Strickly online D/s relationships...discuss, share advise

[Iamsubmissive]

Did no one have any thoughts on this?

Or am I being ignored ... I may have to go to that Playground thread 'what I hate about Lit' or something or other. I really should pay attention to thread titles.

no, you're not being ignored. I havent had the time to sit down and write out my resonse so I just let the label thing run for a bit. Ready for my opinion now?

I've had "the sub is really the one who's in control" discussion with a lot of people too. And they usually don't agree with me.

"The sub has all the power" theory is mainly based of the fact that she/he can end the arrangement whenever they want...take back control, stop submitting. Also because the sub has predetermined limits...things they won't agree to doing...she/he is maintaining 'basic control' of what happens. That is one way to look at it.

I don't see it that way. No one is willing to just do anything at all...nor should they be expected to do things they are totally against. That doesn't mean they have ANY control over what happens within their set perimeters.

Sure...a sub can 'use a safeword', stop a scene, or end things altogether. So can a Dom. That's not a special power only subs have.

Doms can have limits too. They have the same 'power' a sub has in that regard. They don't HAVE to do the things a sub likes if it's not what they want to do.

So, I see it more of a balance in power, with the Dom in control. It takes honesty and trust on both ends. Both have responsibilities to each other. But the sub places the control in their Dom's hands. He's in charge. He's in control. (That's kinda the point...unless you just want someone to 'direct' you, but then that's not really submitting.)

A submissive needs/wants what a Dom can provide. A Dom needs/wants someone to submit to them. They need each other. They compliment each other. Two halves that make a whole.

Some people can argue these points, but I don't see it any other way.

 

[barefootgirl69]

The ignoring comment was supposed to be funny.

 

[lakesailer_mi]

The ignoring comment was supposed to be funny.

LMAO...nobody puts "bfg" in a corner...

 

[barefootgirl69]

LMAO...nobody puts "bfg" in a corner...

LOL!

 

[cascadiabound]

I've had "the sub is really the one who's in control" discussion with a lot of people too. And they usually don't agree with me.

"The sub has all the power" theory is mainly based of the fact that she/he can end the arrangement whenever they want. [......]

A submissive needs/wants what a Dom can provide. A Dom needs/wants someone to submit to them. They need each other. They compliment each other. Two halves that make a whole.

Some people can argue these points, but I don't see it any other way.

I was tempted to just quote your entire post iams, but for brevity, the key bits for me are the above. But, yes. I completely agree with you.

It seems to me that a Dom and a sub are two sides of the same coin. Inextricably linked and connected. But...also distinct.

 

[cascadiabound]

LMAO...nobody puts "bfg" in a corner...

Sailor sighting!!!!!!

 

[Primalex]

Did no one have any thoughts on this?

Well, I'm not a fan of repeating my point of view in dozens of threads, so there are plenty of postings I don't reply to.

I already don't believe in the concept of free will, so nobody is in control of him- or herself in my world.

 

[Iamsubmissive]

Well, I'm not a fan of repeating my point of view in dozens of threads, so there are plenty of postings I don't reply to.

I already don't believe in the concept of free will, so nobody is in control of him- or herself in my world.

Ok...no one is in control of theirself, but can someone else have control over them?

 

[cascadiabound]

To elaborate:

Fighting stereotypes seems to me a bad investment of time and energy. There are just way too many. I mean, you can spend hours arguing that you are not a "typical submissive" and then people can still think that you can't park your car properly because you are a woman.

There are always stereotypes someone will fulfill and there are always some someone will not fulfill. I like naked women, barbecue, fast cars and I have always hair on my chest. I don't drink alcohol, not even socially. How much time and energy should I invest in trying to teach people that I'm just not the typical male because I don't drink?

I agree. Which is why adding extra stereotypes to the ones I am automatically saddled with to begin with does not seem to help. I am not sure I have ever met anyone who described themselves as a "typical" anything.

Also. My own struggle to figure out what "label" fits or doesn't fit has nothing to do with sub shame. Perhaps it has something to do with thinking too much. Maybe it has something to do with being a person who finds intellectual debate and turning concepts over and over in my mind and testing them to be interesting and a part of my growth. We all get to walk the path that makes the most sense to us. Sometimes that means celebrating coming to terms with and embracing whole hardheartedly - "I AM SUBMISSIVE - HEAR ME ROAR - and I AIN'T TAKING NO PRISONERS EITHER" (Far - you go girl) sometimes that means rejecting all labels and testing concepts the way Elle does (love you too, honey), and sometimes that means being the way it seems MeekMe and I are. And maybe Racy too. idk.

Sigh - sorry to walk the conversation back to labels again... but I have not had time to respond to this post until now.

 

[Primalex]

Ok...no one is in control of theirself, but can someone else have control over them?

My answer must be 'Yes' or I would ridicule the concept of dominance.

 

[Gotham_Central]

My answer must be 'Yes' or I would ridicule the concept of dominance.

If one denies the concept of free will, then by default, dominance is denied -even eliminated as an option. If no one has free will, then the PYL is not and never can be "in control". They are merely -at best- a tool in use by the greater whole of creation to express its will.

No Free Will, no power exchange, no dominance.

 

[cascadiabound]

If one denies the concept of free will, then by default, dominance is denied -even eliminated as an option. If no one has free will, then the PYL is not and never can be "in control". They are merely -at best- a tool in use by the greater whole of creation to express its will.

No Free Will, no power exchange, no dominance.

GC... Your logic is perfect. Thank you.

 

[Primalex]

If one denies the concept of free will, then by default, dominance is denied -even eliminated as an option. If no one has free will, then the PYL is not and never can be "in control". They are merely -at best- a tool in use by the greater whole of creation to express its will.

No Free Will, no power exchange, no dominance.

The lack of free will does not require a different entity of any kind to replace it - what I do is determined by a complex mechanism within me. Whether I would reply to your posting or not was determined way before I even read your posting - not by a deity, but by who I am and what constitutes "me". Free will is just the fact that you don't know what I will do - maybe I don't know it either. The fact that I cannot foresee my own actions does not mean that they don't come from me. You are right that I'm still a puppet then, but I'm also at the same time the puppet player of me. My genes, my upbringing, my experiences, my perception - they are still me, even if they control me at the same time.

Dominance is the ability to influence the puppet player of another puppet. When the other puppet says:"OMG...am I really doing this now?!", then you have achieved dominance. Everything else is just kinky sex.

 

[Gotham_Central]

The lack of free will does not require a different entity of any kind to replace it - what I do is determined by a complex mechanism within me. Whether I would reply to your posting or not was determined way before I even read your posting - not by a deity, but by who I am and what constitutes "me". ...

You've painted yourself into a corner; but nice effort in trying to extract yourself. . Shame its built on failed understandings and cherry picked ideas.

The concept you are attempting to describe is foundational to Deist theology and is typically termed as the theology of the Clockmaker God. It maintains that G-d, as understood by the adherent, created the universe and established rational, comprehensible moral and natural laws by which all elements of Creation function. It does indeed discount Free Will, replacing it with the inevitability of all things. Under the Deist theology, G-d built the clock, wound it and simply set it on the shelf; abandoning the gears and cogs to do the job as designed. From there on, He does nothing to intervene with the workings of the clock.

By extension, the gears can do nothing except what they are designed to do. Free Will is non existent and no cog can affect any other except as designed and intended.

Under the paradigm you've attempted to express, there can be no dominance absent free will.

Either, each individual chooses for themselves -making conscious decisions based on data collected and processed- or the decisions are preordained by the meshing of the gears. If all actions are predetermined -just the result of the meshing of the teeth of the gears of the cosmos- then Free Will is indeed impossible. By extension, dominance is -as stated- impossible. It simply cannot exist. It is an illusion, the masking of the ticking of the clock and the turning of the gears.

Absent free will, your claim to dominance is moot and empty.

 

[Primalex]

You've painted yourself into a corner; but nice effort in trying to extract yourself. . Shame its built on failed understandings and cherry picked ideas.

I think they are not bad, considering that they are my own ideas and nothing I read in a book. I see nothing shameful in there.

Either, each individual chooses for themselves -making conscious decisions based on data collected and processed- or the decisions are preordained by the meshing of the gears. If all actions are predetermined -just the result of the meshing of the teeth of the gears of the cosmos- then Free Will is indeed impossible. By extension, dominance is -as stated- impossible. It simply cannot exist. It is an illusion, the masking of the ticking of the clock and the turning of the gears.

Absent free will, your claim to dominance is moot and empty.

Hm. The mere fact that all actions are predetermined does not mean that one gear is not in control of another gear.

 

[Gotham_Central]

Hm. The mere fact that all actions are predetermined does not mean that one gear is not in control of another gear.

You continue to miss the point. Any measure of control -on the part of any "gear"- destroys your entire premise. You seek to place control within the situation -within the clock- and at the same time deny it to all other gears.

Your argument is antithetic parallelism at its basest. You seek to prove your position by citing the very position you seek to dispute.

 

[Primalex]

You continue to miss the point. Any measure of control -on the part of any "gear"- destroys your entire premise. You seek to place control within the situation -within the clock- and at the same time deny it to all other gears.

No, that's wrong. I do not deny that I'm myself controlled by other gears.

The gear for the seconds controls the gear for the minutes. The gear for the minutes controls the gear for the hours.

Your position is that nobody has control as everything is connected anyway and nobody can choose to move or not. I'm not saying this view is wrong. My position is that the hours do not move when the minutes do not move. And the gears for the hours do not move on their own. So for me it is semantically correct to state that the minutes dominate the hours.

 

[Gotham_Central]

No, that's wrong. I do not deny that I'm myself controlled by other gears.

The gear for the seconds controls the gear for the minutes. The gear for the minutes controls the gear for the hours.

Your position is that nobody has control as everything is connected anyway and nobody can choose to move or not. I'm not saying this view is wrong. My position is that the hours do not move when the minutes do not move. And the gears for the hours do not move on their own. So for me it is semantically correct to state that the minutes dominate the hours.

Neither seconds, minutes nor hours moves of it's own volition; neither can they chose not to move. The tension of the spring demands movement, demands that they fulfill their role. The spring is beyond the conception of the gears, like a dog watching its owner read a book. There is no control within the system.

 

[KimGordon67]

The lack of free will does not require a different entity of any kind to replace it - what I do is determined by a complex mechanism within me. Whether I would reply to your posting or not was determined way before I even read your posting - not by a deity, but by who I am and what constitutes "me". Free will is just the fact that you don't know what I will do - maybe I don't know it either. The fact that I cannot foresee my own actions does not mean that they don't come from me. You are right that I'm still a puppet then, but I'm also at the same time the puppet player of me. My genes, my upbringing, my experiences, my perception - they are still me, even if they control me at the same time.

Dominance is the ability to influence the puppet player of another puppet. When the other puppet says:"OMG...am I really doing this now?!", then you have achieved dominance. Everything else is just kinky sex.

Yes, but all those things (genes, upbringing, etc) ARE you - there isn't any 'you' external to that collection of influences. Therefore, when you act on the basis of that particular combination of variables, you are exercising 'free will' inasmuch as such a thing is possible (unless there are external constraints, which there usually are, but even then, how we as individual agents react to those external constraints is, to some extent, shaped by genes, upbringing, etc etc).
The notion that we have some 'self' (soul?) that's independent of all those factors is a comfort to some people, but it's not really necessary. We simply are the culmination of all the life experiences we've had to date. However, this isn't to say everything we do is entirely predictable or preordained - chance plays a factor in every single moment - not in the least because we regularly collide with other collections of life experiences.

 

[Mrtenant]

Life comes at you fast. Its a favorite saying of mine.

Choices,

To choose to create your world around you rather than be only reactionary

Or to be only reactionary, play defense, because it's all one can do to keep up, one cant keep up, or even refuses to try.

But aren't the creators still reacting in response to their own creation .....I am therefore I do?

I often tell my kid who is going into adulthood. It is your choice. Create your world. Or let life come at you fast and play defense, react to it.

Idk if any of that pertains to what you guys were stating, but since we seem to be getting all philisophical....here's my 2 coppers....and a round of beers. Y'all are good at this. Color me impressed.

(btw,, tip the waitress, she's trying really hard, and it's Memorial Day, hope it's a good one)

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Gotham_Central]

The attraction of Deist Theology is principally in it's "Do as you will" structure; you can do as you like because it was foreordained that you world. You are merely a cog in the larger creation. This presented a challenge to 18th Century churchmen who couldn't well oppose the position without appearing -to the poorly educated- to challenge the sovereignty of G-d.

It was, and remains, the refuge of those seeking to justify -and often impose on others- their whims.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Iamsubmissive]

I didn't know we were going to get all philosophical here. I don't know if I'm up to that challenge as I prefer to simplify things as much as I can. Usually the how and why, while sometimes important on a basic level, can make things more complicated than it needs to be when your look into it too deeply.

I understand the concept of not really being in control of yourself due to outside influences, circumstances and limitations, habitual behavior, emotions, morals, some higher power, etc. But I also still believe in free will...whether you exercise that freedom is more difficult to determine.

Most of the things we do are controlled in some way by the things mentioned above, but ultimately we are not bound by them. We can choose to ignore everything, including the consequences of our choice, and act/react without concern for those things. I think that's a pretty rare occurrence though.

We are controlled by laws. I might want to go to the store naked. I could, but I would most likely be arrested for indecent exposure. I don't want to get arrested, so I wear clothes. It was my choice to obey that law, but who was really in control there?

I might want to do something but choose not to because it would hurt someone's feelings...or get me fired from my job...or I can't financially afford it...etc.

When you're the passenger in a moving vehicle, you have no control over the driver's reactions. You chose to get in the car, but that choice gave someone else control. If it were someone you don't know well (a cab driver, bus driver, first date) you might be nervous or uncomfortable with that loss of control. If it's someone you know and trust, have ridden with many times before, it's easier to feel safe in their hands...more certain they know what they're doing, trust they will take you where you want to go without going too fast or taking dangerous detours. That's the closest analogy I can give to fit my view of a D/s relationship. As a submissive you can choose to 'get in the car' but the person behind the wheel (the Dom) is the one in control. The sub might be an 'active passenger'...hold the map, give some helpful directions that help the driver navigate, but ultimately how you get from point A to point B is up to the driver. There are some drivers I would consider dangerous and never even get in the car with them. Sometimes you might find it to be a bumpy ride. But with the perfect traveling companion, it can be a fun, scenic, enjoyable, exciting but smooth ride...even when the destination is unknown. In the same way, the 'driver' is responsible for your safety, and should have the best route planned out so the trip is still eventful...not boring, maybe seeing or exploring new places but not outside your comfort zone. A long road trip holds many possibilities, but is most enjoyable with the right partner.

 

[Gotham_Central]

I think you did fine!