Who has the power in a D/s relationship?

[Shankara20]

Well then...what makes D dominant and s...subordinate? That's the part that confuses me if what you say above rings true for most...lol. Is it just a kind of "language" people are more comfortable "speaking in" or something?

I want a bottom who submits to me while coming from their own power - to be given to, to have someone strong in themselves subordinate to me is a huge turn-on. For me "dominant" & "subordinate" are about external actions more then about having or not having "power"

Language use is a huge area of discussion around here. This discussion could become fun, or it could piss people off. We shall see.

I am off to a meeting. Be back later.

 

[poppy1963]

Ok...ok...I "hear" it again...and I may "forget" it again and ask again....to have a "strong" person "choose" to "submit"...I hear it again.

Thanks for the clarification again...

 

[SirFace]

I think Crazy and I share power very well. Sexually, I take control but I think the power to read each other and react to each other remains in each of us. I doubt we would be considered a D/s relationship outside of play though.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I want a bottom who submits to me while coming from their own power - to be given to, to have someone strong in themselves subordinate to me is a huge turn-on. For me "dominant" & "subordinate" are about external actions more then about having or not having "power"

Language use is a huge area of discussion around here. This discussion could become fun, or it could piss people off. We shall see.

I am off to a meeting. Be back later.

I think in terms of Tops and bottoms it differs a little and for many others who are into D/s it is more about language than a lived reality, hence we get the assertions that a sub can always leave even when they have entered a TPE relationship. For me language can be very important and power certainly is an important part of the discussion. I am one who believes a sub should always have possessed their own power at some point in time, been able to survive and control their own destiny/life for 2 main reasons. Firstly, it makes it a lot easier to choose a PYL if you already are in a position of personal power and not looking for someone to rescue you and run your life...sort of cuts out a lot of the desperation and pitfall of falling into the wrong hands to a degree. Secondly, for those who talk of power exchange, to be able to exchange power, you have to have possessed it in the first place, otherwise you cannot offer it in an exchange.

I know for many there is this belief a sub just submits and a Dominant just dominates, but that mentality IMHO leaves many people open to abuse and manuipulation by fakes. If all it takes is to say you are Dominant, then we can all be one whenever we want, just say we are and then all submissives should drop at our feet. If you choose to submit, you have to have something more than someone telling you they are Dominant to which you can submit. I like to
see why a Dominant is dominant beyond just their calling themselves one...if not it becomes role play, not D/s, for me at least.

Catalina

 

[Blushing Bottom]

The girl is almost always so right on.

Hey Diva

Hope all is well I say in a slight hijack.

d

It's shared power. It's just polarized. That's like asking whether the Yin-Yang symbol is stronger on the Yin or the Yang side. It's shared. Can't have one without the other. Balance and exchange are what makes it dynamic.

 

[Recidiva]

The girl is almost always so right on.

Hey Diva

Hope all is well I say in a slight hijack.

d

Yay! So glad to see you!

 

[perl10]

I believe a lot of the problems with discussing power as it relates to D/S relationships is that our language poorly supports it. Take for example a parent that 'empowers' her child to the point of turning the child into a spoiled brat. That brat often appears to have the power, but is it so? Does the parent in fact rob the child of the power to function in society, and in turn makes the child dependent on the parent?

So when we ask, who has the power, what exactly are we asking? I don't see this as some acedemic question, but an important area for discussion to improve all of our relationships, not just sexual ones. Some of the examples given here like employer and employee, or buyer and seller are excellent examples on why these discussions are important. I hope to see more.

 

[Recidiva]

I believe a lot of the problems with discussing power as it relates to D/S relationships is that our language poorly supports it. Take for example a parent that 'empowers' her child to the point of turning the child into a spoiled brat. That brat often appears to have the power, but is it so? Does the parent in fact rob the child of the power to function in society, and in turn makes the child dependent on the parent?

So when we ask, who has the power, what exactly are we asking? I don't see this as some acedemic question, but an important area for discussion to improve all of our relationships, not just sexual ones. Some of the examples given here like employer and employee, or buyer and seller are excellent examples on why these discussions are important. I hope to see more.

The way to empower something without spoiling it is control. You have to have power and understand the responsibilities and limitations of that power that goes along with it.

Teaching one without the other is like having live wires without insulation. It's not a question of if you're going to get a shock that stops your heart, it's when.

 

[perl10]

The way to empower something without spoiling it is control. You have to have power and understand the responsibilities and limitations of that power that goes along with it.

Teaching one without the other is like having live wires without insulation. It's not a question of if you're going to get a shock that stops your heart, it's when.

I understand how to keep a child from being spoiled. I just don't think people understand what power means. As someone who is politically conservative I am forever getting into debates with liberals who like to spout platitudes like 'power to the people.' But really, where would 'the people' have more power, in a socialist society where elites decide what is in everyone's best interest, or a true capitalist society where everyone is free to spend their money where they wish.

Without understanding what real power is and where real power resides, it's hard to have a useful discussion on this topic.

 

[Shankara20]

I understand how to keep a child from being spoiled. I just don't think people understand what power means. As someone who is politically conservative I am forever getting into debates with liberals who like to spout platitudes like 'power to the people.' But really, where would 'the people' have more power, in a socialist society where elites decide what is in everyone's best interest, or a true capitalist society where everyone is free to spend their money where they wish.

Without understanding what real power is and where real power resides, it's hard to have a useful discussion on this topic.

If you will, please, related to the relationship between two people, how do you define (real) power?

Thanks

 

[Recidiva]

I understand how to keep a child from being spoiled. I just don't think people understand what power means. As someone who is politically conservative I am forever getting into debates with liberals who like to spout platitudes like 'power to the people.' But really, where would 'the people' have more power, in a socialist society where elites decide what is in everyone's best interest, or a true capitalist society where everyone is free to spend their money where they wish.

Without understanding what real power is and where real power resides, it's hard to have a useful discussion on this topic.

But if you do, then the conversation's easy.

 

[MasterPhoenix]

IMO, the Dominant has the basic power of the relationship, as it has been and is continually given to him, but the sub has the "nuclear option" in that she can revoke toe consent.

I call that the nuclear option becuase once that power is invoked, it is likely the end of the relationship.

Soooooo... to answer the question of who holds the true power.... EG hit the nail right on...

 

[Wyldfire]

IMO, the Dominant has the basic power of the relationship, as it has been and is continually given to him, but the sub has the "nuclear option" in that she can revoke toe consent.

I call that the nuclear option becuase once that power is invoked, it is likely the end of the relationship.

Soooooo... to answer the question of who holds the true power.... EG hit the nail right on...

Why would the Sub pulling the power away end the relationship? ANY Dom/Domme should always respect the Sub's limits. If they can't they aren't a real Dom/Domme.

 

[lil_slave_rose]

Why would the Sub pulling the power away end the relationship? ANY Dom/Domme should always respect the Sub's limits. If they can't they aren't a real Dom/Domme.

there is a difference between limits and 'pulling the power away' if i were to 'take back' all control over me that i had given Him, well then there is no longer a 'power exchange' the dynamic changes, and in most cases (in ours anyway) the relationship would be over because He no longer had that control over me, and that would be the only reason i'd 'take back' that control was if i didn't want to be in that relationship anymore. it would take ALOT for me to 'end it' that way. it's alot different than a limit being pushed and hollering a safe word.

 

[MasterPhoenix]

Why would the Sub pulling the power away end the relationship? ANY Dom/Domme should always respect the Sub's limits. If they can't they aren't a real Dom/Domme.

Basically, by pulling the power away, I am talking about a sub having a complete refusal to submit any longer. At that point the power exchange is gone....

 

[Wyldfire]

Basically, by pulling the power away, I am talking about a sub having a complete refusal to submit any longer. At that point the power exchange is gone....

Okay, that one I can understand and agree with. If it had just been a case of using the safe word my previous post still stands.

 

[Wyldfire]

there is a difference between limits and 'pulling the power away' if i were to 'take back' all control over me that i had given Him, well then there is no longer a 'power exchange' the dynamic changes, and in most cases (in ours anyway) the relationship would be over because He no longer had that control over me, and that would be the only reason i'd 'take back' that control was if i didn't want to be in that relationship anymore. it would take ALOT for me to 'end it' that way. it's alot different than a limit being pushed and hollering a safe word.

As I said to Phoenix, I agree if it's a total ending of the exchange.

 

[MasterPhoenix]

Okay, that one I can understand and agree with. If it had just been a case of using the safe word my previous post still stands.

I was not talking about the safeword.... That is why I called it the "nuclear option"

The safeword is a tool for communication in a scene, and I was talking about a relationship in general and not a scene.

The safeword is not a nuclear option, but a way to say hey there is something wrong.

Maybe, I am seeing things differently, but I see submission as a whole life thing, and was looking at it from that perspective, not from the perspectice of a single scene.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Wow.

I don't like that at all. And btw, that's so not me!

Call me powerless Fury.

Fury

*smiles softly* Aren't you on your second marriage? Who pulled the plug on the first one? Did you leave him, or did he leave you?

 

[Brosco]

I think the reference to using a safeword is very important in answering the question.

By having a safeword, the sub has the power to stop anything unacceptable from continuing. And conversely, not using the safeword is acceptance of what is happening. The Dom on the otherhand is the one in control of what happens. To me, that puts the power at around equal, but hard to measure because they come from different perspectives. If I was going to lean to one side on this, I would say that the sub has slightly more power.

And although someone said that a safeword is just for a scene, not the relationship - I would disagree, or at least how I feel it should be used. A safeword can be used at any time to clearly indicate that this is 'me' talking now, not the subbie, and should be respected as such. To use a very simple example - in a discussion about trying some new activity it could be made very clear that there was not the slightest interest in attempting this new idea, and avoid any misunderstanding that it was just a 'subbie protest'.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Who has the power in an employor/employee relationship? Does it make the employee more empowered because of the option of quitting?

One employee using the quitting option? Not really. But all of the employees using the option to go on strike? Absolutely.

The employer/employee analogy is a false one when comparing that to an interpersonal relationship because there are very very few single employer/single employee relationships out there. Usually, in the case of the a JOB, the exchange is time and knowledge and service for MONEY. It's not about meeting emotional and spiritual needs. It's a different kind of relationship with different dynamics.

I can change jobs tomorrow. Big woop-tee-do. You could change employers every day... just work for a temp agency. Weeee!

So even though using an employer/employee relationship analogy for a Dominant/submissive relationship is a false one (after all, an employer can survive losing one, two, often many employees, and can do so for long periods of time), lets consider a change that makes the employee/employer relationship comparable to a 1-on-1 personal relationship:

Without ALL of the employee(s) working together, how many companies will survive very long? Can you imagine what would happen to Ford, GM, or Daimler-Chrysler if they had a 100% employee walk out? With ONLY company owners to do the actual work of producing vehicles? Would they last a day? Sure. A week? Maybe... A month? That's getting sketchy here. Two? Definite thin ice... Holy cow, what would happen to UPS or FedEX with a month long 100% walkout? No drivers to pick up packages, pilots to fly planes, handlers to load and unload the planes and trucks... *waves bye-bye to the companies*

To survive, those companies would need replacements in a hurry to do the actual work that needs doing... An employer is even MORE dependent on getting employees to work than an individual Dominant is on having a submissive. Lets be real here - I as an idividual could operate for the rest of my life without having someone vacuum the house, cook my meals, wash dishes, etc... _I_ can do that work on my own, thank you. Could FedEx as an employer last a year without any employees? I don't think so.

This is why "collective bargaining" (unions) is such a powerful tool when dealing with employers. They KNOW that the survival of the company depends on keeping the majority of employees happy and working.

And don't bother arguing that some professional sports have survived season-long walk outs. The pro sports survived because the individual team owners had enough dinero to hold out. It was strictly who has the cash to wait. But those are the few exceptions to the rule, and everyone lost on those deals. The fans, the owners, the players, the sports writers, the hot dog vendors, the beer sellers, the scalpers, the folks in the T-shirt stands, the mascots, the cheerleaders ... everyone.

It's not even arguing an apples and oranges type comparison. It's an apples and internal combustion engines comparison.

 

[Life_Noir]

I think the reference to using a safeword is very important in answering the question.

By having a safeword, the sub has the power to stop anything unacceptable from continuing. And conversely, not using the safeword is acceptance of what is happening. The Dom on the otherhand is the one in control of what happens. To me, that puts the power at around equal, but hard to measure because they come from different perspectives. If I was going to lean to one side on this, I would say that the sub has slightly more power.

And although someone said that a safeword is just for a scene, not the relationship - I would disagree, or at least how I feel it should be used. A safeword can be used at any time to clearly indicate that this is 'me' talking now, not the subbie, and should be respected as such. To use a very simple example - in a discussion about trying some new activity it could be made very clear that there was not the slightest interest in attempting this new idea, and avoid any misunderstanding that it was just a 'subbie protest'.

With no particular offense meant to "brosco"....Am I the only one that has a problem with the above????

Oh well....
Yah know...Part of this re-curring question is a simple fallacy...
The idea that "one" of the parties is in "control" of the whole thing...
*sigh*
It has to be a successful symbiosis... *grin* Which is a nice succint way of saying something that lots of people say on here...
"Both" parties have "control"... Different types...And different aspects..But control nonetheless.
*grin*
ANd that tripping point of how you define control... When how you define it really doesn't matter... But that it actually exists. And works.
{Of course thats where you get into the muddle of "Damn we should have discussed all this before the ropes came out"...and trust issues..}

On the other end of the spectrum we find the "Oblivious Dom/me" and the sub who is only sub when it is convenient for them...
Neither of which {anecdotally} make for relationships of any length..

 

[Life_Noir]

And don't bother arguing that some professional sports have survived season-long walk outs. The pro sports survived because the individual team owners had enough dinero to hold out. It was strictly who has the cash to wait. But those are the few exceptions to the rule, and everyone lost on those deals. The fans, the owners, the players, the sports writers, the hot dog vendors, the beer sellers, the scalpers, the folks in the T-shirt stands, the mascots, the cheerleaders ... everyone.

Mmmmm And the party that generally suffers the most is the city where the team is based.... Especially since extortion has become a successfull and accepted method of bargaining for sports franchise...
"Build us a new stadium or we'll leave and go to "X""

Hmmm Come to think of it.... *grin* I've heard that tactic used in quite a few relationships too...

 

[MasterPhoenix]

EG, a simple correction 'replacements' should be exchanged with the correct word for them, scabs.

/hijack

 

[MasterPhoenix]

I think the reference to using a safeword is very important in answering the question.

By having a safeword, the sub has the power to stop anything unacceptable from continuing. And conversely, not using the safeword is acceptance of what is happening. The Dom on the otherhand is the one in control of what happens. To me, that puts the power at around equal, but hard to measure because they come from different perspectives. If I was going to lean to one side on this, I would say that the sub has slightly more power.

And although someone said that a safeword is just for a scene, not the relationship - I would disagree, or at least how I feel it should be used. A safeword can be used at any time to clearly indicate that this is 'me' talking now, not the subbie, and should be respected as such. To use a very simple example - in a discussion about trying some new activity it could be made very clear that there was not the slightest interest in attempting this new idea, and avoid any misunderstanding that it was just a 'subbie protest'.

In our relationship we do have a continuous 24.7 power exhange, but if rose needs to discuss something with me, we just talk about. THere is no need for a safeword for her just to say that she is not happy with something... for example.