Soft Dominance Discussion

[njlauren]

How does the Stockholm syndrome fit in there then?

Stockholm syndrome is not devotion, it is one of the ways that the human brain has to try and rationalize a bad experience.Children do this with abusive parents or bad parents, they convince themselves subconsciously that what their parents are doing is normal, or if the parent is literally abusing them, they deserved it. The reason is simple, children are hardwired to need parental authority to feel safe, and if they don't they rationalize it subconsciously until it feels safe. With Stockholm syndrome the captive comes to align/empathize with the perpetrators so they feel safe.

 

[Primalex]

Stockholm syndrome is not devotion, it is one of the ways that the human brain has to try and rationalize a bad experience.Children do this with abusive parents or bad parents, they convince themselves subconsciously that what their parents are doing is normal, or if the parent is literally abusing them, they deserved it. The reason is simple, children are hardwired to need parental authority to feel safe, and if they don't they rationalize it subconsciously until it feels safe. With Stockholm syndrome the captive comes to align/empathize with the perpetrators so they feel safe.

Well, this is just the "why", isn't it? The "why" doesn't matter when the question is "if".

Saying that a feeling or behavior arises as a trauma response explains its origin, not necessarily its nature. A person can become devoted to someone for unhealthy reasons just as they can become devoted for healthy ones. The fact that Stockholm syndrome develops as a survival mechanism does not, by itself, prove that the resulting attachment cannot also be genuine devotion.

A child trusts their parent because evolution predisposes them to do so. That doesn't make the trust any less real simply because it has an adaptive origin. You wouldn't say:"That's not trust, because evolution made your brain this way." Soldiers often develop intense loyalty through shared hardship and trauma. The fact that adversity fostered the loyalty doesn't make the loyalty itself fake.

Why is trauma-induced attachment and devotion incompatible?

 

[kimxoxo26]

Well, what can I say

 

[njlauren]

Well, this is just the "why", isn't it? The "why" doesn't matter when the question is "if".

Saying that a feeling or behavior arises as a trauma response explains its origin, not necessarily its nature. A person can become devoted to someone for unhealthy reasons just as they can become devoted for healthy ones. The fact that Stockholm syndrome develops as a survival mechanism does not, by itself, prove that the resulting attachment cannot also be genuine devotion.

A child trusts their parent because evolution predisposes them to do so. That doesn't make the trust any less real simply because it has an adaptive origin. You wouldn't say:"That's not trust, because evolution made your brain this way." Soldiers often develop intense loyalty through shared hardship and trauma. The fact that adversity fostered the loyalty doesn't make the loyalty itself fake.

Why is trauma-induced attachment and devotion incompatible?

Because in the end it isn't healthy. People who trauma bond (people who had rotten childhoods and then find each other and cling to each other because of trauma) often don't develop healthy bonds, they end up co dependent and a number of other things. There can be real devotion there but the main bond is not healthy. With Stockholm syndrome the bond is formed to try and avert being hurt, the emotion is real (all emotions are real) but it isn't healthy, there is nothing mutual about it. With stockholm syndrome the kidnapper gets what he/she wants, a compliant person, and the devotion is formed out of a survival mechanism. When you use soldiers it is a bad example, shared trauma/harsh conditions is a shared thing they all went through. When two people who have been abused as kids bond, they didn't have a shared experience, it is very different.

Children have an evolutionary attachment to their parents, which is obvious why it exists, it is the same reason children have a natural instinct to listen to adults (and why sex with children is always non consensual by an adult). The problem is when the parent violates that trust kids give them, abuse the kid, the child has this need to have a parent, and their find ways for example to blame themselves for the abuse or will excuse away a parent who bullies them or yells at them or hits them. Ask any therapist about adults going through therapy and the absolutely horrible things that patients will explain away with "well, you know, that is just the way they were, it doesn't mean anything"..it certainly does. Kids that have been sexyally abused by a parent end up feeling guilty, blaming themselves, and can end up shutdown as adults, mired in drugs and alcholhol. The problem is that devotion the kid gives the parents was not only not reciprocated by the parent, they used it to justify doing horrible things. The churches thought like you are saying, that the devotion the abused child shows the parent was ordained by God and is real, and not once think of how fucked up the parent was in what they did, and worse, those scumbags often blamed the child. My spouse was abused by her father for 11 years, I mean vile, and when she talked to a counselor at her Catholic High school, talking about the abuse at home, she was told to lose herself in her studies and pray for her father because he was the head of the household, and this wasn't the 1930s, this was the late 70's. I was in a support group for the partners of people who had been victims of incest, and you want to know how many of them had the same story of what clergy told them?

Devotion implies something that is reciprocated and comes from emotions that weren't coereced or something to survive a horrible , horrible childhood, to rationalize away the harm. The best way to put it is stockholm syndrome is non consensual emotionally, the victim is devoted to their captor with absolutely nothing to be devoted to except fear of being hurt or killed. When a parent sexually or otherwise abuses a child, the method the child uses to survive it is non consensual, it was a survival mechanism that was abused by the captor or the abuser.

And let me give you a scenario. A guy takes a girl home, and once home ties her up and whips her and tortures her for months, and eventually she becomes 'devoted' to him. Would you call that real devotion?

 

[puppett]

What is the difference between a soft dominant and a caring, attentive vanilla partner?

the difference is the misunderstanding that a dominant should be uncaring, inattentive and perhaps even cruel.

 

[puppett]

Why is trauma-induced attachment and devotion incompatible?

why is blue not red?

 

[Primalex]

Devotion implies something that is reciprocated and comes from emotions that weren't coereced or something to survive a horrible , horrible childhood, to rationalize away the harm.

"Devoted" comes from "vow", not from "healthy".

And let me give you a scenario. A guy takes a girl home, and once home ties her up and whips her and tortures her for months, and eventually she becomes 'devoted' to him. Would you call that real devotion?

No true Scotsman! Nice try.

No devotion would be pure lip service. No devotion would be to pretend to be submissive, to obey until you get a chance to escape.

 

[njlauren]

View attachment 2652368

"Devoted" comes from "vow", not from "healthy".




No true Scotsman! Nice try.

No devotion would be pure lip service. No devotion would be to pretend to be submissive, to obey until you get a chance to escape.

That is exactly what Stockholm syndrome is or an abused child, it is not real devotion because it is based in something that means it is not real. Devotion is when you love or adore someone, not someone you cling to like with Stockholm syndrome or abused kids to try and make a fucked up situation safe. By the way with the woman in question she may get so beaten down that she finally gives up, gives in, doesn't care rather than being someone planning to escape.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

the difference is the misunderstanding that a dominant should be uncaring, inattentive and perhaps even cruel.

In the wide world of all things BDSM, there are subs looking for a dynamic with a dominant who is cruel, maybe even uncaring or inattentive, although I think it’s more likely that those affects are negotiated and the PYL is playing the part. This all comes down to consent and dynamics. I love that about BDSM, that there’s not one right way. That wouldn’t be the dynamic for me and it certainly isn’t soft dominance, but I know a few people who would eat it up.

 

[Primalex]

Devotion is when you love or adore someone

No, devotion is the state of having dedicated yourself to someone or something. It is an inner vow, a wholehearted commitment to a person, cause, or ideal. Dedication and vow -> devoted.

Love can be the reason for that, but devotion isn't limited to love. It can be driven by any powerful motivation - anger, hatred, fear.

 

[njlauren]

If we are talking anger, hatred or fear driving devotion, then not so sure how that plays out in the context of soft dominance. If someone is devoted to a dom out of hatred, anger or fear, that is scary shit quite frankly, that kind of devotion generally leads to people being killed or killing.

 

[justyouraveragedaniel]

I thought this thread could be interesting. But is somebody really arguing that Stockholm syndrome is ok because the end result is all that matters???

 

[Primalex]

I thought this thread could be interesting. But is somebody really arguing that Stockholm syndrome is ok because the end result is all that matters???

Well, not me. I rarely dabble in such assignments, and in this case, it doesn't really make sense either.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

I thought this thread could be interesting. But is somebody really arguing that Stockholm syndrome is ok because the end result is all that matters???

I haven’t noticed anyone arguing that Stockholm Syndrome is okay.

 

[Primalex]

In the wide world of all things BDSM, there are subs looking for a dynamic with a dominant who is cruel, maybe even uncaring or inattentive, although I think it’s more likely that those affects are negotiated and the PYL is playing the part. This all comes down to consent and dynamics. I love that about BDSM, that there’s not one right way. That wouldn’t be the dynamic for me and it certainly isn’t soft dominance, but I know a few people who would eat it up.

I'm not even sure if this is BDSM. Like, if you seek out a cruel partner, because your father was a cruel person and you are now subconsciously attaching your daddy issues to a cruel partner in an attempt to regain the childhood love you missed out, then...this is just a fucked up partner preference. Then again, this is a slippery slope; rule out mental health issues for BDSM and you've cut down the number of female submissives by a large margin.

 

[njlauren]

I haven’t noticed anyone arguing that Stockholm Syndrome is okay.

Primalex said he didn't, but he said that people suffering from Stockholm syndrome could legitimately be considered to be devoted to their captor, and I made the argument it wasn't devotion, it was a method of staying safe in a dangerous situation. I doubt very much a psychologist or shrink would say that a captive wanting to marry their captor was sane or healthy. Or someone arguing a child couldn't have been abused by their parent because they show so much devotion to them (and yes, that has happened in real cases and the prosecutor refused to bring charges, despite the fact that psychs and witnesses said the kid was abused. Then again there are people who think you can't get pregnant from rape , so if you get pregnant it wasn't rape, or if someone orgasms during rape, well, that proves it wasn't rape..prob same people)

 

[justyouraveragedaniel]

Primalex said he didn't, but he said that people suffering from Stockholm syndrome could legitimately be considered to be devoted to their captor, and I made the argument it wasn't devotion, it was a method of staying safe in a dangerous situation. I doubt very much a psychologist or shrink would say that a captive wanting to marry their captor was sane or healthy. Or someone arguing a child couldn't have been abused by their parent because they show so much devotion to them (and yes, that has happened in real cases and the prosecutor refused to bring charges, despite the fact that psychs and witnesses said the kid was abused. Then again there are people who think you can't get pregnant from rape , so if you get pregnant it wasn't rape, or if someone orgasms during rape, well, that proves it wasn't rape..prob same people)

That's what I read. Any time somebody is justifying "devotion" as OK when it stems from abuse, I view that as a problem.

 

[njlauren]

In the wide world of all things BDSM, there are subs looking for a dynamic with a dominant who is cruel, maybe even uncaring or inattentive, although I think it’s more likely that those affects are negotiated and the PYL is playing the part. This all comes down to consent and dynamics. I love that about BDSM, that there’s not one right way. That wouldn’t be the dynamic for me and it certainly isn’t soft dominance, but I know a few people who would eat it up.

There are people who practice what they see as a variation of BDSM called consent non consent, that basically whatever the dominant does, including physically harming them, things like broken bones, even up to killing them, is okay...and that definitely isn't bdsm, I don't care how much people argue it is okay because they consented to be harmed. I suspect with the cruel, non caring, etc dominant situation that that is play acted, unless the dominant is a psycho (see consensual non consent above) in which case I think that is abuse personally.

 

[njlauren]

That's what I read. Any time somebody is justifying "devotion" as OK when it stems from abuse, I view that as a problem.

In all fairness I don't think Primalex was defending it or justifying it, I think he was playing what my mother used to call a smart ass word game, that devotion means x,y and z, and that is all that matters, which isn't true. With Stockholm Syndrome or abuse, it appears to be devotion but no psych type would ever definine it as that.

 

[justyouraveragedaniel]

In all fairness I don't think Primalex was defending it or justifying it, I think he was playing what my mother used to call a smart ass word game, that devotion means x,y and z, and that is all that matters, which isn't true. With Stockholm Syndrome or abuse, it appears to be devotion but no psych type would ever definine it as that.

Mayeb I'm just hyper-sensitive to any indication that any type of abuse can be justified, based on the relationship on the other side. Such is me

 

[ToPleaseHim]

There are people who practice what they see as a variation of BDSM called consent non consent, that basically whatever the dominant does, including physically harming them, things like broken bones, even up to killing them, is okay...and that definitely isn't bdsm, I don't care how much people argue it is okay because they consented to be harmed. I suspect with the cruel, non caring, etc dominant situation that that is play acted, unless the dominant is a psycho (see consensual non consent above) in which case I think that is abuse personally.

Then it’s not for you. But it’s not inherently abusive. If the participants are informed and consenting when playing out a CNC scene, then it absolutely is BDSM. Now, if real harm is done, and medical help is needed, it’s quite possible that law enforcement would take issue with this. I’m not a fan of anything that causes real harm and would give very strong advice to any PYL or pyl considering that level of play. PYL’s should not intentionally cause real harm. But even then, there are nuances on what one considers real harm. I would define injury as real harm.

Lots and lots and lots of people participate in CNC scenes with no harm or injury occuring and very happy people on both sides of the scene when it’s all said and done. As long as it’s RACK and SSC, that’s what matters.

Thankfully, we can often find partners whose kinks match our own.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

I'm not even sure if this is BDSM. Like, if you seek out a cruel partner, because your father was a cruel person and you are now subconsciously attaching your daddy issues to a cruel partner in an attempt to regain the childhood love you missed out, then...this is just a fucked up partner preference. Then again, this is a slippery slope; rule out mental health issues for BDSM and you've cut down the number of female submissives by a large margin.

I agree with you. But, I do think there are always variations in the human condition. Not everyone seeking that dynamic grew up in an abusive environment. For instance, a good friend of mine LOVES pain. It’s so erotic for her and she wants a certain level of violence in her sex. It’s not rooted in abuse for her, and I’m confident she’s not an anomaly.

But also, more anecdota from my personal perspective, as someone who did grow up in an unhealthy and violent home, I’m sure that led to the strong desire to not be punished, to be a “good girl” submissive type.

Man, I wonder what percentage of sub women experienced trauma as a child and how that percentage compares to the general population.

In all fairness I don't think Primalex was defending it or justifying it, I think he was playing what my mother used to call a smart ass word game, that devotion means x,y and z, and that is all that matters, which isn't true. With Stockholm Syndrome or abuse, it appears to be devotion but no psych type would ever definine it as that.

Devotion isn’t inherently healthy. Stalking, codependency, coercive control, and even Stockholm Syndrome would certainly all include devotion. Devotion is not always positive or healthy.

 

[njlauren]

I agree with you. But, I do think there are always variations in the human condition. Not everyone seeking that dynamic grew up in an abusive environment. For instance, a good friend of mine LOVES pain. It’s so erotic for her and she wants a certain level of violence in her sex. It’s not rooted in abuse for her, and I’m confident she’s not an anomaly.

But also, more anecdota from my personal perspective, as someone who did grow up in an unhealthy and violent home, I’m sure that led to the strong desire to not be punished, to be a “good girl” submissive type.

Man, I wonder what percentage of sub women experienced trauma as a child and how that percentage compares to the general population.



Devotion isn’t inherently healthy. Stalking, codependency, coercive control, and even Stockholm Syndrome would certainly all include devotion. Devotion is not always positive or healthy.

My feeling on it (and that is all it is) is that unhealthy devotion mimics devotion but isn't. Obviously that is just my feeling on it and it comes from devotion being used as 'proof' that something bad happened.

 

[njlauren]

Then it’s not for you. But it’s not inherently abusive. If the participants are informed and consenting when playing out a CNC scene, then it absolutely is BDSM. Now, if real harm is done, and medical help is needed, it’s quite possible that law enforcement would take issue with this. I’m not a fan of anything that causes real harm and would give very strong advice to any PYL or pyl considering that level of play. PYL’s should not intentionally cause real harm. But even then, there are nuances on what one considers real harm. I would define injury as real harm.

Lots and lots and lots of people participate in CNC scenes with no harm or injury occuring and very happy people on both sides of the scene when it’s all said and done. As long as it’s RACK and SSC, that’s what matters.

Thankfully, we can often find partners whose kinks match our own.

If real harm happens it is beyond RACK or SSC. Risk Assured Consensual Kink has risk in there, and real harm is not part of that IMO. Safe Sane Consensual with the sane portion of it also to me precludes real harm. The other thing is this may not be a scene, the ones I have seen were TPE D/s where the sub/slave literally allowed for harm, and i saw real examples of things like broken bones because the dominant/master deliberately broke bones. Law enforcement would definitely arrest the dominant in this case is made aware of it, you cannot consent legally to that kind of harm/

 

[Primalex]

Mayeb I'm just hyper-sensitive to any indication that any type of abuse can be justified, based on the relationship on the other side. Such is me

"Maybe I'm just hyper-sensitive" isn't a defense for misrepresenting people's arguments. If every disagreement gets recast as someone "justifying abuse", you are resorting to character smears instead of addressing what was actually said.