it's supposed to be communicated, not hidden.

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.

Yes. Sometimes the bottom has a better idea or a better point, or I just feel like his whims and desires are to be indulged for a change instead of played with, denied, or used conditionally. I certainly change to suit him, or behave a certain way to suit him, as well, I think many Top halves do this if they have a desire to maintain the relationship over time. It may be a question of getting one's way, just not right this second, as the sub becomes more acclimated to a demand. I would describe this as "balance" and contending with day to day life and two people with careers and obligations and schedules and realities. In an ideal world, things might look quite different. However I can't afford to keep an unemployed, androgynous, latex-clad sex experiment and household servant with a C-cup and a penis at home comfortably on my current salary.
I guess what I mean is that for some people, control of the details is crucial, for me, the detailed day to day is "the small stuff". But can I still snap my fingers a certain way and get what I want? Yes.

I don't do that lightly though. I don't do it frequently. This isn't something done when I want cream in my coffee instead of non-dairy powder. There's a lot of ends-thinking here.

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.'

There's not a one-to-one apples to apples trade off. He gives up some things, he gets others. However, I'm not satisfied with a situation in which my wants eclipse his needs. Just because I'm the Top, I don't ascribe to this notion. M needs to feel useful and cherished by me, and he also needs to do creative work. I'm more likely to get on his case about not working on a project than I am likely to get on his case about not polishing my shoes. Why? I'd rather have a happy and playful fiance who feels good about himself and doesn't resent polishing my shoes later.

I think the wants-needs conundrum is interesting, because it applies to Dominants and submissives alike, and I find that my partner's wants are what function to meet my needs, and probably vice versa. They act as vehicles.

For me, SM and feeling in control, feeling served periodically are needs. Being waited on hand and foot, having cream in my coffee and honey in my tea and never having to ask for a refill, oral sex on demand, and having my library books returned by someone else...these are all wants. They are great! I love it when I get them! But they function as avenues to meet M's needs, just as his wants (an ass beating, a certain kind of vicious CBT, a cuddle) serve to satisfy my needs. (Feeling needed, feeling powerful, being fulfilled as a sadist)

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.

Yes, exactly. I think some tension is healthy, I think sometimes it is necessary for the bottom to say "why the hell am I doing this stupid thing AGAIN, dammit" and still do it anyway, simply because the Top wants it done. I think that provides balance for someone who is submissive, who needs to feel a push or a challenge in that direction. I think that this would be a crappy relationship norm for me, though, because it would throw things off in the other direction too far to excess.

"Excess" is relative, though, and every couple has to determine what that means. To someone else, my mellow hands-off approach would be horribly unhealthy, and they'd never feel fulfilled as a submissive on an ongoing basis. (Why I could not have a full time, live-in slave as a parter)

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.

And some are happy to do that and feel like they are exemplar wives and draw great happiness from it, and some live a life of simply buttoned up discontent, with which his power of denial alone will keep him satisfied, and a lot fall in between, that's my guess.

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. [/QUOTE]

That which is healthy for Netzach is the only thing to which I have made any claims. All non-Netzach entities follow this paradigm at your own damn risk if you choose, but the safety committee strongly encourages putting in the time and expense to have your own paradigm custom made.

 

[Netzach]

edited for double post redundancy

 

[A Desert Rose]

... That which is healthy for Netzach is the only thing to which I have made any claims. All non-Netzach entities follow this paradigm at your own damn risk if you choose, but the safety committee strongly encourages putting in the time and expense to have your own paradigm custom made.

This is some of the best advice I have yet read. It's refreshing to read someone who doesn't claim to have all the answers for everyone and everything.

At least Netzach, you have the answers that fit for you and that is all that counts in the end. That you share your information is a plus for the rest of us.

 

[fallon2]

So

So we agree to disagree but on one point we can agree and that is if it makes you happy . . . great. If it doesn't then find something, a way of life or new experiences that do.
Who am I to judge you? I am one person and if it feels right and good then do what you must. Life is short, and pleasure is fleeting. Make of the day what you can.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: So

So we agree to disagree but on one point we can agree and that is if it makes you happy . . . great. If it doesn't then find something, a way of life or new experiences that do.
Who am I to judge you? I am one person and if it feels right and good then do what you must. Life is short, and pleasure is fleeting. Make of the day what you can.

That's all folks.... you just became an official thread killer.

Congratulations!!!!




LMAO.

 

[Pure]

Hi Netzach, somehow I overlooked a *very interesting postin of yours, commenting on my quotation of "Tanos" saying that the dom/me 'takes' power from the sub.


Netzach said,
I personally re-frame this as a unilateral *extraction* of power. "Take" is such a open and shut, quickie kind of word. It doesn't work. It implies people chained in basements, a kind of JJ Polly-ism that I personally don't like.


It doesn't really deal with the process side of PE, at least as it might apply to femsubs (a lot of male subs are different and need dramatic gestures that trigger fight/or/flight head on to have the "aha" moments)

the process of taking power in TPE terms, as I understand them, involves building a soft cushion on a rock solid foundation, so that there *need not be fears*, so that the submissive submits via a reassurance and a realization that fears inhibiting this are not rational and unfounded, that Master really does have things under control and won't dish out more than the slave can take, creates a sense of submission as an act of faith.

"Taking power" implies that this isn't a slow, arduous, and often not linear process to my linguistically nuanced brain, whereas "extracting" does imply that Dom Dude better have a whole lot of patience and steel nerves.

These are excellent points. In fact, "process" is extremely stressed by the Tanos crowd, as some of the other material I've quoted, attests (and there's lots I haven't quoted). The 'army' analogy highlights process: the recruit learns to follow orders (this is 'drilled into him,' as the saying goes), not to be coerced at gunpoint in a battle.

What is common to the position of myself, Tanos, and yourself is denial that power is given (over) to or transferred to the dom/me. The 'surrender' concept, properly understood, may apply.

Further the alleged 'exchange' of that power (of the 'sub') for emotional security/ sexual gratication is does not exist, though it's commonly conceived in that quid pro quo fashion. (A surrender is not exactly a quid pro quo.)

J.

 

[Netzach]

Further the alleged 'exchange' of that power (of the 'sub') for emotional security/ sexual gratication is does not exist, though it's commonly conceived in that quid pro quo fashion. (A surrender is not exactly a quid pro quo.)

J. [/QUOTE]

Hm. Isn't the reassurance factor, though, that soft cushion on the rock solid foundation a kind of quid pro quo, or conditional at a minimum?

"I'll submit fully if and when I can be reasonably certain nothing truly traumatizing or beyond my capacities is in store."

I'm sure there are people who don't have this degree of self-preservation mechanism in place, but a lot do, and I don't think it means they aren't submissive. They just have a lot of conditioning in order to navigate the world.

 

[Pure]

{pure said,}
Further the alleged 'exchange' of that power (of the 'sub') for emotional security/ sexual gratication is does not exist, though it's commonly conceived in that quid pro quo fashion. (A surrender is not exactly a quid pro quo.)

J.

{Nexact said,}
Hm. Isn't the reassurance factor, though, that soft cushion on the rock solid foundation a kind of quid pro quo, or conditional at a minimum?

"I'll submit fully if and when I can be reasonably certain nothing truly traumatizing or beyond my capacities is in store."

I'm sure there are people who don't have this degree of self-preservation mechanism in place, but a lot do, and I don't think it

means they aren't submissive. They just have a lot of conditioning in order to navigate the world. [/QUOTE]

Well, if I may continue the army analogy, one may have many different motives for joining/staying, one might be confidence that the experience is 'handled' by the Powers so it won't be disastrous. OTOH, one might want to serve one's country, and be well aware that the ultimate sacrifice might be required, even where the Powers take reasonable care. In the latter case, I suppose the 'quid pro quo' is that it will some how be 'satisfying' to die thus, or it's satisfying to think/foresee dying thus. There might be something more tangible, like the payment of a large sum to one's family, a 'death compensation' like for the families of 9-11 victims.

But it did occur to me that something you've been saying for a while has some merit, based on the analogy. You favored 'treats' for the sub. Well, the army periodically 'treats' the men, whether to recreational leave or to a movie or a beer.
Clearly then, molding people proceeds in a number of ways of what psychologists call 'conditioning.'

Going back to the "power issue" then, we see that even 'extract' (from the 'sub') is not that good a term. The dom/me, we might say, constructs a situation of superior power (ability to get HIS/HER wishes carried out). To be fancy/schmancy, the dom/me's hegemony is co-constructed.

J.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Considering that there a a few new Dom/mes here and subs, too, I thought this might be a good bump.

More opinions welcome.

 

[CutieMouse]

Bumpity-bump...

(I was thinking I hadn't seen ADR post in a while [I hope she's okay...], and and then I was thinking about bumping oldoldold postage for interesting discussions, and *poof!* there was ADR and interesting discussion! )

 

[A Desert Rose]

Bumpity-bump...

(I was thinking I hadn't seen ADR post in a while [I hope she's okay...], and and then I was thinking about bumping oldoldold postage for interesting discussions, and *poof!* there was ADR and interesting discussion! )

Whether I'm okay or not is a debateable question, I suppose. ;-) But thank you for wondering after me and the bump.

It sounds (or more correctly, reads) to me that you are doing marvelous. I'm glad of that!

I would be remiss not to add a thank you to DVS for asking after me, a while back, too. Thank you DVS. ;-)