thought for the day - top attitude
SilverOz
Admiral Lord Lewin:
He was never angry", says Rear-Admiral Richard Hill, his biographer
and sometime subordinate. " He never raised his voice. His technique
was to make you feel that you never wanted to let him down."
Seems to me that is a far better "top attitude" than "not taking shit".
Lord Lewin didn't take shit either I note, but that's not how the people
who worked for him remembered him.
An admiral can command his naval subordinates. If he tries that trick
outside the navy, he'll find that not only doesn't it work, it's counter
productive. Whereas being a good person, being someone people don't
want to let down... That works in or out of the Navy.
SilverOz
--
========================================================================
Australian BDSM Information Site http://www.zed.com.au/~master/abis/
========================================================================
LadiKath
>From the obituary in The Times (www.the-times.co.uk) for
>Admiral Lord Lewin:
>
> He was never angry", says Rear-Admiral Richard Hill, his biographer
> and sometime subordinate. " He never raised his voice. His technique
> was to make you feel that you never wanted to let him down."
>
>Seems to me that is a far better "top attitude" than "not taking shit".
Sounds a lot like my Dom, who mainly dominates by making me love him so much.
When I am slipping in pursuit of my goals, he talks to me. And I do feel like
I don't want to disappoint him. It is very motivating, much more so than, "do
this or I will whip your ass, " which for me would actually be more of a
reward.
I try to use this approach as a substitute teacher, but it's hard to get to
know the kids
well enough to use this method in the short time I have time I have them.
Katharine
Robert Dante
>
> From the obituary in The Times (www.the-times.co.uk) for
> Admiral Lord Lewin:
>
> He was never angry", says Rear-Admiral Richard Hill, his biographer
> and sometime subordinate. " He never raised his voice. His technique
> was to make you feel that you never wanted to let him down."
>
> Seems to me that is a far better "top attitude" than "not taking shit".
>
> who worked for him remembered him.
>
> An admiral can command his naval subordinates. If he tries that trick
> outside the navy, he'll find that not only doesn't it work, it's counter
> productive. Whereas being a good person, being someone people don't
> want to let down... That works in or out of the Navy.
>
> SilverOz
I am sure his friends did feel that way about him. I am also fairly
certain his enemies did not.
best regards,
ROBERT DANTE
Robert Dante
> i am in the "fortunate" position to have had three tops. That may not
> seem like many to some, as i've seen posts from people who seem to go
> through them like water somehow... i don't know how people do that,
> but it is a fact we're all different! Those three i've been with:
>
> 1. Here are the rules.
> 2. I can use fear if I have to, I don't care if you're afraid of me.
> 3. I don't want you here if you don't want to be here, you can leave
> whenever you choose. I don't believe in punishment, I believe in
> negotiation and communication.
>
> i find the third option far more effective. Being killed with
> kindness is an excellent way to go. <g>
More than once I've seen the lightbulb go off over a Dom/me's head when
they realize that the punishment they usually use, like spanking, is not
going to change the behaviour of a masochist who truly wishes to be
punished.
"Only" three Tops is not the point -- what counts is the quality, the
growth, the satisfaction. And out of curiosity, with which one did you
spend the most time?
regards,
Robert Dante
Robert Dante
copy of "The Leatherman's Handbook" is right next to my copy of "PET:
Parent Effectiveness Training." Lot of truth, there.
Amusedly yours,
Robert Dante
LadiKath wrote:
>
> >
> >From the obituary in The Times (www.the-times.co.uk) for
> >Admiral Lord Lewin:
> >
> > He was never angry", says Rear-Admiral Richard Hill, his biographer
> > and sometime subordinate. " He never raised his voice. His technique
> > was to make you feel that you never wanted to let him down."
> >
> >Seems to me that is a far better "top attitude" than "not taking shit".
>
louise
>More than once I've seen the lightbulb go off over a Dom/me's head when
>they realize that the punishment they usually use, like spanking, is not
>going to change the behaviour of a masochist who truly wishes to be
>punished.
As a person who is physically masochistic, and by that i mean that
certain types of pain are literally physically pleasurable to me
regardless of mental interpretations, i find it astonishing that any
Dom/me that you know who had been exposed to the scene would be so
naive as to expect bare hand spanking, for example, to be a punishment
for someone like me.
It is common knowledge, i believe, that you have been around the scene
for quite some time and have seen a lot. Don't you find it pretty
peculiar that a Dom/me (as opposed to a wanna-be Dom/me) could have so
little insight?? If the Dom/me had ever been to a play party, or read
anything on SM, or been trained, or had even been to a few munches,
one would think he or she'd be aware of the existence of people wired
like me.
Maybe i misinterpreted your point, because a Dom/me that knows all of
this might not realize that an particular individual is a masochist,
until inflicting pain and observing the results. Perhaps that is the
lightbulb going off over his or her head. Still, i wouldn't think it
would be too mind-boggling.
By the way, for those readers who find what i am saying to be
astonishing, do not fear. There are other punishments. Withdrawal of
attention can be an awful punishment and quite effective on someone
like me.
Disclaimer: i refuse to participate in the flamewars, and this post
is not intended as a flame or as support or anything else to do with
flamewars.
--
louise
louise's list of BDSM organizations in the US & Canada:
http://www.magenta.com/lmnop/users/louise/BDSMorgs.html
Already we are boldly launched upon the deep; but soon we shall
be lost in its unshored, harborless immensities. -- H. Melville, 1851
DonSideB
In article <36b2717a....@news.mindspring.com>, lou...@links.magenta.com
(louise) writes:
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 01:05:01 -0500, Robert Dante <B...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
>>More than once I've seen the lightbulb go off over a Dom/me's head when
>>they realize that the punishment they usually use, like spanking, is not
>>going to change the behaviour of a masochist who truly wishes to be
>>punished.
>
>As a person who is physically masochistic, and by that i mean that
>certain types of pain are literally physically pleasurable to me
>regardless of mental interpretations, i find it astonishing that any
>Dom/me that you know who had been exposed to the scene would be so
>naive as to expect bare hand spanking, for example, to be a punishment
>for someone like me.
>
Odd, it is very different for me. i am about as masochistic as you can get, and
i am happy as a possum in persimmons when Mistress spanks, whips or otherwise
tortures me, so long as the smile is on her face when she does it.
But if she is displeased and i have disappointed her, a punishment beating is
just as unpleasant for me as it would be for any vanilla guy yanked off the
street.
YMMV,
don
That which does not kill us is a good scene,
SSBB Diplomatic Corps: Tidewater Virginia
Dremaer
thinks she's a masochist - that she enjoys pain. I think she enjoys intense
stimulation in an eroticized content. (Tomato, tohmahto.)
I took a cue from some excellent books from Greenery Press (Bottoming Book,
Topping Book, KinkyCrafts) and decided to demonstrate to her that she is
*not* a masochist. (One of my favorite lines from those books is, "We'll
believe in pure masochism when we meet someone who can come from stubbing
his/her toe.")
One bit of advice/observation was that many tops keep one or two *very*
intense toys in the bottom of the old toy bag as a surprise for bottoms who
think they can't get enough. After she bought a copy of KinkyCrafts (hint,
hint, thought I) I decided to try my hand at a few of them.
One poppa bare, one quite large and one quite small bungee whip, and one
truly vicious (I tried it on myself, which looked a little silly but I think
I got the flavor of it) leather paddle later - which isn't bad for a week -
I think I've about got the argument won, and she can almost sit down again.
*lol* That last bit was a joke. I do have the argument won, and it wasn't
necessary to bruise her to prove it. She *does* listen from time to time...
Dremaer
--
"The suspense is terrible....
I hope it'll last."
-Gene Wilder, "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory"
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/9251/geohome.html
----------
In article <36b2717a....@news.mindspring.com>,
louise
wrote:
>Odd, it is very different for me. i am about as masochistic as you can get, and
>i am happy as a possum in persimmons when Mistress spanks, whips or otherwise
>tortures me, so long as the smile is on her face when she does it.
>
>But if she is displeased and i have disappointed her, a punishment beating is
>just as unpleasant for me as it would be for any vanilla guy yanked off the
>street.
Well i might be very unhappy about the fact that a need was seen for
my punishment, but that wouldn't prevent the spanking from feeling
pleasant physically. It's just the way i am wired i guess.
louise
wrote:
>One poppa bare, one quite large and one quite small bungee whip, and one
>truly vicious (I tried it on myself, which looked a little silly but I think
>I got the flavor of it) leather paddle later - which isn't bad for a week -
>I think I've about got the argument won, and she can almost sit down again.
One of my favorite SM activities is being spanked by a leather paddle,
especially one with a metal insert. Whips made of bungee strandlets
are very thuddy and don't seem like much of anything special to me
compared with other whips.
But you are right, there are some kinds of pain that are *not*
pleasurable to me. My dentist says i'm a big wimp, one of the most
cowardly patients he has. And there are some specific kinds of pain a
Sadist could inflict on me safely, that would be punishment. But He
would have to ask and find out what they are and how to proceed so as
not to move into the sphere of pleasure. However, Nobody has done this
yet.
i'm not saying there aren't kinds of pain that are unpleasant to me.
But if a Top thinks i'm going to object to a bare hand spanking, it
seems to me like he's gotta be really naive.
Steven S. Davis
: On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 01:05:01 -0500, Robert Dante <B...@netcom.ca> wrote:
:
: >More than once I've seen the lightbulb go off over a Dom/me's head when
: >they realize that the punishment they usually use, like spanking, is not
: >going to change the behaviour of a masochist who truly wishes to be
: >punished.
:
: As a person who is physically masochistic, and by that i mean that
: certain types of pain are literally physically pleasurable to me
: regardless of mental interpretations, i find it astonishing that any
: Dom/me that you know who had been exposed to the scene would be so
: naive as to expect bare hand spanking, for example, to be a punishment
: for someone like me.
There's lots of dumb dominants, or at least dumb people who think they
are dominants. Moreover there are many dominants who haven't been exposed
to the scene and know what they think they know from chatrooms and
bad fiction.
As it happens, you've both missed the point, which is what animal
trainers have long known, that punishment isn't a good means of
behavior modification. To modify someone's behavior you need
to make zir want to do what you want zir to do, and this is not the
same as making them afraid of not doing what you want them to do.
Wiitwd is full of paradoxes, and one which people won't learn from
most BDSM fiction (which is often full of people being forced to do
things they hate doing by the use of brute force or sheer terror
(sickphuxes, some of these authors of BDSM fiction)) is that the key
to power is not making someone do what zie doesn't want to do (only
a dominant so weak and insecure that zie feels the need to test
zir power needs to do such things), but rather making zir want to do
the things one wants zir to do. Not as much of an ego boost,
perhaps, for those whose egos need such boosts, but a much more
effective and lasting form of dominance over a person.
Punishment can modify behavior, of course. One can change the way
one's dog behaves by beating it whenever it acts in ways one doesn't
like. It's just not a good way, nor one which is most likely to
develop the behaviors one does like.
The same with people. Though with people one has the advantage of
being able to explain why one is doing the punishment, so - if the
punishment isn't haphazard or random or deliberately perverse
(note perverse/perversity is not the same as perverted/perversion;
"perverse" identifies behavior which is contrary to one's on
(supposed purposes, and perverse punishments can come either from
incompetence or, sometimes, as in the "the sky is red/the sky is green"
scenario, from an abusive intention to break down the subject's
trust in zir own judgement an induce learned helplessness) - the
person will know what it is one wants zir to do, and, if zie wants
to do what one wants zir to do, that will be the primary cause
of the change, with the punishment being a secondary contributor
(which still doesn't mean that it's a good way to modify behavior
(well, good in terms of effective it is in getting behavior to change;
it may be "good" in terms of how much the dominant enjoys applying the
punishment; I really don't want to YKINOK, and I am all in favor of
dominants applying pain to their submissives whenever and for whatever
reason that the dominant wants, but for me, personally, I find it
creepy that anyone would enjoy applying real (not play) punishments
to someone zie supposedly cares about, and I would never submit or
remain submissive to someone who did enjoy that; YMMV)).
It's probably pretty obvious that I don't much care for punishment
(which includes such nonphysical punishment as withdrawls of
attention; this does not mean that I would disagree with a dominant's
choice to not play with someone who didn't submit or persisted in
acting up; my own view here is, "If you want to submit, fine, then
submit; if you do not want to submit, that's OK also, and let me know
when you are interested in submitting"; YMMV). However, real
punishment - i.e. *not* play punishments, which of course aren't
really punishments at all - does have some valuable effects for some
submissives.
Even though it sucks as behavior modification.
The two major benefits of punishment are expiation, to help the
submissive get over the guilt and pain of zir failure, and
affirmation, the assertion by the dominant (and assurance to the
submissive) that the dominant does care about the rules/orders
zie puts out, and does care about the submissives conduct, and
cares enough to be willing to bother zirself with the unpleasant
task of administering correction (which need not necessarily be
what would generally be thought of as punishment).
Neither of these must necessarily be severe, nor need they be
particularly "sexy", and they probably should not be attractive
to either party. Useful punishment, IMO, is not enjoyable to
either the dominant or the submissive.
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
The SSB Homepage: http://www.phszx81.demon.co.uk/ssb/
The ASB/SSB Welcome: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/wel.htm
My homepage: http://links.magenta.com/lmnop/users/sd/sd.html
louise
wrote:
>As it happens, you've both missed the point, which is what animal
>trainers have long known, that punishment isn't a good means of
>behavior modification. To modify someone's behavior you need
>to make zir want to do what you want zir to do, and this is not the
>same as making them afraid of not doing what you want them to do.
As i recall from psychology classes taken in the Dark Ages, negative
reinforcement works, positive reinforcement works better, and best is
a combination of both. i pretend no expertise, and the class in which
i was taught this is one that i took in 1969. But this is neither here
nor there, because i am not a Top. It's not my concern or my business.
My point was that these people do not appear to be Doms at all.
Maybe a glass of warm milk before posting would help, Steven.
>for me, personally, I find it
>creepy that anyone would enjoy applying real (not play) punishments
>to someone zie supposedly cares about, and I would never submit or
>remain submissive to someone who did enjoy that; YMMV)).
Exactly. YKIOK, but when it comes to my kink, when i am in submission,
i do what my Dominant tells me to do. If that involves punishment i
accept it without question and don't go mouthing off about His
teaching practices. YMMV and apparently does.
> Useful punishment, IMO, is not enjoyable to
>either the dominant or the submissive.
i've never served a Dominant who enjoyed punishing me, and i sure
don't enjoy it either. But that has no implications to me. In my style
of kink, it's not up to me to control or manage what is done in D/s
when i am in submission.
Katharine Hawks
wrote:
<snip>
>As it happens, you've both missed the point, which is what animal
>trainers have long known, that punishment isn't a good means of
>behavior modification. To modify someone's behavior you need
>to make zir want to do what you want zir to do, and this is not the
>same as making them afraid of not doing what you want them to do.
Depending on what you mean by "punishment" -- this may not
necessarily be true. In dog handling we call it "correction", which
is definately a negative reinforcement. Corrections can be either
verbal or physical. Typical physical corrections may include a collar
pop, an alpha roll, a shake by the scruff, and so on.
Punishment is never appropriate, since dogs don't feel guilt nor
remorse, nor do they need catharsis. They generally don't remember
what they did wrong.
Corrections have to be carefully timed to coincide with the
misbehavior, or the pooch gets confused about what exactly he's doing
wrong. (Note, I'm not a pro like Shirley -- just know some basics as
applied to the WonderDog, who is not a human-dog, but a dog-dog.)
Lots of dog owners poorly time their corrections and they become
ineffective and often create problems with fear, mistrust, etc. For
example, imagine someone who calls their dog and the dog doesn't come.
When the dog decides to mosey back to the owner five minutes later,
the owner gives him a verbal correction. The dog is therefore being
taught that coming to master is a bad thing. In lots of cases, it's
not the correction that's wrong, but the timing of the correction.
Just an FYI.
And for what it's worth -- I use corrections in (human) D/s, both
verbal and physical. Punishment is a separate category for me.
--Katharine
**SSBB Diplomatic Corps, Chicago**
**********************************
"My Vicious Valentine"
A weekend-long fetish & leather event in Chicago
Valentine's Day Weekend
www.mjsleathernet.com for more info
Janet Hardy
>This ties into a little difference of opinion I have with my slave. She
>thinks she's a masochist - that she enjoys pain. I think she enjoys intense
>stimulation in an eroticized content. (Tomato, tohmahto.)
>
>I took a cue from some excellent books from Greenery Press (Bottoming Book,
>Topping Book, KinkyCrafts) and decided to demonstrate to her that she is
>*not* a masochist. (One of my favorite lines from those books is, "We'll
>believe in pure masochism when we meet someone who can come from stubbing
>his/her toe.")
>
>One bit of advice/observation was that many tops keep one or two *very*
>intense toys in the bottom of the old toy bag as a surprise for bottoms who
>think they can't get enough. After she bought a copy of KinkyCrafts (hint,
>hint, thought I) I decided to try my hand at a few of them.
>
>truly vicious (I tried it on myself, which looked a little silly but I
think
>I got the flavor of it) leather paddle later - which isn't bad for a week -
>I think I've about got the argument won, and she can almost sit down again.
>
>necessary to bruise her to prove it. She *does* listen from time to time...
Yeep. I'm one of the authors of those books. Just because you can give her a
kind of pain that she doesn't enjoy, doesn't mean she isn't a masochist (if
you work your way back through all those negatives you'll find that sentence
does indeed make sense).
A masochist is someone who has the ability to eroticize some forms of
stimuli which would be painful to someone else. C'est tout. Most people have
the ability to be masochistic under the proper circumstances.
One of my pet peeves is the individual who tells me, "I'm not a masochist
like you -- to me, pain *hurts*." Well, geeze, pain hurts me too; it's just
that under certain circumstances, it also turns me on.
There's the kind of pain that is such a direct turn-on that I have to pay
attention to it to notice that it's also hurting (a moderate spanking is
this kind, for me). There's the kind that I have to fight and wrestle and
white-knuckle it through, arguing with myself every minute not to safeword,
only to discover afterwards that I'm dripping wet (a pair of tough nipple
clamps do this to me). Then there's the kind that scares me enough that
neither the pain nor the turn-on matters; I'm just scared (the pain of
having my arms or neck wrenched or twisted, say by some kinds of bondage).
And then there's the kind that is simply non-erotic (nonconsensual pain such
as a toe-stub or a root-canal).
I would expect that your slave probably experiences all these kinds of pain
as well, although the stimuli are probably different. And that makes her,
IMO, a masochist.
(BTW, try the paddle made from the sole of a kung-fu shoe if you really want
to convince her that she's had enough. I carry one for my favorite masochist
for that exact reason.)
Verdant
louise
<ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>And then there's the kind that is simply non-erotic (nonconsensual pain such
>as a toe-stub or a root-canal).
(giggle) umm.... well if my dentist did a nonconsensual root canal on
me, i'd be really pissed. :)
i don't know why the pain of dentistry bothers me so much. When i was
a child, it was *indeed* nonconsensual, because my parents consented,
not me. And back then, with no anesthetic and inferior equipment, it
really did hurt. Maybe that is why i still am terrified of the
dentist, despite the advent of relatively painless dentistry. My
dentist is always clearly informed of even the slightest little tweak
of pain and he has taken to giving me lots of anesthetic. LOL
i could possibly get into a toe-stub if there were sufficient warm-up.
i think in that case, it is the surprise and suddenness that is
objectionable. It's sort of a self-protection reflex to object to
sudden unexpected strong pain, maybe.
-^-^spectrum-^^-
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:21:23 -0800, "Janet Hardy"
><ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>And then there's the kind that is simply non-erotic
>>(nonconsensual pain such as a toe-stub or a root-canal).
louise:
>(giggle) umm.... well if my dentist did a nonconsensual root canal
>on me, i'd be really pissed. :)
[snip]
>i could possibly get into a toe-stub if there were sufficient
>warm-up. i think in that case, it is the surprise and suddenness
>that is objectionable. It's sort of a self-protection reflex to
>object to sudden unexpected strong pain, maybe.
Experience in pain play has helped me learn to deal with pain
better than I used to. The toe-stub or bee sting still hurts as
much as ever at the moment that it happens, but I can take a
second moment to *process* the pain and reduce it. It doesn't feel
actually *good* then, but I'm no longer panicked when I feel pain.
I assess the damage, and in the cases of minor harm, sort of let
it hurt while my brain goes on to other things. Definitely a
useful skill.
-^-^spectrum-^^- spec...@magenta.COM
Tales of the ASBWorld: http://magenta.com/lmnop/users/spectrum
The description of Pervhome and the Guestbook are there also.
"No pain, no pain." - my HS coach
victorian squid
<ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> A masochist is someone who has the ability to eroticize some forms of
> stimuli which would be painful to someone else. C'est tout. Most people have
> the ability to be masochistic under the proper circumstances.
>
> One of my pet peeves is the individual who tells me, "I'm not a masochist
> like you -- to me, pain *hurts*." Well, geeze, pain hurts me too; it's just
> that under certain circumstances, it also turns me on.
OK, I -suspect- I'm one of those people that peeves Verdant :).
But I will stubbornly maintain that I don't consider myself a masochist in
the sense that it is most often used around here. Physical pain doesn't
turn me on much. When I say something like "to me, it hurts", I'm mostly
sloppy-usaging (there goes the queen of neologisms again!). I don't mean
to imply that if I were a masochist, no pain would hurt! And I also don't
mean to imply that there aren't complex, individual reactions to different
kinds of pain in different contexts.
I mean that generally speaking I don't seem to get out of it what some
other people get out of it. Perhaps that is also what other people mean
when they say this, perhaps not. But it's what I mean when I say I'm not a
masochist.
I think it depends how you define a masochist too. Technically I suppose I
would be if you include "mental masochists".
Love on ya,
Susan
Steven S. Davis
louise (lou...@links.magenta.com) wrote:
: As i recall from psychology classes taken in the Dark Ages, negative
: reinforcement works,
Punishment and negative reinforcement aren't quite the same thing.
Perhaps one of the people who knows this area better than I will define
the difference better than I could. Yes, electrify one side of a cage
and the creature in the cage will quickly learn to stay on the other side.
Beating the creature whenever it wanders onto that side of the cage
may teach it eventually to avoid the part of the cage, and may teach it
other things that weren't intended and aren't desired.
: positive reinforcement works better, and best is
: a combination of both. i pretend no expertise, and the class in which
: i was taught this is one that i took in 1969. But this is neither here
: nor there, because i am not a Top. It's not my concern or my business.
: My point was that these people do not appear to be Doms at all.
I'd show them the courtesy of saying they were dumb doms (I suppose
that whether or not one wishes to shoot dumb doms is a personal
choice ;-> ) or inexperienced doms.
: Maybe a glass of warm milk before posting would help, Steven.
Thank you, no. I'll leave the milk to the cats.
callieslv
Katherine, etc ... and I just gotta toss my nickel in, too.
Punishment, correction, negative re-inforcement ... I can see the
differences when they are explained (thanks, Lady Katherine), and I can
understand that Louise may find all methods of spankings to be good.
I have rules to follow. I try very hard to follow those rules. Sometimes,
though, I mess up. I know damn good and well that unless there is a gag on
me, I am to ask before I cum. What happens when I get so overwhelmed by my
own body that I forget? A reminder happens. The last time, it was 6 rather
stinging slaps on my ass, each one counted, and each one bringing tears.
How many times has it happened? Yes, it's been more than once, but they are
far between. I've been through close to an hour of being made to wait -
while bound, dammit - just the thought of ropes makes me wet, and I'm
supposed to lay there and watch the clock and know that I can't cum until it
reaches a certain time? What, are you crazy, Master? There's no way in
hell I can do this!! Sure there is, as long as he keeps poking his head in
on me, gently reminding me verbally every 10 minutes that I can do this,
that there's not a lot of time left, that each minute that goes by is one
less to deal with. By the time the hour passed, I was near exhaustion from
fighting myself. But the reward for making it was grand!
I don't follow rules for the reward. I follow rules because I want to. I
don't expect a reward for bringing the perfect cup of tea. I am surprised
almost every time when he kisses me - grabbing my hair, interrupting my
keystrokes on the computer, just because he got up for a second, and decided
I was in need of a kiss.
The worst punishment in the world, I think I give myself. Not all that long
ago, there was a question of whether I really trusted him. For the next few
hours, I was physically ill. This relationship was long distance, and I
couldn't even speak coherently on the phone to him, the bile kept rising in
me. The mere thought that I had given him such an impression!
And - there is, in this relationship, the gift he gives me - the ability to
say "I disagree, I think that's too much for the error committed". We've
been known to hold back a punishment for a little while and discuss the
"payment for the crime". Twenty lashes for something minor? I don't think
so. I think he over-reacted. And in less than 2 minutes' time, he'd
reconsidered, settled himself a little, and agreed with me - so I got 10.
Still enough to upset me. Still enough to make me cry.
I can get wet with a little slap to a denim-covered ass. I can cum with 3
of those same slaps to a bare ass. It's my "wiring". (thanks for the term,
Louise). It's also my wiring that gives me the reaction I get when I
realize I've done it wrong.
The worst he could do to me, is silence, neglect (my opinion of it),
withhold his touch. But even though there are times when the previously
corrected error has been committed again, they don't show up again quickly,
they don't come the next day.
And I certainly don't use the word "punishment" when I ask to be whipped. I
don't say "I've been a bad girl, beat me". Hell no, I might even go get the
flogger and say "this hasn't been used enough lately".
As strong as I am, as much as I love having a clamp put on very tightly and
twisted, as much as wooden clothespins are becoming an "ewww", I still react
very strongly when I know what I'm being given is because I have done
something incorrectly.
And I hope I stay that way.
I'm glad Louise is different, though. What if all of us did everything the
exact same way? What if we all reacted the same? Yuck. Louise, I hope you
can find that Dominant who will ask what implement to use that will convince
you that it's punishment. Lady Katherine, may your timing always be proper.
Count's callie
SilverOz
victorian squid <underwate...@usa.net> wrote:
>OK, I -suspect- I'm one of those people that peeves Verdant :).
Me too :)
>
>But I will stubbornly maintain that I don't consider myself a masochist in
>the sense that it is most often used around here. Physical pain doesn't
>turn me on much. When I say something like "to me, it hurts", I'm mostly
I well remember that when I first started getting into learning
about BDSM, I read asb and various other net.resources and the
underlying (and occasionally up front) thing was "Oh yes! that was
good! I like this!" whenever talking about flogging or painplay
generally.
The overwhelming impression was that it was somehow different to
"normal pain", this was only reinforced by the famous "stub your
toe" argument.
Somehow, it seemed, the trappings of BDSM made pain not hurt but
feel good. Must be so, because no one said "it hurt" they all said
how much they loved it, wanted it, needed it, how *good* it was.
Needless to say, my first experience of painplay was a very unpleasant
shock. (not helped by my dom telling me how wonderful it would be. *He*
was a masochist too.)
Now many years later I know a bit more. I know that some people seem
to transmute pain into something else but they are a minority. I know
that some people get this "endorphin high" thing and they want the
pain because it leads to that. Some people find spankings don't hurt
in the same way as other pain, and they like that.
And I know I'm none of the above.
I do painplay purely as submission. I don't want to be hurt, but
there does come a time when I want him to hurt me not because I
get anything out of it phyically - endorphins or whatever - but because
it is submission, I want to give him that pain I hate.
But I'm no masochist, and I still feel like I'm on the outer because
I don't do this "oh lovely, painplay, we all like to be flogged" thing.
SilverOz
Lacenlthrs
SilverOz succinctly expounded:
>Now many years later I know a bit more. I know that some people seem
>to transmute pain into something else but they are a minority. I know
>that some people get this "endorphin high" thing and they want the
>pain because it leads to that. Some people find spankings don't hurt
>in the same way as other pain, and they like that.
>
Hmmm, I don't know if I'm one of Verdant's "peeve-ees" or not. <G>
Once upon a time, I had a very low pain threshold. I would NEVER have described
myself as anything *close* to a masochist. My first Master (bless him) slowly
and carefully rewired me, by mixing pain with pleasure (flogging with fondling,
etc.) until all the sensations blended together. At first, I couldn't tolerate
much pain at all without some "incentive" to go with it. Gradually, I could
accept pure pain, mostly as an act of submission. Finally, over two years'
time, the flogging could get me just as wet, in and of itself, as the fondling
could--sometimes more so. Now, on less-than-rare occasions, a serious flogging
or concentrated nipple torture (Master's favorite) can make me cum, all by
itself. Who'd a thunk it?
I still wince at the "noncon" dentist type stuff, but my tolerance is much
higher.
KarenJ
Robert Dante
> Odd, it is very different for me. i am about as masochistic as you can get, and
> i am happy as a possum in persimmons when Mistress spanks, whips or otherwise
> tortures me, so long as the smile is on her face when she does it.
> But if she is displeased and i have disappointed her, a punishment beating is
> just as unpleasant for me as it would be for any vanilla guy yanked off the
> street.
Excellent feedback, which is the purpose of this newsgroup, beyond being
a flamefest.
Personally, I have not encountered such as you, except in conversation.
It would indicate a sensitivity to the motive as the drive for the act
-- most good Tops I know prefer the ignore path (as in, "If this is what
they do for attention, the punishment is to withhold attention.").
Thank you for your input -- your owner is fortunate to enjoy such a
clear communication with you -- I sm sure it benefits you both.
best regards,
ROBERT DANTE
Robert Dante
> A masochist is someone who has the ability to eroticize some forms of
> stimuli which would be painful to someone else. C'est tout. Most people have
> the ability to be masochistic under the proper circumstances.
Applause from R Dante. "Well said."
As I say in my bullwhip video, "The easiest thing in then world is for
one person to hurt another. It becomes SM when BOTH people enjoy it."
best regards,
Robert Dante
out to email.ix.netcom.com
<kha...@enteract.com> wrote:
>On 28 Jan 1999 17:35:03 GMT, s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis)
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>As it happens, you've both missed the point, which is what animal
>>trainers have long known, that punishment isn't a good means of
>>behavior modification. To modify someone's behavior you need
>>to make zir want to do what you want zir to do, and this is not the
>>same as making them afraid of not doing what you want them to do.
>
>Depending on what you mean by "punishment" -- this may not
>necessarily be true. In dog handling we call it "correction", which
>is definately a negative reinforcement. Corrections can be either
>verbal or physical. Typical physical corrections may include a collar
>pop, an alpha roll, a shake by the scruff, and so on.
>
>Punishment is never appropriate, since dogs don't feel guilt nor
>remorse, nor do they need catharsis. They generally don't remember
>what they did wrong.
>
>Corrections have to be carefully timed to coincide with the
>misbehavior, or the pooch gets confused about what exactly he's doing
>wrong. (Note, I'm not a pro like Shirley -- just know some basics as
>applied to the WonderDog, who is not a human-dog, but a dog-dog.)
>Lots of dog owners poorly time their corrections and they become
>ineffective and often create problems with fear, mistrust, etc. For
>example, imagine someone who calls their dog and the dog doesn't come.
>When the dog decides to mosey back to the owner five minutes later,
>the owner gives him a verbal correction. The dog is therefore being
>taught that coming to master is a bad thing. In lots of cases, it's
>not the correction that's wrong, but the timing of the correction.
>
>Just an FYI.
>
>And for what it's worth -- I use corrections in (human) D/s, both
>verbal and physical. Punishment is a separate category for me.
Well no, correction works with dogs, but not nearly as fast and as
well as positive reinforcement. Obviously with a dog you have to
correct at the time and place of the misbehavior or the dog hasn't a
clue why you are punishing him and as Katharine says, may easily
associate it with coming as called and you now have a dog that will
come close but irritatingly not close enough to be touched when called
(ever wonder before why they do that? Now you know).
What is most effective is to allow the dog no other choice but to do
as desired and then praise the heck out 'em and give him a cookie.
Then they associate the proper behavior with positive reinforcement
and especially with a dog that responds well to tidbits, your training
goes much faster.
The way you allow the dog no other choice, is to take them outside
right after a meal or sleep when they normally would pee and then
praise them when they do so in the correct spot, or when telling them
to sit - push their butts down so they have to - and then praise them
like they did it themselves.
I couldn't say how this relates to sub training. You throw sadism and
masochism on one side or the other or both and we are no longer
talking about training, but about playing and the dynamics will be
different for each situation.
Arrow
Dremaer
(louise) wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:47:21 -0600, "Dremaer" <dre...@geocities.com>
> wrote:
>
>>One poppa bare, one quite large and one quite small bungee whip, and one
>>truly vicious (I tried it on myself, which looked a little silly but I think
>>I got the flavor of it) leather paddle later - which isn't bad for a week -
>>I think I've about got the argument won, and she can almost sit down again.
>
> One of my favorite SM activities is being spanked by a leather paddle,
> especially one with a metal insert.
She *hates* that paddle. Absolutely hates it. I didn't even *make* the one
with the metal insert yet. I sort of wonder if she'll hate it more, or less.
Seems that if it's less flexible it might not hurt so much. Haven't used a
lot of paddles, personally. Lots and lots of whips/floggers, but this is
first paddle I've owned.
> Whips made of bungee strandlets
> are very thuddy and don't seem like much of anything special to me
> compared with other whips.
It depends, it turns out, on three things. These three things are the exact
same three things, naturally, that determines where on the stingy/thuddy
continuum *any* whip/flogger/whatever lies. Bungee whips seem to be quite a
bit more variable than other whips:
1) How thick the ropes are: The thicker the cord that you make the whip out
of , the thuddier the whip is. One 1/4" cord can make quite a stingy whip.
Three 3/8" cords bound together properly makes a very thuddy whip, not
unlike a nylon flogger but with more friction due to the different material.
(Sorry for all you SI users, I'd prefer it myself but this is America...
multiply by 25.4 to get mm diameters for the cords.)
2) How long the strands are: This makes a *huge* difference. Short ones are
thuddy. Period. It seems to be more the fact that they all hit at the same
time than the relative speed of the thing: small ones and large ones have
much the same characteristics.
3) The angle and speed of the swing: Of course, this is critical. Even a
short one can sting if you just swipe with the tip. And if you let it wrap,
it's going to sting when it lashes around.
I have a big one that's very thuddy... unless you only use the tip. It's
very long and the tip is moving *very* fast when it hits. *That* smarts. I
have a small one that's *very* stingy, because there's not much to it: swing
it hard at all and it's going to smack a very small area very hard. And of
course it depends on where you're hitting, how fast, how hard, how aroused
the person is, if the area and/or the whip are wet, etc.
Dremaer
--
Cutter John's Theory of Temporo-Natal Irrelevance:
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood!"
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/9251/geohome.html
If you live near Chicago, you should check out "Galleria Domain," a spiffy
new D&s/fetish club open nightly. It's way cool. This is a totally
unsolicited testimonial, but the operators are friends of mine, if that
makes a difference. Link: http://www.galleriadomain.com
Katharine Hawks
wrote:
>On 28 Jan 1999 16:41:17 GMT, dons...@aol.combackatyu (DonSideB)
>wrote:
>
>>Odd, it is very different for me. i am about as masochistic as you can get, and
>>i am happy as a possum in persimmons when Mistress spanks, whips or otherwise
>>tortures me, so long as the smile is on her face when she does it.
>>
>>But if she is displeased and i have disappointed her, a punishment beating is
>>just as unpleasant for me as it would be for any vanilla guy yanked off the
>>street.
>
>Well i might be very unhappy about the fact that a need was seen for
>my punishment, but that wouldn't prevent the spanking from feeling
>pleasant physically. It's just the way i am wired i guess.
Most bottoms I know are a little more like donsideb -- if the
punishment is being done in a ritualistic setting, with the dominant
fully expressing hir displeasure, I haven't seen many bottoms wriggle
their butts in pleasure and delight out of a masochistic response.
I'm more used to seeing tears and sorrow.
Dremaer
I wasn't going to get into this, but I love definition arguments... *smile*
----------
In article <36b0a5fc....@news.enteract.com>, Katharine Hawks
<kha...@enteract.com> wrote:
(Steven S. Davis wrote...)
>>As it happens, you've both missed the point, which is what animal
>>trainers have long known, that punishment isn't a good means of
>>behavior modification. To modify someone's behavior you need
>>to make zir want to do what you want zir to do, and this is not the
>>same as making them afraid of not doing what you want them to do.
I beg to differ. This is USUALLY the easiest and most effective way to
*persuade* a *human being* to do something. However, it is not the only way,
it is not always the most effective way, and the proper technique is highly
situation/behavior/organism dependent. See below.
(Katherine S. Hawks wrote...)
> Depending on what you mean by "punishment" -- this may not
> necessarily be true. In dog handling we call it "correction", which
> is definately a negative reinforcement. Corrections can be either
> verbal or physical. Typical physical corrections may include a collar
> pop, an alpha roll, a shake by the scruff, and so on.
The two things one can do to try to modify an organism's behavior are
reinforce desired behaviors and punish undesired behaviors. Unless the
organism is sentient, the initial imposition of behavior modification can
only be done when the organism displays the relevant behavior by accident or
by a series of intermediate steps (the first one must still be performed by
accident or be a natural behavior.)
The "proper" terms for the various responses to actions which modify the
behavior are as follows:
1) Negative Reinforcement: This is when you *remove* an *undesirable*
condition when an *appropriate* behavior is displayed. For instance, to use
dogs as an example, you might produce a sound which the dog finds
unpleasant, which will continue until the dog does something desirable, like
lie down quietly. Note that it is *very* difficult to induce a *new*
behavior with negative reinforcement because unless the organism stumbles
across the proper behavior by accident it will take a long time for it to
start working. Also, since the negative reinforcement is putting stress on
the organism, it will take longer for the association to form.
2) Positive Reinforcement: The classic push a lever, get a pellet action. A
desired condition (food, praise, stimulation of the pleasure center) is
*added* to the situation when an appropriate behavior is displayed. This
method generally works the fastest of any of the behavior modification
methods but is not the most effective.
3) Negative Punishment: A desirable condition is removed from the situation
when an inappropriate behavior is displayed. For instance, food may be
withheld until the organism moves away from a certain area in its cage and
stays out of it for a desired length of time.
4) Positive Punishment: The classic push the wrong lever, get a shock
action. An undesirable condition is added to the situation when an
inappropriate behavior is displayed. This method, again generally, produces
the longest-lasting behavior modification. ("A cat who has once sat on a hot
stove lid will never do it again, but it will never sit on a cold one,
either." - Mark Twain.)
Technically these are all different, although logically one can make a case
that negative reinforcement is the same as positive punishment and vice
versa. Also, they can be used in tandem: when paper training a dog, one uses
positive punishment *and* positive reinforcement. As far as which works
best, the answer is: "It depends." Control theory tells us that a system
governed only by positive feedback will oscillate out of control. This is a
mathematical certainty. However, the variables involved are fearsomely
complex and, in the words of one immortal biologist, "Under the most
precisely controlled parameters of temperature, pressure, humidity, and so
forth, the organism will do as it damn well pleases." *lol*
Also, one must be very, very careful and aware of all potential associations
formed. The classic example of accidental behavior modification is in "A
Clockwork Orange," when they play lovely, lovely Ludwig Von (Beethoven)
while they're conditioning the poor slob against violent behavior by showing
him violent movies and inducing nausea in him. The anti-violence
conditioning works... but he also gets sick whenever he hears Beethoven.
This example also demonstrates the latent weakness of behavior modification:
the more intelligent the organism, the more likely it is to break free of
its conditioning after the passage of time once the behavior modification
action ceases.
</rant>
Dremaer
In article <78q9i9$8b1$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Janet Hardy"
<ver...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Dremaer wrote in message ...
>>This ties into a little difference of opinion I have with my slave. She
>>thinks she's a masochist - that she enjoys pain. I think she enjoys intense
>>stimulation in an eroticized content. (Tomato, tohmahto.)
>>
>>I took a cue from some excellent books from Greenery Press (Bottoming Book,
>>Topping Book, KinkyCrafts) and decided to demonstrate to her that she is
>>*not* a masochist. (One of my favorite lines from those books is, "We'll
>>believe in pure masochism when we meet someone who can come from stubbing
>>his/her toe.")
<snip>
> Yeep. I'm one of the authors of those books.
Uh-oh. Can't use my typical "you don't really understand where the author
was coming from" argument." *smile* Just kidding. Thanks for the excellent
book, btw.
> Just because you can give her a
> kind of pain that she doesn't enjoy, doesn't mean she isn't a masochist (if
> you work your way back through all those negatives you'll find that sentence
> does indeed make sense).
>
> A masochist is someone who has the ability to eroticize some forms of
> stimuli which would be painful to someone else. C'est tout. Most people have
> the ability to be masochistic under the proper circumstances.
Like *yuck warning: don't read if easily squicked* picking at scabs. It
hurts, but you just have to do it. I know that's not usually an *erotic*
situation, but it's along those lines and it's near universal - almost
everybody does it, admit it or not. *smile*
<snip stuff about different kinds of pain>
> I would expect that your slave probably experiences all these kinds of pain
> as well, although the stimuli are probably different. And that makes her,
> IMO, a masochist.
Definitions again. On this point I will concede that most people would
probably agree that she's a masochist. To me a masochist is someone who
enjoys it *despite* the fact that it is coming through loud and clear as
pain. When she feels intense stimulation in an erotic context it's like a
filter kicks in that routs it to the pleasure center instead of the pain
center. She does not experience, so far as I can tell, the situation where
right now it hurts but after she realizes she's hideously turned on (the
nipple clamp example you give, for instance, would not work for her.) Either
it's erotic, or it hurts. I have known people who could have it both ways
(it's erotic *and* it hurts) but she doesn't seem to. That was what I meant.
> (BTW, try the paddle made from the sole of a kung-fu shoe if you really want
> to convince her that she's had enough. I carry one for my favorite masochist
> for that exact reason.)
Check. *grin*
louise
wrote:
>She *hates* that paddle. Absolutely hates it. I didn't even *make* the one
>with the metal insert yet. I sort of wonder if she'll hate it more, or less.
>Seems that if it's less flexible it might not hurt so much. Haven't used a
>lot of paddles, personally. Lots and lots of whips/floggers, but this is
>first paddle I've owned.
Different people have different responses, and there is nothing wrong
with that. Thank goodness for diversity. Large, moderately heavy
wooden paddles feel utterly wonderful to me, but leave dark jet-black
bruising that requires that i wait a couple of weeks before playing
again. My favorite paddles are made from natural materials, like
leather or wood, though plastics are fine too.
If you have a good leather shop nearby that stocks SM toys, why not go
there and try a few paddles on your own forearm, to get more of a
sense of what type and level of sensation can be provided by different
materials and construction methods.
>> Whips made of bungee strandlets
>> are very thuddy and don't seem like much of anything special to me
>> compared with other whips.
>
>It depends, it turns out, on three things. These three things are the exact
>same three things, naturally, that determines where on the stingy/thuddy
>continuum *any* whip/flogger/whatever lies. Bungee whips seem to be quite a
>bit more variable than other whips:
i do agree on your three things, as far as floggers of a given
material are concerned. i have experienced bungee whips of various
lengths and weight, and although they look really neat they are not my
personal preference as far as feel. Not to say i don't like them, LOL!
And perhaps the difference is in the application. However i have had
way better experiences with substantial conventional rubber floggers
rather than bungee, when it comes to that sort of material.
i doubt there are any two bottoms that respond exactly alike to
anything, though. :)
Dremaer
In article <slrn7b1qrk...@zipper.zip.com.au>, ze...@zip.com.au
(SilverOz) wrote:
> In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:51:39 GMT
> victorian squid <underwate...@usa.net> wrote:
>>OK, I -suspect- I'm one of those people that peeves Verdant :).
>
> Me too :)
>
>>
>>But I will stubbornly maintain that I don't consider myself a masochist in
>>the sense that it is most often used around here. Physical pain doesn't
>>turn me on much. When I say something like "to me, it hurts", I'm mostly
>
> I well remember that when I first started getting into learning
> about BDSM, I read asb and various other net.resources and the
> underlying (and occasionally up front) thing was "Oh yes! that was
> good! I like this!" whenever talking about flogging or painplay
> generally.
>
> The overwhelming impression was that it was somehow different to
> "normal pain", this was only reinforced by the famous "stub your
> toe" argument.
>
> Somehow, it seemed, the trappings of BDSM made pain not hurt but
> feel good. Must be so, because no one said "it hurt" they all said
> how much they loved it, wanted it, needed it, how *good* it was.
>
> Needless to say, my first experience of painplay was a very unpleasant
> shock. (not helped by my dom telling me how wonderful it would be. *He*
> was a masochist too.)
>
> Now many years later I know a bit more. I know that some people seem
> to transmute pain into something else but they are a minority. I know
> that some people get this "endorphin high" thing and they want the
> pain because it leads to that. Some people find spankings don't hurt
> in the same way as other pain, and they like that.
>
> And I know I'm none of the above.
>
> I do painplay purely as submission. I don't want to be hurt, but
> there does come a time when I want him to hurt me not because I
> get anything out of it phyically - endorphins or whatever - but because
> it is submission, I want to give him that pain I hate.
>
> But I'm no masochist, and I still feel like I'm on the outer because
> I don't do this "oh lovely, painplay, we all like to be flogged" thing.
Now that is very eloquent and very like what I was trying to say about my
slave. Though she does enjoy intense stimulation, she does not like pain.
It's a purely internal definition for her but a very clear one, it's like
crossing a line drawn on the floor: either you're on one side or the other,
and this line is very, very thin. So thin that I can only recall one or two
occasions when I managed to stand ON the line. (Boy, was that fun, though.)
Similarly, she does occasionally *want* to be punished, because she wants to
submit and display her submission. That doesn't make her any more turned on
by pain she doesn't like, but you've explained that well.
louise
<kha...@enteract.com> wrote:
>Most bottoms I know are a little more like donsideb -- if the
>punishment is being done in a ritualistic setting, with the dominant
>fully expressing hir displeasure, I haven't seen many bottoms wriggle
>their butts in pleasure and delight out of a masochistic response.
>
>I'm more used to seeing tears and sorrow.
i don't doubt that most bottoms are more like donsideb. i never have
considered myself to be a "typical bottom", whatever that is. i don't
expect or require others to be like me. However i believe that my
feelings and responses are valid and shared by at least some others.
Ugol's Law, and all that.
If i am being punished by the infliction of pain, i would naturally
feel upset and miserable that i have deserved it, and i'm likely to
try to inhibit most of the bottom wiggling out of shame. The same
would be true if i were being punished by being given my favorite
meal. i wouldn't be likely to lick my lips and say, "ooh!!! Yummy!!!"
through my tears. But punishing me by spanking, flogging, and so on
would be as senseless as punishing me by feeding me a dinner of
lobster, shrimp, and crab (my favorites).
Although i would know better, inside i would likely be fighting
another battle that might take my focus off the original transgression
as well; i would be feeling ashamed and guilty and like i wasn't a
good submissive because of enjoying that aspect of the punishment when
i wasn't supposed to. And that might affect me more than a Dominant
might first expect, and in different ways. What a mess. Talk about
opening Pandora's Box... :)
Just an individual difference in response, apparently.
victorian squid
> Personally, I have not encountered such as you, except in conversation.
> It would indicate a sensitivity to the motive as the drive for the act
> -- most good Tops I know prefer the ignore path (as in, "If this is what
> they do for attention, the punishment is to withhold attention.").
Wow! That's weird!
Um, no offense, but I would think most bottoms, myself included, are
-extremely- sensitive to the motive.
I've been punished fairly infrequently. The offenses I was punished FOR,
also, had very little or nothing at all to do with attempts to get
attention, and everything to do with bad habits and a tendency to
absent-mindedness. Ignoring them wouldn't really have been an effective
way to deal with them.
The crop strokes I received as part of one punishment were pretty damn
different from the ones I receive in scene. The very fact that they were
punishment and given out of displeasure made a HUGE amount of difference.
I've endured harder than that in scene and was happy to endure them for
the sake of submission. It was the feeling of having disappointed that
came with these that made me cry.
Love on ya,
v. squid
--
"Unthinkable thoughts are thoughts we have to try"- Momus
Laura Goodwin
> 1) Negative Reinforcement:
> 2) Positive Reinforcement:
> 3) Negative Punishment:
> 4) Positive Punishment:
(etc.)
Very interesting! Thanks for a thought-provoking post.
--
"We are now re-imagining our collective dream, and this time, we all are
heroes victorious."
Laura Goodwin
http://www.cabo-one.com/lalaura
louise
<ant...@hilbert.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>louise writes
>>As a person who is physically masochistic, and by that i mean that
>>certain types of pain are literally physically pleasurable to me
>>regardless of mental interpretations, i find it astonishing that any
>>Dom/me that you know who had been exposed to the scene would be so
>>naive as to expect bare hand spanking, for example, to be a punishment
>>for someone like me.
>
>It's pretty ineffectual on at least some submissives, too.
i believe you may have intended to say, "It's pretty ineffectual on at
least some submissives who are not physically masochistic, too". If
(instead of that) you are implying that just because i am physically
masochistic i am not submissive, you are doing me and many others a
grave injustice.
However i have read your posts for some time now, and i don't think
you would intentionally say something like that. You are not a newbie
by any means and perhaps i have misunderstood you. Still i would like
to make the following statement concerning me:
My needs are primarily submissive, though i coincidently happen to be
a masochist too. i am first and foremost a submissive.
Thanks.
Anthony Hilbert
>Robert Dante wrote:
>>More than once I've seen the lightbulb go off over a Dom/me's head when
>>they realize that the punishment they usually use, like spanking, is not
>>going to change the behaviour of a masochist who truly wishes to be
>>punished.
>
>certain types of pain are literally physically pleasurable to me
>regardless of mental interpretations, i find it astonishing that any
>Dom/me that you know who had been exposed to the scene would be so
>naive as to expect bare hand spanking, for example, to be a punishment
>for someone like me.
It's pretty ineffectual on at least some submissives, too. If I were
clueless enough to try to change Joy's behaviour by threats of violence,
our relationship would be measured in days.
(If I actually =used= violence in a non-scene context, my life would be
measured in days. <g>)
--
Anthony Hilbert | Spankings should not be wasted on children.
Steven S. Davis
: It's pretty ineffectual on at least some submissives, too. If I were
: clueless enough to try to change Joy's behaviour by threats of violence,
: our relationship would be measured in days.
:
: (If I actually =used= violence in a non-scene context, my life would
: be measured in days. <g>)
One of the things I've wondered when reading people's explanations
of the effectiveness of punishment (and I'll be a bit more precise
and specify that corrections - ie a tug on a leash when a pet wanders
in the wrong diection - are not punishments; punishments, when
dealing with humans, and excluding play punishments, are either
for deterrence, expiation, or affirmation (the last two can only
be used on humans, and with some people do have positive value and
may even be necessary for some people; the former does have an
effect on either people or nonhuman pets, but I'll persist in
finding the instilling of fear to deter misconduct both a less
effective method of behavior modicfication, and one highly likely
to teach things that weren't intended)) in training animals, whether
these methods work on animals that aren't bred and socialized for
dependence on and submission to human masters. Perhaps one can train
a dog with punishment. I wonder who here would be willing to
train a tiger - with which one were going to be working - by making
it fearful ?
As for human being trained, well, for me to submit to someone
I need to not fear her (this is, BTW, different from fearing the
things that she does (the odds are, if someone doesn't already
know what I mean by that distinction, I probably can't explain
it to zir)). Succeed in making me fear you, and my submission
will end; do a really good job in making me fear you, and, well
... it's not a particularly good idea.
Mileage varies, of course.
M. Shirley Chong
<whimper> As a token remembrance of my trip, I brought back pneumonia. Now
that I find it difficult to breath and exist in a near constant semi-hypoxic
state, I'm going to see if it really *is* true that I could write about the
principles of operant conditioning in a less-than-conscious condition.
Steven S. Davis wrote:
> One of the things I've wondered when reading people's explanations
> of the effectiveness of punishment (and I'll be a bit more precise
> and specify that corrections - ie a tug on a leash when a pet wanders
> in the wrong diection - are not punishments;
I'd like to rely on the behavioural analyst's definition of punishment: any
consequence added to the environment of the trainee which has the effect of
reducing the frequency of the targeted behaviour. It has nothing to do with
how the trainer or trainee feels about the consequence; if it reduces the
frequency of the targetted behaviour, it's a punishment.
The example given actually touches on a sore point with me. I've said for many
years that if I can't describe what I am doing to a dog honestly and directly,
then I have no business doing it to the dog. If I feel the need to rely on
euphemisms in order to talk about what I'm doing, that's a damn good indicator
that I'm not acting in a manner that I find ethical.
In the sense of behavioural analysis, a tug on the leash is only a punishment
*if* it reduces the frequency of the "wandering in the wrong direction"
behaviour. An amazing amount of the time, the leash jerk demonstrably is *not*
working as intended. The owner jerks on the leash but the dog's wandering away
behaviour is not reduced--or it is even increased! Owners will swear up and
down that they are changing the dog's behaviour until they get out the pencil
and paper and keep records.
> punishments, when
> dealing with humans, and excluding play punishments, are either
> for deterrence, expiation, or affirmation (the last two can only
> be used on humans, and with some people do have positive value and
> may even be necessary for some people; the former does have an
> effect on either people or nonhuman pets, but I'll persist in
> finding the instilling of fear to deter misconduct both a less
> effective method of behavior modicfication, and one highly likely
> to teach things that weren't intended))
The last part of the parenthetical comments is the most important, IMHO.
The problem with punishment is that it causes more unpredictability in the
trainee's behaviour. Since trainees are living creatures it is not possible to
punish (reduce the frequency of) a behaviour without increasing the frequency
of some other behaviour. Trainees don't exist in a vacuum! Simply reducing the
frequency of one behaviour leaves the possibility of increasing the frequency
of some other (possibly less desirable) behaviour.
> in training animals, whether
> these methods work on animals that aren't bred and socialized for
> dependence on and submission to human masters. Perhaps one can train
> a dog with punishment. I wonder who here would be willing to
> train a tiger - with which one were going to be working - by making
> it fearful ?
Punishment does not necessarily cause the trainee to feel fearful. One can
punish (or reinforce) behaviour without having any reference to the trainee's
emotional state.
However, such emotional states are important--they affect the trainee's behaviour.
If I recall correctly, the problem with using punishment with almost any of
the cats is that they give up quite easily. As such, they are actually fairly
safe to frustrate--they just give up on the trainer and do something else. My
sketchy recall is based on the work of Keller and Marian Breeland, along with
Bob Bailey, who did a huge amount of work with many different species (over
140,000 individuals of over 130 different species). They found that, in
general, most animals need to be successful 80% of the time in order to learn
most efficiently.
I do recall Bob Bailey saying that one animal you really *don't* want to
frustrate is an ostrich. They have short attention spans, they are impatient,
and they can kick a target that is over 6 feet off the ground. Unlike the
great cats, they don't give up easily--they simply start to beat up the cause
of their frustration.
> As for human being trained, well, for me to submit to someone
> I need to not fear her (this is, BTW, different from fearing the
> things that she does (the odds are, if someone doesn't already
> know what I mean by that distinction, I probably can't explain
> it to zir)). Succeed in making me fear you, and my submission
> will end; do a really good job in making me fear you, and, well
> ... it's not a particularly good idea.
In training, I myself am trying to increase the predictability of the
trainee's behaviour. Positive reinforcement works much better towards this end
than punishment does.
Shirley
to reply, remove the trees from my e-mail address
Bob King
reading with interest.
However, it occurs to me that in the cases where I have spanked and it
worked, the spanking was a positive reinforcement - that is to say, that
the spankee was expecting and looking for that result and was reassured
when they got it. In that instance, the mode hardly matters, although
practically speaking, a spanking has advantages, as it inconveniences
the spankee less than other sorts of consequence.
NB, by "spanking" I mean just that - a swat on the bum with immediate
but little or no lingering pain, or perhaps less than that, a sensation
of impact with little or no pain. More of a dominance display than
anything. In fact, now that I think of it in those terms, those
instances were cases where I was basicly being tested by a child to
prove that I was the dominant party. Incidentally, usually the supposed
issues pretty much went away, rather than having to be dealt with on
their merits, as occured in occasions where there was substantive
conflict.
Personally, I view physical discipline as being something that is no
more prone to abuse than non-physical forms. This is what concerns me
about the "no-spanking" crowd. As it happens, the majority of abuse I
was subjected to was non-physical and was far more damaging than the
physical abuse. What concerns me is the idea that goes along with this,
that abuse isn't, if it's non-physical.
Personally, I think a good parent will be a good parent whatever tools
they use. Abuse comes from bad parenting, not from whether or not they
believe in spanking or believe in "time outs." (Although I've found
time-outs to be a really effective tool, myself, a far better response
_for me_ than delivering a swat on the bum.)
I do think that part of good parenting is figuring out what works best
with *that particular child* and doing that. Lawless has pointed out
that *for him*, physical consequences were needed. I've known other kids
that a physical response woud be the *worst possible* course. I've also
known some kids that for whom a "time out" would be the worst possible
response - abandonment triggers.
Fact is, it's not possible to mandate or legislate this stuff. It's way
too complex.
--
Regards;
Bob King ICQ#: 12880485 webc...@munchltd.com
The Dark Castle http://www.munchltd.com/firewheel/
Original BDSM/Fetish/Cartoon artwork and BDSM stories
Lawless
> Katharine Hawks:
> >Most bottoms I know are a little more like donsideb -- if the
> >punishment is being done in a ritualistic setting, with the dominant
> >fully expressing hir displeasure, I haven't seen many bottoms wriggle
> >their butts in pleasure and delight out of a masochistic response.
> >
> >I'm more used to seeing tears and sorrow.
> If i am being punished by the infliction of pain, i would naturally
> feel upset and miserable that i have deserved it, and i'm likely to
> try to inhibit most of the bottom wiggling out of shame. The same
> would be true if i were being punished by being given my favorite
> meal. i wouldn't be likely to lick my lips and say, "ooh!!! Yummy!!!"
> through my tears. But punishing me by spanking, flogging, and so on
> would be as senseless as punishing me by feeding me a dinner of
> lobster, shrimp, and crab (my favorites).
> Although i would know better, inside i would likely be fighting
> another battle that might take my focus off the original transgression
> as well; i would be feeling ashamed and guilty and like i wasn't a
> good submissive because of enjoying that aspect of the punishment when
> i wasn't supposed to. [...]
Really? Even my favorite foods, mixed with a lover / owner's displeasure,
would be horrible for me. Same with things that might normally be good,
as punishment, knowing there wasn't any joy for the other person, would
be bad in context of knowing sie was unhappy. A quick bit of fiction to
illustrate, even -without- any real D/s involved :
------------------
It'd been a kind of anniversary for us; not a formal, real one, but....
We'd decided on a particular day as when we'd stopped being best friends
who spent most of our free time together and sometimes had sex, as the
day we'd become more than that. And while we'd both been looking forward
to doing something special that evening, I.... I wasn't there - instead
I let my pals talk me into going to a clam bake up in Old Orchard Beach,
a -real- clam bake on the beach, with lobsters done up in seaweed above
the fires and all. They were enthusing about it all day at work, and I
wound up thinking, hey - Beth doesn't -like- seafood or all night parties
of that sort - why not? I didn't think of the anniversary, or even to
call....
And when I did get in, on Saturday, Beth was there at home - she'd gone
to sleep, finally, on the recliner, worried that something had happened
on the long drive back from work, because she -knew- I'd be hurrying
back for our anniversary. I don't know which was worse, knowing that
she had been worried and scared all night, or having her not talk to me
for almost a week, knowing that she was hurt and unhappy and that it was
my doing....
Finally, that Thursday, she said she wanted me to make sure I was home
straight from work the next evening : that she wanted to have her anni-
versary, even if it wasn't the same now, even if it wasn't going to be
all that enjoyable for her, as she was still sad, still hurt, still a
bit angry.
Friday... Beth was waiting when I got home, and smiled a bit, for the
first time in almost a week. And I remember her words : "Since having
your favorite foods was more important than me, than us, I've gone and
cooked them for you. Now I want to watch you eat them." Lobster tails,
crab newburg, crab cakes with remoulade sauce, and a kind of lobster
scampi.... And she didn't take a bite, just watched me with her soft
brown eyes that usually danced; the food was perfect, as was the wine
she'd gotten to accompany it, but everytime I tried to say something,
she told me to hush, that she didn't want to hear me. And every taste
was like ashes, every swallow hurt, every bite laid in my stomach like
a leaden weight.
I wound up not being able to keep the meal down - Beth came into the
bathroom to find me curled up by the sink, shaking and hugging myself
in misery. She hugged me, cleaned me up, stroked my hair and told me
that she forgave me.... We're still together, Beth and I, but three
years later, the seafood that I once loved still tastes like ashes; I
can't eat it. One small joy in life gone - but at least I still have
Beth.
------------------------- (end of fictional segment)
--
-- \_awless is : Chase Vogelsberg | SSBB Undiplomatic Corps, Tampa
-- Wormwood and wine, and the bitter taste of ashes. \ ICQ #19100721
louise
>louise wrote:
>> Katharine Hawks:
>> >Most bottoms I know are a little more like donsideb -- if the
>> >punishment is being done in a ritualistic setting, with the dominant
>> >fully expressing hir displeasure, I haven't seen many bottoms wriggle
>> >their butts in pleasure and delight out of a masochistic response.
>> >
>> >I'm more used to seeing tears and sorrow.
>
>> If i am being punished by the infliction of pain, i would naturally
>> feel upset and miserable that i have deserved it, and i'm likely to
>> try to inhibit most of the bottom wiggling out of shame. The same
>> would be true if i were being punished by being given my favorite
>> meal. i wouldn't be likely to lick my lips and say, "ooh!!! Yummy!!!"
>> through my tears. But punishing me by spanking, flogging, and so on
>> would be as senseless as punishing me by feeding me a dinner of
>> lobster, shrimp, and crab (my favorites).
>
>> Although i would know better, inside i would likely be fighting
>> another battle that might take my focus off the original transgression
>> as well; i would be feeling ashamed and guilty and like i wasn't a
>> good submissive because of enjoying that aspect of the punishment when
>> i wasn't supposed to. [...]
>
>Really? Even my favorite foods, mixed with a lover / owner's displeasure,
>would be horrible for me.
i believe that in the above quotation i mentioned that the overall
result of such a punishment would cause me to be upset, miserable,
ashamed, guilty, and tearful, emotions that are horrible to me, and
your representation quite agrees. i would rather eat worms than
lobster under the circumstances, because it would not create the inner
conflicts that i mention which i believe undermine the punishment.
Punishing via lobster is not a good punishment for me. Sure, it would
make me feel miserable. Sure it would make me vow never to do it
again. But i don't think it would work very well in the long run. It's
sure not what i would recommend to any newbie Dom, for me.
>Same with things that might normally be good,
>as punishment, knowing there wasn't any joy for the other person, would
>be bad in context of knowing sie was unhappy.
A good summary for part of what i was trying to get across, but
apparently failed to do so in this case.
>A quick bit of fiction to
>illustrate, even -without- any real D/s involved :
Very enjoyable fiction, Lawless!
In your story it seems to me that the character resolves his inner
conflict permanently, by permanently disliking seafood, so the
punishment probably did work. Some people might have resolved it the
other way, by blowing up and calling her a bitch. In my life i have
found that creation of such instant life-long dislikes of something
that was a previous favorite, are few and far between, though YMMV and
that may be true for most people.
But of even greater concern is the fact that this is where i believe
my analogy breaks down... because i believe that the physical pleasure
of eating lobster is a *want*, and that the physical pleasure that
comes from pain is a *need*, to most masochists. i do not think that i
would recommend punishment by inflicting pleasurable pain to any
newbie Dom, because even if the bottom did manage to resolve hir inner
conflict (as your character did) by eliminating it through creating an
instant life-long dislike of pain, this is likely to really mess with
a masochist's mind. i'm not even sure if the masochist could *do*
this, in dealing with a need rather than a want. i am not sure that it
is good or even possible to cause somebody to have such an aversion to
something that they genuinely need.
i'm not certain that i understand everything that there is to
understand about the psychology of punishment. Probably i understand
very little about it, because i am no expert. i do know that for me,
the most dreaded and most effective punishment is the withdrawal of
attention. And i do know that the punishment i long for is to
experience considerable, deliberately inflicted pain as an expiatory
(is that the word?) experience. i have noticed that my behavior is
considerably improved after withdrawal of attention (despite the fact
i despise this punishment), and is only mildly improved after being
punished by pain. Wish i could say otherwise. :)
Wow! what an interesting post. Where's Shirley when we need her? LOL
i'm sure no expert on punishment and behavior, though due to the level
of masochism that i am blessed/cursed with, i feel i can contribute a
little from my own observations of what works on me.
Nicole Cloonan
: But of even greater concern is the fact that this is where i believe
: my analogy breaks down... because i believe that the physical pleasure
: of eating lobster is a *want*, and that the physical pleasure that
: comes from pain is a *need*, to most masochists.
I may just be using a different definition here, but this
doesn't reflect my experience at all.
When I think of needs, I think of things that one *must
absolutely always* have in order to survive. Without
satisfying these needs, one would either kill hirself or
die. A want is a desire for something, and it may well
be a very strong desire which would mean that they would
always be extremely unhappy without, but it is not a need.
Using the above definition, for how many of you is WIITWD
a *need* that you absolutely must have satisfied in order
to continue living? How many people here would rather die
than face the rest of their lives without the possibility
of ever kinking again?
Nicole.
--
SSB Diplomatic Corps: Brisbane, Australia
SSB Hompage: http://www.phszx81.demon.co.uk/ssb/
Email: nic...@uq.net.au
louise
>louise wrote, among other things:
>
>: But of even greater concern is the fact that this is where i believe
>: my analogy breaks down... because i believe that the physical pleasure
>: of eating lobster is a *want*, and that the physical pleasure that
>: comes from pain is a *need*, to most masochists.
>
>I may just be using a different definition here, but this
>doesn't reflect my experience at all.
>
>When I think of needs, I think of things that one *must
>absolutely always* have in order to survive.
i used to define needs this way also, until recently. As a direct
result of a very lengthy thread that i began on a mailing list in
early January, i now feel that needs are what is required to maintain
an acceptable level of physical, intellectual, or emotional health.
But what does ssbb think? What is the difference between a want and a
need?
Sure, we need oxygen and water. And some things are clearly wants and
are not needed, as well. But what about the gray area? any words of
wisdom on that? It is helpful to a submissive to know what the
differences are between wants and needs so that she can communicate
her needs effectively, without a lot of do-me sub, "I want" behavior.
i have heard it expressed that to eat is a need, but to eat Chinese,
or Italian, or French cuisine is a want. i wonder how this translates
to assessing whether other things are needs or wants. For example,
sexual pleasures, or masochistic pleasures, or submissive pleasures
can be denied without causing death to the person; yet i feel that
these are needs, but i do not know why i feel this way. i especially
feel that submission is a need, because the mental state that i enter
when denied it for long periods is not healthy and is badly
destructive to me.
One reason that i would like to understand the difference
between needs and wants, is that i was taught by my first Master that
it is my responsibility to clearly communicate my needs to One i
serve. However i have also been taught (not by him) that "I want",
Do-me sub, type of behavior is simply not acceptable. So a submissive
such as me may sit on the razor's edge, a solemn responsibility on one
side, and intolerable behavior on the other side. Of course the
catch-22 is that "I want" to know the difference, even thought the
motivation is so that i can please and serve.
Is masochism a need? Is submission a need? It has been said (in the
previous discussion to which i referred above) that needs are
essential to one's well-being, as a human being on the emotional,
spiritual, psychological and mental levels of life, as opposed to a
perk; if this definition is taken, then yes, i would say that for me,
these are needs.
Katharine Hawks
>louise wrote, among other things:
>
>: But of even greater concern is the fact that this is where i believe
>: my analogy breaks down... because i believe that the physical pleasure
>: of eating lobster is a *want*, and that the physical pleasure that
>: comes from pain is a *need*, to most masochists.
>
>I may just be using a different definition here, but this
>doesn't reflect my experience at all.
>
>When I think of needs, I think of things that one *must
>absolutely always* have in order to survive. Without
>satisfying these needs, one would either kill hirself or
>die. A want is a desire for something, and it may well
>be a very strong desire which would mean that they would
>always be extremely unhappy without, but it is not a need.
For me, that definition of need would prove too narrow. I accept that
we have common needs -- such as nutrition, shelter, community and so
on. I also accept that many of us have our own unique needs, without
which we can't be fulfilled.
SM and DS are somewhere on the 'need' continuum for me. I could
certainly live without either -- it wouldn't kill me. But it would
make me less of a person. I would be less engaged with life, less
fulfilled, and less expressive. To me -- that's a kind of psychic
death.
I have lots of DS and SM wants, too. But I can do BDSM without these
things. For example, when I do BDSM I prefer to play with pain.
That's a want. But I can work around it if needed. I also want to
play with blood -- piercing, cutting, opening skin. I can live
without it, but I'd really rather not, thankyouverymuch.
>Using the above definition, for how many of you is WIITWD
>a *need* that you absolutely must have satisfied in order
>to continue living? How many people here would rather die
>than face the rest of their lives without the possibility
>of ever kinking again?
I wouldn't choose death over kink, of course. Most of the time, if we
have to choose, we have to make other choices. About relationships
and lovers, children, family, jobs and so on.
Sockermom9
>But what does ssbb think? What is the difference between a want and a
>need?
I used to run a recovery group based on the principles of RET--Rational-Emotive
Therapy. We talked about this a lot. The definition you discuss works just
fine--no one is going to die from lack of sex, kinky or otherwise.
>For example,
>sexual pleasures, or masochistic pleasures, or submissive pleasures
>can be denied without causing death to the person; yet i feel that
>these are needs, but i do not know why i feel this way.
You might try phrasing it differently. In a sexual/romantic relationship, the
goal isn't just survival, so the old "food, water, air" definition of needs
won't get the job done. Your goal, presumably, is your mutual erotic pleasure.
In order to achieve that, you will have other needs, much like you'll need
certain things in order to make a souffle.
Communicating how you feel about things, both good and bad, is important. A
master that sees this as "do-me" behavior is going to find himself operating in
the dark and screwing up a lot.
Ferinstance, by now the whole freaking planet knows how much I "like" clamps.
If my top wishes to watch a screaming twenty-minute orgasm of agony, a clamp on
my clit is darn close to a need. I could communicate this by telling him,
"Hey, dude! Time to put on that clamp!" Or I could tell him, while not in
scene-space, that *my* particular kink includes this. Kinda like telling
someone you're loaning a car to that it tends to veer to the right on hard
braking, and that the cd-player eats cd's if you go over railroad tracks.
Lynn
New to the world of submission? Check out http://members.aol.com/oldrope/ for
some thoughts for newcomers from those who've been there and decided to stick
around.
Steven S. Davis
: When I think of needs, I think of things that one *must
: absolutely always* have in order to survive. Without
: satisfying these needs, one would either kill hirself or
: die. A want is a desire for something, and it may well
: be a very strong desire which would mean that they would
: always be extremely unhappy without, but it is not a need.
:
: Using the above definition, for how many of you is WIITWD
: a *need* that you absolutely must have satisfied in order
: to continue living? How many people here would rather die
: than face the rest of their lives without the possibility
: of ever kinking again?
As some people have had the misfortune to discover, I'll prattle
on at great length sometimes about need (requirements when my
aggravated (and aggravating) alliteration addiction is in advanced
stages), wants, wishes, and will and how they relate to wiitwd and
to d&s in particular. The exact definitions[*] vary anytime someone
starts me up, but one reasonably consistent part of my definitions
is that needs/requirements are those things without which the
person cannot be happy and healthy. Which, for some people, can
include wiitwd, and even some very specific kinds of wiitwd.
* - To be brief (yes, really): needs must be addressed, and it's
the responsibility of the dominant to see that they are;
wants are strong desires the lack of fulfillment of which
will diminish one's happiness but which one can do w/o and
still be happy and healthy; wishes are things which would be
fun but the lack of which isn't diminishing; will, is, for
a submissive, irrelevant, so while zir wishes, wants, and
requirements all matter (though only the last needs to be
fulfilled, and how they are fulfilled is the dominant's
business), zir will does not. Personal definitions, mileage
may vary, etc.
Arrow Blue
>zznc...@uq.net.au (Nicole Cloonan) wrote:
>>I may just be using a different definition here, but this
>>doesn't reflect my experience at all.
>>
>>When I think of needs, I think of things that one *must
>>absolutely always* have in order to survive
>
>The usual example is Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
> 1. Physiological (starving, freezing)
> 2. Security and safety (physical risk, freedom risk)
> 3. Love & belonging (social, tribal)
> 4. Esteem or recognition
> 5. Self fulfillment
> 6. Curiosity and the need to understand
>The idea being that once all the needs at a lower number are
>satisfied, the needs at the next number become important. For
>instance, if you can't get enough food to go on living, wearing a
>seat belt seems much less important.
> The key thing is that the items on the list are needs, but there
>are different levels of needs.
I think what louise was talking about was more on the line of needs vs
preferences, not how important the need is.
To satisfy my sexual needs, I ~need~ to have bondage in there
someplace, because I have a fetish, vs my preference for stocks and
ropes as opposed to metal shackles.
But that's an interesting idea anyway.
Arrow
Katharine Hawks
wrote:
<snippity-doo-da>
> * - To be brief (yes, really): needs must be addressed, and it's
> the responsibility of the dominant to see that they are;
... <more snippage>...
Why is that the responsibility of a dominant? I'd think that's a
responsibility to self, regardless of DS orientation (or lack
thereof).
louise
<kha...@enteract.com> wrote:
>On 4 Feb 1999 16:25:38 GMT, s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis)
>wrote:
>
><snippity-doo-da>
>
>> * - To be brief (yes, really): needs must be addressed, and it's
>> the responsibility of the dominant to see that they are;
>
>... <more snippage>...
>
>Why is that the responsibility of a dominant? I'd think that's a
>responsibility to self, regardless of DS orientation (or lack
>thereof).
i agree, Katharine. When a submissive's needs are not being met, i
agree that it is her responsibility to communicate that; and if it is
agreed that they cannot be met in that relationship, i think it is her
responsibility to ask for release or end the relationship.
victorian squid
Cloonan) wrote:
> Using the above definition, for how many of you is WIITWD
> a *need* that you absolutely must have satisfied in order
> to continue living? How many people here would rather die
> than face the rest of their lives without the possibility
> of ever kinking again?
No, I wouldn't die, and most likely wouldn't kill myself either. But it
wouldn't be much of a life. I did get along without it for a long time
tho, so I think I probably could manage it. Then again, I have a long life
ahead of me, and that's a bleak prospect indeed. Glad I won't have to face
it any time soon.
Now, if you had said "without the possibility of ever hearing or making
any music again", the answer would be different. I probably would end up
killing myself eventually. So I guess that's a need. The soul needs food
and water too, and that's where I get mine.
Funny thing, as these passions are both deep in the core of me, and I do
sometimes wonder which is the more powerful. Considering this has given me
the answer. Thanks for asking such a thought provoking question.
BLDRNRpdx
I just read somewhere recently (no, of course I don't remember who or where.
that would be too easy) that we need four hugs a day to exist, eight hugs to be
remotely healthy, and twelve to grow.
Well, I know for a fact that a person can go for weeks and months on end
without getting *any* hugs and still survive.
Yes, I know the "is survival enough" argument has been done to death here.
For me, that's not enough. Existence is not enough. I spent too much of my
life simply existing. I need a reason. Twelve hugs sounds like a pretty good
start.
BDSM is another reason. For me, that's a *need*. It adds a meaning to my
life. It adds a joy I cannot do without. Without BDSM, I'd simply be
existing.
Bladerunner
SSB-b Dip. Corps: Portland, OR - Westside
I'm not going to die wondering.
--Colette
Binder
> When I think of needs, I think of things that one *must
> satisfying these needs, one would either kill hirself or
> die. A want is a desire for something, and it may well
> be a very strong desire which would mean that they would
> always be extremely unhappy without, but it is not a need.
Perhaps a minor niggle... there are needs, and then there are Needs. Needs
are those things like food, air, and water without which the organism dies
of natural causes. In the needs category are affection, attention, social
intercourse, recognition, light, reliable sleep, and other experiences that
allow the organism to flourish, or in the absence of, may cause insanity.
(Of course there are exceptions!) Certainly humans can survive without
those needs, but at what cost to their humanity? Yes, it is true that there
are those that choose to go without, and still manage to grow in
deprivation, but IMO, they are the exceptions.
and then there are wants.
> Using the above definition, for how many of you is WIITWD
> a *need* that you absolutely must have satisfied in order
> to continue living? How many people here would rather die
> than face the rest of their lives without the possibility
> of ever kinking again?
Very few of us would choose to die for any "desire." OTOH, many of us would
be seriously reduced in our humanity to go without WIITWD, which brings us
back to individuals...
Binder
--
SSB-B Diplomatic Corps: Marin County, CA
to reply, remove the idjit
Binder
>
> On 4 Feb 1999 16:25:38 GMT, s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis)
> wrote:
>
> <snippity-doo-da>
>
> > * - To be brief (yes, really): needs must be addressed, and it's
> > the responsibility of the dominant to see that they are;
>
> ... <more snippage>...
>
> Why is that the responsibility of a dominant? I'd think that's a
> responsibility to self, regardless of DS orientation (or lack
> thereof).
Do I smell a general distinction here, between basic concepts, or am I just
whistling in the dark?
It seems to me that there two broad thought trends among us: those that
feel the dominant has all the responsibility, and those that believe in
mutual responsibility for Topsy and turvey.
Maybe it's the absence of an inoocent little lambikin in my immediate
vicinty that leads me down these dark and twisted byways, but I can't
recall thinking that particular thought until lately: that there are those
distinctly different attitudes on both sides, and that it's little
discussed. Or is it just that I've gotten whacked up side the head often
enough to finally see the obvious?
louise
>It seems to me that there two broad thought trends among us: those that
>feel the dominant has all the responsibility, and those that believe in
>mutual responsibility for Topsy and turvey.
Personally i hadn't noticed this dichotomy, though that doesn't mean
it's not there. :)
If it's helpful at all, as some of you know my M/s preferences and
practices are considered by some around here to be pretty much way out
there as far as being extreme. However, even so, it has always been
presented to me as fundamental that i had the responsibility to
communicate my needs to a Dominant that i serve. This is just one of a
slave's responsibilities as i have been taught. The division of
responsibilities in M/s has differed from that in my vanilla
relationships.
Lacenlthrs
lou...@links.magenta.com (louise) pondered:
>Is masochism a need? Is submission a need? It has been said (in the
>previous discussion to which i referred above) that needs are
>essential to one's well-being, as a human being on the emotional,
>spiritual, psychological and mental levels of life, as opposed to a
>perk; if this definition is taken, then yes, i would say that for me,
>these are needs.
I think that masochism (or sadism or submission or dominance) CAN very well be
a need. Fulfilling it can be essential to one's well-being, emotionally,
spiritually, even physically. Going back to the thread on "going vanilla" for a
moment, I chose that path for a long while before I came to my senses and
realized how miserable I was trying to live without BDSM. We had great vanilla
sex in the meantime, for a while, but even that dwindled as that other,
apparently essential, part of me withered. The same was true of my beloved,
I've learned through many late-night conversations. So I would conclude that
BDSM, for us, is a need.
How we express that need, however, gets more into the "wants" area. I supremely
enjoy a good flogging, while he prefers an openhanded spanking. It still gets
me hot and sends me flying, so my need is being fulfilled even if the way I
want it isn't (well, not quite, anyway). We enjoy different kinds of bondage,
too. Though I'm, um, coming over to his way of thinking (I just spent an
afternoon at the movies in a wonderful Japanese breast harness--wait, I think I
remember the title!). Again, the "how" is a want, but the sensation, the
submission, is the need.
I used to think it was ALL a want and nothing more (icing on my libidinous
cake), but after spending the last several years in deepening "disconnection"
because I wasn't being who I really was, I'm pretty sure I was fooling myself.
It's not the same as starving or freezing to death, by any means, but I believe
emotional happiness is just as essential to our existence.
KarenJ
Katharine Hawks
>>It seems to me that there two broad thought trends among us: those that
>>feel the dominant has all the responsibility, and those that believe in
>>mutual responsibility for Topsy and turvey.
This issue is one of my "crusades" <g>.
Submission is not about giving up responsibility. Submission is about
giving up control. Those two things may feel like the same thing, but
they are not. A person can give up control while maintaining hir
responsibility to self.
If one wants to submit in order to relieve oneself of life's various
responsibilities, they are seeking dysfunction. They are not seeking
a dominant, they are seeking someone to co-sign their bullshit (a
phrase borrowed from a very smart friend).
Now, I have no problem with the notion of suspending responsibility
for the duration of a scene -- that's called a *vacation* <grin> and
most of us can use one every now and then.
I do have a problem with people who use submission as a way to
transfer their responsibilities to self onto a dominant. That, I
think is unacceptable in most versions of D/s I've run across.
Now, a dominant can still choose to take on responsibility for hir
submissive's happiness (for example). I do that, myself. But because
I've chosen to make this my responsibility doesn't mean it's stopped
being hir responsibility, either. Responsibilities can be held by
multiple people at the same time.
On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 19:13:36 GMT, lou...@links.magenta.com (louise)
wrote:
>Personally i hadn't noticed this dichotomy, though that doesn't mean
>it's not there. :)
>
>If it's helpful at all, as some of you know my M/s preferences and
>practices are considered by some around here to be pretty much way out
>there as far as being extreme. However, even so, it has always been
>presented to me as fundamental that i had the responsibility to
>communicate my needs to a Dominant that i serve. This is just one of a
>slave's responsibilities as i have been taught. The division of
>responsibilities in M/s has differed from that in my vanilla
>relationships.
I agree that a slave's responsibilities may *shift* in a responsible
DS relationship. For example, as a slave, you may assume more
responsibility for the day-to-day operations of your dominant's life;
while your dominant assumes more responsibilities for the overall
progress of your spiritual life (just an example). In this example,
neither case has given up responsibility to each other and life in
general; it may just be organized a little differently.
Lawless
> Punishing via lobster is not a good punishment for me. Sure, it would
> make me feel miserable. Sure it would make me vow never to do it
> again. But i don't think it would work very well in the long run. It's
> sure not what i would recommend to any newbie Dom, for me.
Lots of things that some of us do aren't something "we" (as a group)
would recommend to a novice top. *g*
> In your story it seems to me that the character resolves his inner
> conflict permanently, by permanently disliking seafood, so the
> punishment probably did work. Some people might have resolved it the
> other way, by blowing up and calling her a bitch. In my life i have
> found that creation of such instant life-long dislikes of something
> that was a previous favorite, are few and far between, though YMMV and
> that may be true for most people.
I think that the long term aversion to seafood is more an unwanted and
unintentional side effect : the "sin" committed wasn't eatting lobster,
it was forgetting the lover and the anniversary, but because of the
specifics of the transgression, the punishment might seem apropos. If
the inconsiderate behavior had continued, the punishment would have been
a failure despite the acquired dislike of the food. (This is one of
those possible undesired effects of punishment that Shirley and others
have mentioned.)
Further, it's not a binary thing - some might blow up and call the
other a bitch, myself (being the shallow sort I am) I'd've found the
lobster and crab horrible, but would've gotten over it in a couple
weeks, with a likely positive side effect that I'd often remember and
reflect on the incident when having seafood. This would, I expect,
make it less likely that I'd drift back into inconsiderate behavior
again. If I were the sort to do such things in the first place, of
course.
With something like that bit of fiction, the actual "punishment" would
not, imo, be the actual delicacies involved : it'd be the lover's dis-
pleasure, and the knowledge that it -should- have, would have, other-
wise been a pleasurable experience / occasion for us both.
With a punishment via pain[1], again, the real hell of it would be the
knowledge that my partner was upset, disappointed, and not taking the
pleasure she otherwise would be in having me suffer for her. Then
again, I've been told that I'm a strange breed of masochist, because
while I want (and in some sense, "need") the pain, I generally don't
-like- or enjoy the pain : I wouldn't have your potential conflict
between liking the caning even as I was miserable with the sense of
having failed my dominant.
> [...] i do not think that i would recommend punishment by inflicting
> pleasurable pain to any newbie Dom, because even if the bottom did
> manage to resolve hir inner conflict (as your character did) by
> eliminating it through creating an instant life-long dislike of pain,
> this is likely to really mess with a masochist's mind. [...] i am not
> sure that it is good or even possible to cause somebody to have such
> an aversion to something that they genuinely need.
This goes back to those unintentional and undesirable side effects once
more : if the submissive (one-time masochist or not) winds up associating
the sensation of pain / pain play with the displeasure they'd caused, it
might well make them unsuitable as partner for dominant who enjoys pain
play. (As well as other unpleasant posibilities : especially if the one
being punished doesn't believe they -deserved- the punishment, a lot of
resentment can start to accumulate, as it can even in vanilla relations
where even without any sense of punishment, one person begins to resent
being blamed / rebuffed for things they didn't do.)
> [...] i do know that for me, the most dreaded and most effective
> punishment is the withdrawal of attention. [...]
A few years back, in a LDR, I was punished in such a manner : my owner
decreed that we were to be incommunicado for a time - no phone calls,
no email, no saying 'hi' via IRC while one or the other of us was at
work; I think it was one of the worst punishments I've ever known,
largely because while normally I'd just shrug off a week of being out
of touch (for instance, if my partner were on a camping trip), in this
case I knew she was suffering because of the punishment as well - my
showing up on irc while she was on a slow night shift at work helped
make her job less boring and unpleasant. Which perhaps goes back to
an adage about how a punishment should be unpleasant for -both- parties
to be most effective.
[1] I don't -like- punishment, and I don't care for playing with
punishment dynamics. That said, I don't have a problem with a
consensual "real" punishment or even the aware and informed venting
of anger via BDSM, largely because of the sense of atonement and
emotional catharsis that can be reached, even if the punishment has
no other positive aspects.
Steven S. Davis
: On 4 Feb 1999 16:25:38 GMT, s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis)
: wrote:
:
: <snippity-doo-da>
:
: > * - To be brief (yes, really): needs must be addressed, and it's
: > the responsibility of the dominant to see that they are;
:
: ... <more snippage>...
:
: Why is that the responsibility of a dominant? I'd think that's a
: responsibility to self, regardless of DS orientation (or lack
: thereof).
It'd be more accurate to say it's the responsibility of the
dominant, because the definitions referred to a situation
in which a relationship exists (no, that wasn't explicitly
stated; see what brevity does ?), and one in which the will
of the submissive no longer matters, at least as regards that
relationship. If the submissive can't demand or require
anything of the dominant and the dominant is in charge of
the submissive, then the submissive obviously can't be
responsible for the addressing of zir needs.
Or, to use the short form: because the dominant's in
charge, and the one in charge is the one responsible for
seeing that everyone's needs are met. Two people can
of course share responsibility for something, but not
if only one of them is in charge.
Of course, there's a huge range of d&s relationships, and
the amount of control taken and exercised by the dominant
will vary greatly, and when the dominant doesn't exercise
the degree of control being considered, zir responsibility
will be much less. But if zie wants the control, zie
gets the responsibility along with it. Yes, certainly,
the submissive has responsibilities also (for example the
responsibility to provide the most complete and accurate
information zie can to the dominant) but not the
responsibility for seeing that each party's needs are met.
Naturally, before the relationship all the responsibility
was the submissive's, and the submissive is responsible
for what relationships ie enters and under what terms,
and would have been responsible for knowing the dominant
(within plausible limits; no human being can ever know
another with complete certainty) and zir needs, preferences,
capabilities, and limits, and for being certain that the
dominant knew the submissive and the needs, preferences,
capabilities, and limits of the submissive. If the submissive
errs and enters in a relationship which zie should not have
entered into, then, assuming no deceit on the part of the
dominant, if the relationship doesn't work than zie certainly
most bear responsibility for zir error and the bad that comes
of it. But if no such error was made, then once entering into
a relationship which involves the surrender of control to another
(for other than specified periods) the responsibility for having
one's needs met goes to the one with the control.
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
louise
>some might blow up and call the
>other a bitch, myself (being the shallow sort I am) I'd've found the
>lobster and crab horrible, but would've gotten over it in a couple
>weeks, with a likely positive side effect that I'd often remember and
>reflect on the incident when having seafood.
LOL, and as for me, i think that for a while i'll probably remember
and reflect on this post when having lobster.... (grin)
louise
Laura Goodwin
> ...i now feel that needs are what is required to maintain
> an acceptable level of physical, intellectual, or emotional health.
I like this definition because it embraces "quality of life" issues. It
also allows for individual differences.
--
"We are now re-imagining our collective dream, and this time, we all are
heroes victorious."
Laura Goodwin
http://www.cabo-one.com/lalaura
louise
<kha...@enteract.com> wrote:
>If one wants to submit in order to relieve oneself of life's various
>responsibilities, they are seeking dysfunction. They are not seeking
>a dominant, they are seeking someone to co-sign their bullshit (a
>phrase borrowed from a very smart friend).
In a traditional family setting, the parents are in charge. The
children and teenagers are given responsibilities that are deemed
suitable for them to handle.
In a Master/slave relationship of the type that i prefer, the Master
is in charge. The slave is given responsibilities that the Master
deems suitable for hir.
It is inconceivable to me that a parent would not give any
responsibilities to a child or teenager, or that a Master of this type
would take on a slave without assigning responsibilities. In either
case it seems the one supposedly in control has chosen instead to
surrender that control. i believe that in the context of the type of
M/s that i know, this would be very distressing to a sincere slave.
Steven S. Davis
: On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 09:53:08 -0800, Binder <m...@jps.net> wrote:
:
: >>It seems to me that there two broad thought trends among us:
: >>those that feel the dominant has all the responsibility,
Less a matter of "all" than of "final". And it depends very much
on how much control the dominant is seeking to take.
: >> and those that believe
: >>in mutual responsibility for Topsy and turvey.
:
: This issue is one of my "crusades" <g>.
:
: Submission is not about giving up responsibility. Submission is
: about giving up control. Those two things may feel like the same
: thing, but they are not. A person can give up control while
: maintaining hir responsibility to self.
Agreed. But zie can't be responsible for the achievement
of something over which zie has given up control. Ask me to
be responsible[1] for, to borrow a line recently used here,
making the trains run on time, and perhaps I will. But if
I'm not going to have sufficient control over the railroads,
then there's no way I'd accept that responsibility.
So if - and I wouldn't ever completely surrender control to anyone,
save for the duration of a scene (but others do so and that's a
perfectly legitimate choice if done with proper consideration)
but *if* - I were going to surrender control to someone, sie's
going to have to accept the responsibility for meeting my needs
(my wants and wishes would be granted or not, as zie chose).
And anyone who would surrender such control to a dominant who
would not assume that responsibility and that obligation) would:
1) be an idiot
2) almost certainly end up in unwanted misery
3) be fully responsible for and completely deserving of
that misery
* - More precisely, to be accountable and liable.
Offer me a lot of money to be responsible for something
over which I have no control but also have no accountability
and no liability, and, depending upon whether my greed or
my pride is stronger, and upon whether I actually care
about the matter, I might do it
atta[T]
For me a *need* is something one must have to move on. They won't die w/o
it(mostly) but they will feel miserable w/o it.
a *want* is something that we desire. If we can't get what we want, we may be
upset, but we will move on.
For example...Most people Need a car in order to do things like work and shop,
etc. W/o a car you feel helpless and useless because now you're dependent on
others for things.
Most people Want a nice car...a flashy car with a powerful engine. If they
have to settle for the Yugo, it's still a vehicle that will get them around.
They have control again.
So for me...BDSM is a Need in my life. It's become such an integral part of
my being that if Mistress were to announce tomorrow morning that we wouldn't do
anymore BDSM, I think I would be miserable and always feeling like I'm missing
something. I would never have all my needs satisfied because regular vanilla
sex just doesn't do a lot for me. BDSM is the spice that makes things happen
for me.
submissively
atta[T]
Proud submissive to Mistress Tovah
louise
wrote:
> Again I would define it a bit different.
> For me a *need* is something one must have to move on. They won't die w/o
>it(mostly) but they will feel miserable w/o it.
> a *want* is something that we desire. If we can't get what we want, we may be
>upset, but we will move on.
> For example...Most people Need a car in order to do things like work and shop,
>etc. W/o a car you feel helpless and useless because now you're dependent on
>others for things.
> Most people Want a nice car...a flashy car with a powerful engine. If they
>have to settle for the Yugo, it's still a vehicle that will get them around.
YMMV, but i would feel pretty silly telling One to whom i had totally
submitted that He was not meeting my needs, because He did not choose
to provide me with a car. (smile)
BLDRNRpdx
>> For example...Most people Need a car in order to do things like work and
>shop,
>>etc. W/o a car you feel helpless and useless because now you're dependent
>on
>>others for things.
>> Most people Want a nice car...a flashy car with a powerful engine. If
>they
>>have to settle for the Yugo, it's still a vehicle that will get them around.
Just to be incredibly picky here -
Very few people actually *need* a car at all. It is almost always possible to
go to work or the grocery store by mass transit or walking or some other
method. When I was in college the first time, most of my transportation
occured in some way other than by car.
Yes, it was *really* nice when someone would give me a ride, especially when I
wanted to travel the 120 miles to see my folks. But I did do Greyhound more
than once.
But I'll stick with my original feeling on this.
WIITWD is necessary for me.
Bladerunner
somebody special's little girl
Laura Goodwin
> Just to be incredibly picky here -
> Very few people actually *need* a car at all.
That is actually true. I just got a driver's licence last year, and I
am 44 years old. Obviously, I didn't *need* a car of my own to get
around. I did depend on my pals and on public transportation a lot,
though.
RE: WIITWD, AKA BDSM....*I* ~need~ it, FWIW! I *could* live without it,
but I wouldn't *want* to...how's that?
s...@bob.eecs.berkeley.edu
>The usual example is Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
> 1. Physiological (starving, freezing)
> 2. Security and safety (physical risk, freedom risk)
> 3. Love & belonging (social, tribal)
> 4. Esteem or recognition
> 5. Self fulfillment
> 6. Curiosity and the need to understand
>The idea being that once all the needs at a lower number are
>satisfied, the needs at the next number become important.
True, and most descriptions I've read of Maslow put "sex"
in with number your number (3), at the same level as "love".
(Now there's another area ripe for debate...) If we go along with
this, I'd also include BDSM at the same level -- for those
who are so inclined.
Tangentially, I define "need" vs. "want" a little differently than
does Nicole. To me, a "want" is based on abstract desire, whereas
as a "need" is more of a concrete requirement rooted in one or
more desires. In a sense, every "need" derives from some underlying
"want". For example, I want to keep living; therefore I need to
eat and breath.
Steve
Katharine Hawks
wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 20:56:07 GMT, Katharine Hawks
><kha...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
>>If one wants to submit in order to relieve oneself of life's various
>>responsibilities, they are seeking dysfunction. They are not seeking
>>a dominant, they are seeking someone to co-sign their bullshit (a
>>phrase borrowed from a very smart friend).
>
>In a traditional family setting, the parents are in charge. The
>children and teenagers are given responsibilities that are deemed
>suitable for them to handle.
>
>In a Master/slave relationship of the type that i prefer, the Master
>is in charge. The slave is given responsibilities that the Master
>deems suitable for hir.
>
>It is inconceivable to me that a parent would not give any
>responsibilities to a child or teenager, or that a Master of this type
>would take on a slave without assigning responsibilities. In either
>case it seems the one supposedly in control has chosen instead to
>surrender that control. i believe that in the context of the type of
>M/s that i know, this would be very distressing to a sincere slave.
Hypothetically speaking here, louise, do you think you can transfer
your responsibilities to yourself to a dominant? By responsibilities
to self, I'm thinking of things like:
--the responsibility to create a life that's meaningful to me
--being responsible for my own happiness and not expecting anyone else
to 'give' me that
--the responsibility to protect myself from abuse
etc.
I suspect the core difference between Steven and I is that he believes
these responsibilities can be transferred to a dominant and I don't.
(Steven, would you say this is accurate?)
I need to think about this more.
Lacenlthrs
bldr...@aol.com (BLDRNRpdx) writes:
>Just to be incredibly picky here -
>
>Very few people actually *need* a car at all. It is almost always possible
>to go to work or the grocery store by mass transit or walking or some other
>method. When I was in college the first time, most of my transportation
>occured in some way other than by car.
>Yes, it was *really* nice when someone would give me a ride, especially when
>I wanted to travel the 120 miles to see my folks. But I did do Greyhound more
>than once.
I'm going to be picky back. <G>
Where my cousins grew up, it was 15 miles to the supermarket, drugstore and
hardware store. It wasn't on a farm, but incredibly rural nonetheless. Yes,
you could ride a bike into town for some things, but for major stuff (like the
week's groceries or a sheet of plywood) a car was *essential*. And it hasn't
changed much over the years.
There are still plenty of places that don't have mass transit or even regular
Greyhound service (that was 30 miles away). Sure, walking 15 miles is possible,
but if you have other things that need to be done, it wastes a lot of time.
City slickers, sheesh! <VBG>
KarenJ (who is thankful she lives in more accessible suburbs)
Binder
> : wrote:
> :
> : <snippity-doo-da>
> :
> : > * - To be brief (yes, really): needs must be addressed, and it's
> : > the responsibility of the dominant to see that they are;
> :
> : ... <more snippage>...
> :
> : Why is that the responsibility of a dominant? I'd think that's a
> : responsibility to self, regardless of DS orientation (or lack
> : thereof).
[mass snip]
> If the submissive
> errs and enters in a relationship which zie should not have
> entered into, then, assuming no deceit on the part of the
> dominant, if the relationship doesn't work than zie certainly
> most bear responsibility for zir error and the bad that comes
> of it. But if no such error was made, then once entering into
> a relationship which involves the surrender of control to another
> (for other than specified periods) the responsibility for having
> one's needs met goes to the one with the control.
If we're talking about long term Dominant Supreme relationships, where the
submissive has given over all responsibility, where's the "out?" If both
parties make a binding agreement in good faith, and the turvey makes a
mistake in judgment, including that of no going back, how can that error be
corrected?
"Topsey, I'm not happy?"
"Your point being?"
Now, turvey can be responsible all year long, but is still bound by an
agreement that Turvey will determine "Who, What, Where, and How." Certainly
a decent human being will nullify the agreement long enough to renegotiate,
but how many times have we heard otherwise? It's the question of informed
consent again, IMO... since it's easy to be responsible AND powerless to
change the situation.
Certainly, long negotiations and a common language can do a lot to
forestall misunderstandings of this caliber, but my feeling is that the
default assumption is that there is understanding, rather than that there
is *not.*
Binder
--
SSB-B Diplomatic Corps: Marin County, CA
to reply, remove the idjit
louise
<kha...@enteract.com> wrote:
>Hypothetically speaking here, louise, do you think you can transfer
>your responsibilities to yourself to a dominant? By responsibilities
>to self, I'm thinking of things like:
>
>--the responsibility to create a life that's meaningful to me
>--being responsible for my own happiness and not expecting anyone else
>to 'give' me that
>--the responsibility to protect myself from abuse
>etc.
i think this can be done, but the question is do i think that i can do
it? So i'll address that.
Yes, hypothetically, but although i believe i have done so in the
past, to tell you the truth this has not yet been harshly tested in a
real life relationship. Those to whom i have submitted in real life
have not been abusers, for example, and my life has been happy and
meaningful while in submission. Understand, i am naturally a happy
person, and unless something specifically causes me to feel unhappy, i
am happy and content.[1] i find submission in itself to bring
meaning to my life. i have not yet had a Dominant refuse to grant me
release when i requested it due to my needs not being met, so whether
i truly left this decision to Him or not has not been tested in real
life. Gosh i think so, but i don't see how i can say yes unequivocably
when it hasn't been put to the test.
Maybe can i get back to you on this question in another 5-10 years?
(smile)
In any case, i do know that as a slave i am given certain
responsibilities also, so it is not a responsibility-free vacation.
It's *enslavement*. And i like that. :)
>I suspect the core difference between Steven and I is that he believes
>these responsibilities can be transferred to a dominant and I don't.
>(Steven, would you say this is accurate?)
i believe that they can be, but i also believe that the Dominant needs
to detail to the slave what the slave's responsibilities are, just as
a parent does with a child or teenager. This is not to say that a
slave is a child. It's just an analogy... i could have used a military
analogy just as easily, because that is another situation in which
someone is given control and assigns responsibilities.
>I need to think about this more.
Yes me too. i think probably we all three are more or less in
agreement but we are seeing this from three very very different
viewpoints so it's hard to see that.
[1] The secret to happiness as an adult is to have had an absolutely
rotten and miserable life as a teenager... even at 50 years old what i
am experiencing now seems so pleasant in comparison.
Steven S. Davis
[snip]
: , do you think you can transfer
: your responsibilities to yourself to a dominant? By
: responsibilities to self, I'm thinking of things like:
:
: --the responsibility to create a life that's meaningful to me
: --being responsible for my own happiness and not expecting
: anyone else to 'give' me that
: --the responsibility to protect myself from abuse etc.
I'd word them differently. No one can have the responsibility
for making another happy, as no one has the power to assure that.
Nor can anyone make another person's life meaningful, so no one
can legitimately have/accept that responsibility.
But one can have the responsibility for providing the things which
another person needs to be happy and/or to have a meaningful life.
No such covenant should be entered into, of course, unless each
party knows what these needs are, and unless both parties believe
that they can do what the relationship requires, and, yes, it
will be necessary for the each person to be, and to continue to be,
very open and clear about zir needs and zir capababilities (even
when to do so may seem pushy/demanding/selfish, or unsubmissive,
or even - horrors! - to be "topping from the bottom" (this is not,
of course, a justification/excuse for failing to be respectful,
courteous, sensitive, considerate, etc in how one conveys the
necessary information)).
: I suspect the core difference between Steven and I is that he believes
: these responsibilities can be transferred to a dominant and I don't.
: (Steven, would you say this is accurate?)
Yes. IMO, this can be done (using my rephrasings), and is done
whenever anyone enters a TPE relationship. Whether it should be
done is a personal decision. I wouldn't. But if I were going
to give someone complete control, zie would have to be willing
to take responsibility for seeing that my needs were met. If
zie wants me to retain that possibility, that's fine. But I'll
also retain the control needed to do so. If I give someone
else the ability to prevent me from being able to be sure
that I can obtain that which I need if I am to be happy and healthy,
it can only be when zie has accepted (and I have faith in both zir
intentions and zir capabilities) the responsibilty to assure that
I receive that which I require if I am to be happy and healthy.
It would be extremely irresponsible of me to surrender such
control without obtaining such an obligation from my dominant,
and I have no more patience with or tolerance for irresponsible
submissives than you do.
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
Binder
*gack* Has anyone seen my brain lately?
> Now, turvey can be responsible all year long, but is still bound by an
> agreement that Turvey will determine "Who, What, Where, and How." Certainly
should have read:
"... agreement that Topsey will determine "Who, What, Where, and How."
Certainly..."
Binder
trying to keep my confusion to myself...
--
SSB-B Diplomatic Corps: Marin County, CA
to reply, remove the idjit
Lawless
> Nicole:
> > Using the above definition, for how many of you is WIITWD
> > a *need* that you absolutely must have satisfied in order
> > to continue living? How many people here would rather die
> > than face the rest of their lives without the possibility
> > of ever kinking again?
Depends : it seems that I do "need" some level of kink in my relationships
in order to be truly content and fulfilled in the long run. But - I can
do without the relationships themselves, -if- I have enough other reasons
to find life as a whole worthwhile. Lots and lots of really good snow
skiing, for instance, goes a long way for me, even if I'd much rather there
be Someone[1] to ski with and cuddle with in front of a fireplace at the
end of a long day's skiing. A really good gaming group and campaign, or
enough traveling to wander around really cool places and check out the
local food and drink and culture, likewise, and I suspect that if I found
that Someone who while totally unkinked was otherwise perfect for me, I
could similarly live without the kink and the fulfillment it brings. I
could be wrong about that, but ... I don't think so : I'm self sufficient
enough that so long as my significant other can accept that sometimes I'd
be moody and distant and unable to share -everything- with her, I'd be
okay.
But, there are futures that I wouldn't face : ones in which not enough of
my pleasures / desires / needs were going to be possible, and kink is one
of the ones with a higher priority / weighting than others.
Binder :
> Very few of us would choose to die for any "desire." OTOH, many of us
> would be seriously reduced in our humanity to go without WIITWD, which
> brings us back to individuals...
On the matter of dying for desires : while very few might actively seek
out a desire they knew they'd die from, I think many of us find some
pleasures worth at least a risk of mortality for. Just how much of a
risk, of course, varies from person to person, but.... *shrug* Death
is a given - life's too long not to fulfill some desires.
Binder
>
> bldr...@aol.com (BLDRNRpdx) writes:
>
> >Just to be incredibly picky here -
> >
> >Very few people actually *need* a car at all. It is almost always possible
> >to go to work or the grocery store by mass transit or walking or some other
> >method.
>
>
> Greyhound service (that was 30 miles away). Sure, walking 15 miles is possible,
> but if you have other things that need to be done, it wastes a lot of time.
And I'm going to be picky top. :)
Round hereabouts, which aren't quite urban, not quite rural, and, apparent
lifestyles to the contrary, not suburban either... trying to get by without
a car is horrendously inconvenient at best. Mass transit, such as it is,
stinks. A 10 minute drive takes an hour and half by bus, and there aren't
any alternatives short of walking or biking. And that presumes one can
tolerate the mile or five walk to get to where the transit acutally *is*.
Oh, and we have some pretty serious hills, too, which may be beneficial if
one needs and can tolerate exercise, but make it impractical to say, carry
a week's worth of groceries.
Binder
Katharine Hawks
wrote:
>Katharine Hawks (kha...@enteract.com) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>: , do you think you can transfer
>: your responsibilities to yourself to a dominant? By
>: responsibilities to self, I'm thinking of things like:
>:
>: --the responsibility to create a life that's meaningful to me
>: --being responsible for my own happiness and not expecting
>: anyone else to 'give' me that
>: --the responsibility to protect myself from abuse etc.
>
>I'd word them differently. No one can have the responsibility
>for making another happy, as no one has the power to assure that.
>Nor can anyone make another person's life meaningful, so no one
>can legitimately have/accept that responsibility.
Sure, that wording is a more precise rendition of what I'm getting at
-- which is that these responsibilities cannot be transferred because
no one else can meet them with any degree of assurance.
>But one can have the responsibility for providing the things which
>another person needs to be happy and/or to have a meaningful life.
Sure, and I do that allthefucking time with people who bottom to me.
For example, if I am with a submissive who would like to "be a
writer," I can create a situation of *possibility* for hir to
actualize that goal. I can schedule writing time and I can provide
editorial feedback and all that stuff. But I can't provide all the
internal stuff that makes a writer a writer. I can only provide the
externals with any degree of assurance.
I actually deal with this fairly often -- and I'm really surprised
that more tops haven't come into this discussion -- it makes me wonder
if I'm weird this way.
Anyway, it's not the "norm", but with a fair amount of regularity, I
meet bottoms who seek out dominance as a way to provide things that
they cannot provide for themselves (which they should, IMO, provide
for themselves.) Recently, a bottom-friend and I had a massive
hashing out of this particular issue; I was refusing the submission of
one of my favorite bottoms because I felt she wanted me to assume
dominance not of her -- but of all the shit in her life which she
couldn't get together. No thank you, jeez, the last fucking thing I
need is someone else's baggage along with mine <g>
I think alot of tops operate under the (mistaken, IMO) assumption that
providing an external mirror to what is lacking in the internal
landscape of a bottom will help that bottom achieve what they dream
of.
For example, in the case of my friend, I was dealing with a bottom who
had a really under-developed sense of self-discipline and
accountability. As a result -- procrastination, immature
decision-making, impulsiveness, avoidance of consequences, etc., --
are issues that plague and complicate her daily life. You know what?
I could take care of *each and every* one of these problems in a
heartbeat if she entered into an agreement with me that included
obedience. It wouldn't take long for me to give the illusion that
these issues were suddenly, miraculously "managed" as a result of her
submission to me.
However, even though I could provide all the externals, I simply
*cannot* provide the internals. This bottom could conceivably use the
externals to learn how to manage hir own internal landscape, but I
think that involves awfully dangerous gambles.
>No such covenant should be entered into, of course, unless each
>party knows what these needs are, and unless both parties believe
>that they can do what the relationship requires, and, yes, it
>will be necessary for the each person to be, and to continue to be,
>very open and clear about zir needs and zir capababilities (even
>when to do so may seem pushy/demanding/selfish, or unsubmissive,
>or even - horrors! - to be "topping from the bottom" (this is not,
>of course, a justification/excuse for failing to be respectful,
>courteous, sensitive, considerate, etc in how one conveys the
>necessary information)).
Then we're in agreement.
>: I suspect the core difference between Steven and I is that he believes
>: these responsibilities can be transferred to a dominant and I don't.
>: (Steven, would you say this is accurate?)
>
>
>Yes. IMO, this can be done (using my rephrasings), and is done
>whenever anyone enters a TPE relationship. Whether it should be
>done is a personal decision. I wouldn't.
Actually, I think this is done, to varying degrees, any time someone
enters into any sort of D/s exchange.
I could imagine someone believing that "assuming responsibility for
all the bottoms needs" would be in the provenance of TPE. I don't
personally believe that, but I can certainly understand why others
would.
> But if I were going
>to give someone complete control, zie would have to be willing
>to take responsibility for seeing that my needs were met.
OK, now I"m confused. How do you reconcile that with:
>I'd word them differently. No one can have the responsibility
>for making another happy, as no one has the power to assure that.
>Nor can anyone make another person's life meaningful, so no one
>can legitimately have/accept that responsibility.
<quoted earlier in the post>
??
Are you defining "needs" as something other than the basic soul-stuff
I'm talking about? (ie, happiness, fulfillment, etc.)
> If
>zie wants me to retain that possibility, that's fine. But I'll
>also retain the control needed to do so.
Why would you need to retain any control in order to do so?
(hypothetically speaking here). The only reason a submissive would
need control is if the top was actively trying to prohibit, prevent or
restrict access to the conditions of possibility which a bottom needs
in order to actualize hirself as a fulfilled, empowered and happy
human being.
Let's say I have a submissive who gains a significant amount of
fulfillment by reading and responding to usenet, which takes about an
hour of hir time every day. Let's say I agree with the submissive's
assessment -- that usenet is a good thing for hir and helps hir to
grow in many ways. And just for fun *grin*, let's say that submissive
has given me "total control". If I forbid that submissive to read or
post to usenet, then I'm restricting access to an activity that
fulfills hir. Deal over, IMO. I'm no longer a dominant, just an
asshole.
OTOH, let's say that I structure my submissive's day -- with a list of
duties that are to be completed each day. Being a sensible person, I
make sure and alot time for personal growth in that schedule. Let's
say the submissive choses to do something else with hir time rather
than the activity that fulfills hir. IMO, the submissive is making
poor decisions. I'll probably raise an issue like that for
discussion, and I'll be open to working through it from either hte
inside or outside of a D/s framework. But I'm not going to take
responsibility for the issues that lead to self-destructive (albeit in
small ways) decison-making. They're in the realm of the internal.
And maybe I'm being pig-headed, but I think this is a very sensible
approach.
> If I give someone
>else the ability to prevent me from being able to be sure
>that I can obtain that which I need if I am to be happy and healthy,
>it can only be when zie has accepted (and I have faith in both zir
>intentions and zir capabilities) the responsibilty to assure that
>I receive that which I require if I am to be happy and healthy.
See, D/s is a positivist construct. In many cases, D/s is only D/s
when it's working. When it's not working , often it's abuse and the
same standards of judgement do NOT apply.
SilverOz
Binder <m...@jps.net> wrote:
>tolerate the mile or five walk to get to where the transit acutally *is*.
>Oh, and we have some pretty serious hills, too, which may be beneficial if
>one needs and can tolerate exercise, but make it impractical to say, carry
>a week's worth of groceries.
Yup.
Does my mother *need* a vehicle?
Yup, nearest bus stop is around 3 miles away with a bus once an
hour or so. Bit much to ask a woman of her age to walk that far
with the groceries :)
She could drive a horse and trap into the nearest shopping
area, but since they took the parking meters out there's
nowhere to tie the horse up.
(Yes, when I was a kid I did ride my horse into do shoppig and
feed the meter I tied her to. Envy of my schoolfriends I was.)
Do I need a vehicle? No.
Do I need a net connection? That one is harder. The net is a
very big part of my life right now, for one thing it keeps my
in contact with Mum. But there are other ways, I don't
*need* it to keep me sane or healthy but it's a very good
way of doing that.
Do I *need* BDSM? No, I'd survive without. After all I did for many
years. But I would be much poorer for that, I'd be unlikely to get a
good intimate relationship for example, as I can't do one
without BDSM overtones - which is why I didn;t have one before
I discovered BDSM.
Despite that, I'm inthe "Needs are what are required to make
the thing under discussion work" camp. So if we are talking "what
do you need to live" then food, water, air are about it. "what
do you need to live and stay sane" then add sleep and mental
stimulation. "live, stay sane, be reasonably happy" and the
list gets bigger.
SilverOz
--
========================================================================
Australian BDSM Information Site http://www.zed.com.au/~master/abis/
========================================================================
louise
wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 17:35:48 GMT, Katharine Hawks
><kha...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
>>Hypothetically speaking here, louise, do you think you can transfer
>>your responsibilities to yourself to a dominant? By responsibilities
>>to self, I'm thinking of things like:
>Yes, hypothetically, but although i believe i have done so in the
>past, to tell you the truth this has not yet been harshly tested in a
>real life relationship.
Please disregard my post (part of which was cited above), because i
was confusing control and responsibility.
The semantics have me so confused that i am just not making much
sense. It's really wierd to me, because to me total submission is so
simple and when the time is right you just *do* it... but analyzing it
verbally is not very easy for me. Maybe this is one of those left
brain/right brain things but i don't know much about that either.
(grin) Anyhow, this is one of those cases where actions not only
speak louder than words, they're a whole lot easier to produce, in my
opinion.
Jack Peacock
<36ba072f...@news.enteract.com>...
>Submission is not about giving up responsibility.
Submission is about
>giving up control. Those two things may feel like the same
thing, but
>they are not. A person can give up control while
maintaining hir
>responsibility to self.
>
up responsibility as well as control. I assume primary
responsibilty for the relationship as the dominant partner.
It's my job to decide how to fix problems in our
relationship. I do expect foggy to participate, but her job
is to tell me what's bothering her, it certainly isn't her
responsibility to come up with answers although I would hope
she might have some suggestions.
>
>If one wants to submit in order to relieve oneself of
life's various
>responsibilities, they are seeking dysfunction. They are
not seeking
>a dominant, they are seeking someone to co-sign their
bullshit (a
>phrase borrowed from a very smart friend).
>
intolerance toward submissives. Just what is it that's
"dysfunctional" about wanting to be free of responsibility,
to let someone else decide?
>
>I do have a problem with people who use submission as a way
to
>transfer their responsibilities to self onto a dominant.
That, I
>think is unacceptable in most versions of D/s I've run
across.
>
next, a dominant who wants to run her life, tell her (sic,
deliberate choice of non-PC compliant term) what to do,
order her around? I'm sitting here scratching my head
wondering what _your_ concept of D/s is???
>
>Now, a dominant can still choose to take on responsibility
for hir
>submissive's happiness (for example). I do that, myself.
But because
>I've chosen to make this my responsibility doesn't mean
it's stopped
>being hir responsibility, either. Responsibilities can be
held by
>multiple people at the same time.
>
of freedom in determining how she will spend her time during
the day, but I also require that she tell me what she does
so I can judge if it's best for her welfare and overall
happiness. It's up to me to ensure she is on the right
track, my responsibility, not her's.
preferences and
>>practices are considered by some around here to be pretty
much way out
>>there as far as being extreme. However, even so, it has
always been
>>presented to me as fundamental that i had the
responsibility to
>>communicate my needs to a Dominant that i serve. This is
just one of a
>>slave's responsibilities as i have been taught. The
division of
>>responsibilities in M/s has differed from that in my
vanilla
>>relationships.
>
based on what's on your web page I'd say they were a
boilerplate for a typical M/s (or for that matter a plain
old D/s) list of requirements. Yes, communicating needs is
fundamental, but I'd say that's where responsibility ends.
Beyond that it's whatever the dominant decide to delegate.
Jack "the opinionated cavedom" Peacock
Jack Peacock
>No thank you, jeez, the last fucking thing I
>need is someone else's baggage along with mine <g>
>
this could be a classic defining quote. An attitude like
this is so foreign to what I believe in that words fail me.
Just can't be bothered, eh?
>
>I think alot of tops operate under the (mistaken, IMO)
assumption that
>providing an external mirror to what is lacking in the
internal
>landscape of a bottom will help that bottom achieve what
they dream
>of.
>
submissive, providing the strength and guidance she needs,
while she fulfills his desires for dominance and control.
She has someone to rely on, someone who will see to it she
does achieve what she dreams of. But then, it also
presupposes the dominant actually cares about her "baggage",
so perhaps it is understandable that we disagree.
Jack "the baggage carrying cavedom" Peacock
Jack Peacock
>Then you don't think it's the submissive's responsibility to do
>whatever the Dominant decides to delegate? It seems to me the
>Dominant is fully in control, and so decides what responsibilities to
>assign the submissive. Both have responsibilities here, as i see it.
>
First a comment from foggy:
"Now that I think about it (ironing really wrinkled clothes requires
*thinking*), I'd call the responsibilities I think I have "supervised
responsibilities". Between my two masters, I'm pretty well aware of
what's
been delegated for me to do. Frankly, I still think I have tremendous
freedom, but only within the boundaries set by my masters. I have a
responsibility to choose wisely within those boundaries. When I do
that,
I'm happy. When I don't do that, I'm not happy. Simple."
<deleted additional comment about a box of Oreos that became
mysteriously empty with insinuations the dog opened the cupboard, took
them out, ate them, and put the box back>
I like the "supervised responsibility within boundaries" term, sort of
a middle ground. You are correct Louise, in that foggy does have a
responsibility to adhere to her rules and assignments. But it's a
specific and well-defined responsibility that I've specified for her,
not some ambiguous concept. Foggy expects me to provide the consistency
and definition, so in that sense I'm still ultimately responsible.
(FYI, when foggy refers to her "two" masters, it doesn't mean I share
her with another dom. The other master is spiritual)
Jack "the buck-stopping cavedom" Peacock
Velvet Wood
> Round hereabouts, which aren't quite urban, not quite rural, and, apparent
> lifestyles to the contrary, not suburban either... trying to get by without
> a car is horrendously inconvenient at best. Mass transit, such as it is,
> stinks. A 10 minute drive takes an hour and half by bus, and there aren't
> any alternatives short of walking or biking. And that presumes one can
> tolerate the mile or five walk to get to where the transit acutally *is*.
> Oh, and we have some pretty serious hills, too, which may be beneficial if
> one needs and can tolerate exercise, but make it impractical to say, carry
> a week's worth of groceries.
>
> Binder
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and YES! What he said. Anyone who
says that a car is not a necessity has never gotten up at 6am in order to
take a sick baby to a 2pm dr's appointment, has never walked five miles
in the rain to get to the bus stop in the middle of january, has never
carried a weeks worth of groceries those same damned five miles, has never
lost a job because the buses ran late, or spent the night curled up in an
office chair because they didn't have the ten dollars for a cab and they
worked too late to take the bus.
Velvet
--
Member SSB-B Diplomatic Corps, Dallas TX
creator of custom leather-goods
wanna see my stupid personal ad? www.imagin.net/~dstar/ad.html
"When the Dream dreams the Dreamer, the Dream's the real..." ---Gypsy
louise
<pea...@simconv.com> wrote:
>Yes, communicating needs is
>fundamental, but I'd say that's where responsibility ends.
>Beyond that it's whatever the dominant decide to delegate.
Then you don't think it's the submissive's responsibility to do
whatever the Dominant decides to delegate? It seems to me the
Dominant is fully in control, and so decides what responsibilities to
assign the submissive. Both have responsibilities here, as i see it.
louise
<pea...@simconv.com> wrote:
>Katharine Hawks wrote in message
><36bb5afb....@news.enteract.com>...
>>No thank you, jeez, the last fucking thing I
>>need is someone else's baggage along with mine <g>
>>
>Darn, I erased the SSBB thread about cold-hearted Dommes,
>this could be a classic defining quote. An attitude like
>this is so foreign to what I believe in that words fail me.
>Just can't be bothered, eh?
i'm not sure exactly what she means by baggage...
i do know that personally i did not start seeking a Dominant until my
divorce (and all that ugliness) was final, though it would have been a
lot easier for me to have the support of an outside D/s relationship
through that and through the loneliness of the previous year's
separation. i also did not get involved in more than casual play until
my finances were in shape. i have a good job. i have no dependants and
few possessions, and my life is uncomplicated. i'm **not** saying
everyone else has to do things the way that i do. However i feel i
have already served in that i can now offer my submission without so
many strings attached and booby-traps. It took a lot of strength to do
this. Getting all my ducks in a row is, to me, more respectful than
just dumping a lot of unexpected problems on a Dominant and expecting
to be rescued.
louise
<pea...@simconv.com> wrote:
>You are correct Louise, in that foggy does have a
>responsibility to adhere to her rules and assignments. But it's a
>specific and well-defined responsibility that I've specified for her,
>not some ambiguous concept.
Then we are in full agreement. Likewise the responsibility of a
teenager to take out the trash is a specified responsibility, but i
feel it *is* a responsibility, quite definitely, nevertheless.
Arrow Blue
>In soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm on Fri, 05 Feb 1999 12:15:37 -0800
>Binder <m...@jps.net> wrote:
>>tolerate the mile or five walk to get to where the transit acutally *is*.
>>Oh, and we have some pretty serious hills, too, which may be beneficial if
>>one needs and can tolerate exercise, but make it impractical to say, carry
>>a week's worth of groceries.
>
>
Whether something is a need or not is a subjective view. Need in order
to do what? Live? Live in the style I'm accustomed to? Live in the
style you're accustomed to? Be able to support children? Are you
talking about for the rest of my life or the next ten minutes?
Need is a word children use to persuade. Whether anyone else either
than myself and those people I am in a relationship with considers
something a need or not is irrelevant, much the same as whether those
other people consider any one of us to be beatiful or not.
In other words, there's not much point to this argument.
Arrow
(I used to ride a horse to the stores sometimes too when I was a kid,
but one day the cops stopped me and told me that I was no longer
allowed to take him downtown - I guess the city council decided that a
horse is not a need)
((does this mean that girls that owned horses are more likely to get
into BDSM?))
(((this one is just to be irritating)))
Steven S. Davis
: On 5 Feb 1999 19:11:08 GMT, s...@links.magenta.com (Steven S. Davis)
: wrote:
:
: >Katharine Hawks (kha...@enteract.com) wrote:
: >
: >[snip]
: >
: >: , do you think you can transfer
: >: your responsibilities to yourself to a dominant? By
: >: responsibilities to self, I'm thinking of things like:
: >:
: >: --the responsibility to create a life that's meaningful to me
: >: --being responsible for my own happiness and not expecting
: >: anyone else to 'give' me that
: >: --the responsibility to protect myself from abuse etc.
: >
: >I'd word them differently. No one can have the responsibility
: >for making another happy, as no one has the power to assure that.
: >Nor can anyone make another person's life meaningful, so no one
: >can legitimately have/accept that responsibility.
:
: Sure, that wording is a more precise rendition of what I'm getting at
: -- which is that these responsibilities cannot be transferred because
: no one else can meet them with any degree of assurance.
Well, we can agree that one can't be responsible for the achievement
of what one has not the capabilty to control.
: >But one can have the responsibility for providing the things which
: >another person needs to be happy and/or to have a meaningful life.
:
: Sure, and I do that allthefucking time with people who bottom to me.
And so this is something that one can be responsible for, because
the provision of the needs for happiness can be done (though it
must also be admitted that no matter how much one wants to do
so, one may yet fail, which is all the more reason why we should
all, dom and sub, be careful what one promises). Whether the person
to whom this is provided will in fact be happy is not within
anyone's control (nor have I ever said that it was, what's been
said by me is that the provision of needs is, in some cases, the
dominant's responsibility, with needs being those things which
are required for happiness, not that the provision of happiness
is the dominant's responsibility).
: For example, if I am with a submissive who would like to "be a
: writer," I can create a situation of *possibility* for hir to
: actualize that goal.
Well, if the potential is present, you can create a situation
which enhances the chance of the potential being realized.
: I can schedule writing time and I can provide
: editorial feedback and all that stuff. But I can't provide all the
: internal stuff that makes a writer a writer. I can only provide the
: externals with any degree of assurance.
Fair enough. If, in fact, being a writer is what someone needs
to be happy and healthy, and if someone is not already a writer,
it would be an unsound decision to take control of that person
because one can't assure that one can provide what that person
needs and so to take control of them would be setting both people
up for a great deal of grief. Much better to let the person,
perhaps with assistance, become what zie needs to be to be happy
and healthy before letting that person come under one's control.
Which, of course, wouldn't preclude some occasional bondage
and thrashings ;->
: I actually deal with this fairly often -- and I'm really surprised
: that more tops haven't come into this discussion -- it makes me
: wonder if I'm weird this way.
:
: Anyway, it's not the "norm", but with a fair amount of regularity, I
: meet bottoms who seek out dominance as a way to provide things that
: they cannot provide for themselves (which they should, IMO, provide
: for themselves.) Recently, a bottom-friend and I had a massive
: hashing out of this particular issue; I was refusing the submission
: of one of my favorite bottoms because I felt she wanted me to assume
: dominance not of her -- but of all the shit in her life which she
: couldn't get together. No thank you, jeez, the last fucking thing I
: need is someone else's baggage along with mine <g>
Very reasonable. It's important to be sure people are doing d&s
for mutually acceptable reasons, and it's important not to take
on situations which one can't or shouldn't be dealing with.
And nobody should be dominating anyone whom zie doesn't want to
dominate (nor submitting to anyone one doesn't want to submit
to).
:
: I think alot of tops operate under the (mistaken, IMO) assumption
: that providing an external mirror to what is lacking in the
: internal landscape of a bottom will help that bottom achieve
: what they dream of.
Or that they can simply order someone to do something, which
ignores the fact that no matter how obedient one may be, one
can still only obey an order which one a) knows how to obey,
and b) has the capability to obey.
As stated before, both dominant and submissive should know
each other's needs, capabilities, and limits before making
major commitments to each other.
: For example, in the case of my friend, I was dealing with a bottom
: who had a really under-developed sense of self-discipline and
: accountability. As a result -- procrastination, immature
: decision-making, impulsiveness, avoidance of consequences, etc., --
: are issues that plague and complicate her daily life. You know what?
: I could take care of *each and every* one of these problems in a
: heartbeat if she entered into an agreement with me that included
: obedience. It wouldn't take long for me to give the illusion that
: these issues were suddenly, miraculously "managed" as a result of
: her submission to me.
That you would not wish to do so is a personal choice and, of course,
a quite acceptable one for you to make. FWIW, what I seem to be
seeing in this is your perception that what this person needs is
to be more mature and accountable, which may well not be something
that one can provide. Her perception may be that she only needs
(if this is a need at all, in the sense I was using it of "something
one needs to be healthy and happy") a manager. It would also be
a quite acceptable choice, IMO, to address her need by providing
the management. A personal choice for a dominant, certainly, but
providing the management could very possibly provide her with one
of the things that she requires to be happy and be part of meeting
her needs.
: However, even though I could provide all the externals, I simply
: *cannot* provide the internals. This bottom could conceivably use
: the externals to learn how to manage hir own internal landscape,
: but I think that involves awfully dangerous gambles.
Agreed. If the providing of the internals is what is actually needed.
It might be what's best, but a person could be very happy with
just the externals, and what one needs and what is best for one
are not the same. Needs are a sort of a baseline requirement,
what one must have, and more may well be better, but it isn't
necessary.
: >No such covenant should be entered into, of course, unless each
: >party knows what these needs are, and unless both parties believe
: >that they can do what the relationship requires, and, yes, it
: >will be necessary for the each person to be, and to continue to be,
: >very open and clear about zir needs and zir capababilities (even
: >when to do so may seem pushy/demanding/selfish, or unsubmissive,
: >or even - horrors! - to be "topping from the bottom" (this is not,
: >of course, a justification/excuse for failing to be respectful,
: >courteous, sensitive, considerate, etc in how one conveys the
: >necessary information)).
:
: Then we're in agreement.
:
: >: I suspect the core difference between Steven and I is that he believes
: >: these responsibilities can be transferred to a dominant and I don't.
: >: (Steven, would you say this is accurate?)
: >
: >
: >Yes. IMO, this can be done (using my rephrasings), and is done
: >whenever anyone enters a TPE relationship. Whether it should be
: >done is a personal decision. I wouldn't.
:
: Actually, I think this is done, to varying degrees, any time
: someone enters into any sort of D/s exchange.
Well, to degrees, perhaps. But outside of TPE (or DNTPE
(Damn Near Total Power Exchange), to avoid the argument about
the possibility of TPE) the issue is much less important.
If I'm not in a TPE, and I'm not getting what I need, I go
get it, possibly by dumping the relationship or requiring
a change in terms if the relationship is to go on. If I am
in a TPE relationship, at the very least my ability to do this
is greatly reduced (and the more near to TPE the relationship
has become, the more reduced it will be).
: I could imagine someone believing that "assuming responsibility
: for all the bottoms needs" would be in the provenance of TPE.
I wouldn't see that as being the exclusive province of TPE.
What I do see as the special province of TPE is being solely
responsible for assuring that the submissive's needs (ie what
the submissive requires if zie is o be happy and healthy) are
provided. Because in a TPE one has taken singular control
and final authority, and this *is* a zero-sum situation.
If the dominant has final authority, than the submissive does
not, and if the submissive is subject to the total control of
another then the submissive cannot control the provision of
zir needs (save to the extent that zie did so through the choice
of dominant) and so cannot be held responsible for the provision
of them.
: I don't
: personally believe that, but I can certainly understand
: why others would.
:
: > But if I were going
: >to give someone complete control, zie would have to be willing
: >to take responsibility for seeing that my needs were met.
:
: OK, now I"m confused. How do you reconcile that with:
:
: >I'd word them differently. No one can have the responsibility
: >for making another happy, as no one has the power to assure that.
: >Nor can anyone make another person's life meaningful, so no one
: >can legitimately have/accept that responsibility.
:
: <quoted earlier in the post>
:
: ??
You're forgetting this part:
: >But one can have the responsibility for providing the things which
: >another person needs to be happy and/or to have a meaningful life.
No, no one can assure that I'll be happy. But, depending upon
what it is that I need to be happy, someone can provide me with
that which I need to be happy.
: Are you defining "needs" as something other than the basic
: soul-stuff I'm talking about? (ie, happiness, fulfillment, etc.)
I'm defining "needs" as I have thoughout this discussion, as "that
which one requires if one is to be happy and healthy". I do not
define being happiness and fulfillment as needs (much too amorphous
to be of value in any list of needs) but as goals. Goals which
I feel it's safe to say are universal, as I don't believe that
there is anyone who does not desire happiness and fulfillment
(though some may be afraid of them, and others feel unworthy of
them, and so actively (consciously or not) avoid them). But which
because they are universal, or at least so nearly universal,
tells us nothing about the specifics of any individual. Needs
are much more specific than that. Someone may need to serve;
someone may need the release obtained though pain (just to
pick two needs which are, or can be, kinky).
:
: > If
: >zie wants me to retain that possibility, that's fine. But I'll
: >also retain the control needed to do so.
:
: Why would you need to retain any control in order to do so?
: (hypothetically speaking here). The only reason a submissive would
: need control is if the top was actively trying to prohibit, prevent or
: restrict access to the conditions of possibility which a bottom needs
: in order to actualize hirself as a fulfilled, empowered and happy
: human being.
If the dominant is not going to use zir control to interfer with
my decisions about what I need to do to obtain what I need, then
I will be able to obtain what I need. But so long as the dominant
has the ability to prevent me from doing what I need to do to obtain
my needs, then zie cannot hold me responsible for my doing so.
I can be responsible for it, or zie can, or, if zie does not wish
to have control and final authority over me, we both can. But
if zie takes final authority, it comes with final responsibilty.
I cannot reasonably be held responsible for the provision of my
needs when zie can prevent me from doing any of the things that
I might do to provide them.
I do understand that in life there are an endless number of
things which can prevent one from doing what one wants to
do, and would not say that because no one knows that zie will
be able to do {X} then it's not one's responsibilty to do {X}.
However, the one-to-one relationship between DNTPE dominant
and submissive is, I believe, a special case. Rarely will
anything and everything that a person might do be subject
to the control and veto of one other person (and in those
cases where it was, for example in a jailer-prisoner
relationship, I'd say that the responsibility for meeting
those of the prisoner's needs it was deemed appropriate
to meet belongs to the jailer; the prisoner has responsibilties
as well, of course, but if the prisoner starves or freezes
to death in zir cell, because insufficient sustenance or
warmth was provided, whose responsibilty that is is very clear,
and it isn't the prisoner's (even if other jailers do not
prevent their prisoners from acting to obtain the means to
satisfy these requirements)). The person subject to that
control and veto cannot be the one held responsible for the
provision of zir needs, it must be the person with the control
who is responsible for them (even if all zie does is allow
the other to act).
: Let's say I have a submissive who gains a significant amount of
: fulfillment by reading and responding to usenet, which takes about an
: hour of hir time every day. Let's say I agree with the submissive's
: assessment -- that usenet is a good thing for hir and helps hir to
: grow in many ways. And just for fun *grin*, let's say that submissive
: has given me "total control". If I forbid that submissive to read or
: post to usenet, then I'm restricting access to an activity that
: fulfills hir. Deal over, IMO. I'm no longer a dominant, just an
: asshole.
No, you'd be a dominant and an asshole. The two categories aren't
mutually exclusive (as doubtless anyone having submitted to me
will attest). A bad dominant is still a dominant.
: OTOH, let's say that I structure my submissive's day -- with a list of
: duties that are to be completed each day. Being a sensible person, I
: make sure and alot time for personal growth in that schedule. Let's
: say the submissive choses to do something else with hir time rather
: than the activity that fulfills hir. IMO, the submissive is making
: poor decisions. I'll probably raise an issue like that for
: discussion, and I'll be open to working through it from either hte
: inside or outside of a D/s framework. But I'm not going to take
: responsibility for the issues that lead to self-destructive (albeit in
: small ways) decison-making. They're in the realm of the internal.
:
: And maybe I'm being pig-headed, but I think this is a very sensible
: approach.
So do I. Because what you did - we'll make the highly reasonable
assumption that you correctly identified the submissive's needs and
what was required to satisfy them - was to provide the submissive
with zir needs (again, assuming that the ability to pursue the
activity is what the submissive needed to be happy and healthy).
No, you don't know that because you give a submissive what
zie needs if zie is to be happy and healthy that zie in fact
will be happy and healthy. But you have supplied what zie
needed to be happy and healthy, and that's all that one can
be responsible for.
Granted, if the submissive receives what zie says, as well as
what (correct) observation indicates, that zie needs to be
happy, and still the submissive is not happy, then in all
probability there is some need or needs, probably unknown
(and perhaps beyond the dominant's ability to provide)
that the dominant is not providing (IMO, the dominant can't
be faulted for this if due diligence was shown in trying to
learn what the submissive needed). This speaks to the
importance of knowing what each person needs and what each
person can provide, and if one can't provide what the other
needs the covenant shouldn't be understaken, and if one
discovers later in the relationship that one cannot provide
those needs (and the persistent unhappiness of the submissive
would be a pretty good sign of this), then one should release
the submissive).
: > If I give someone
: >else the ability to prevent me from being able to be sure
: >that I can obtain that which I need if I am to be happy and healthy,
: >it can only be when zie has accepted (and I have faith in both zir
: >intentions and zir capabilities) the responsibilty to assure that
: >I receive that which I require if I am to be happy and healthy.
:
: See, D/s is a positivist construct. In many cases, D/s is only D/s
: when it's working. When it's not working, often it's abuse and the
: same standards of judgement do NOT apply.
No, I'm not going to accept that. It's not d&s only when it's good
and something entirely different when it's bad (that's sort of
like Donside's view of conservatism). Bad d&s is still d&s.
Destructive d&s is still d&s. D&S which isn't working is still
d&s. There are situations in which what's happening is not
d&s but rather abuse (now there's a debate to get into; my own
quick take is that it's abuse when it's nonconsensual, or when
it is based upon invalid consent because of fraud, or when one
party is acting w/o regard for the wellbeing (liberally defined
- sorry, don - given who we are and what it is that we do) of the
other.
But people can be consensually, honestly, and caringly engaged
in things which are harmful to them, including, sometimes,
bad or ill-considered d&s.
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
Katharine Hawks
<pea...@simconv.com> wrote:
>Katharine Hawks wrote in message
><36bb5afb....@news.enteract.com>...
>>No thank you, jeez, the last fucking thing I
>>need is someone else's baggage along with mine <g>
>>
>Darn, I erased the SSBB thread about cold-hearted Dommes,
>this could be a classic defining quote. An attitude like
>this is so foreign to what I believe in that words fail me.
>Just can't be bothered, eh?
You know what, Jack -- I resent that. I wonder if you even bothered
to read the post, much less spend a few seconds thinking about the
specific example I was discussing?
One which, by the way, has caused me a fair amount of angst and pain.
Because, after alot of consideration, what I deemed to be the most
ethical solution was to cut the bottom loose and withdraw any support
that I offered as a dominant.
When you're prepared to invest even a fraction of the thought I did in
this issue, then we'll talk. Until then, fuck off.
Nicole Cloonan
[snip of big discussion that I am unable to comment on]
Steven S. Davis wrote:
: : > If
: : >zie wants me to retain that possibility, that's fine. But I'll
: : >also retain the control needed to do so.
Katherine wrote:
: : Why would you need to retain any control in order to do so?
: : (hypothetically speaking here). The only reason a submissive would
: : need control is if the top was actively trying to prohibit, prevent or
: : restrict access to the conditions of possibility which a bottom needs
: : in order to actualize hirself as a fulfilled, empowered and happy
: : human being.
Steven S. Davis wrote:
: If the dominant is not going to use zir control to interfer with
: my decisions about what I need to do to obtain what I need, then
: I will be able to obtain what I need. But so long as the dominant
: has the ability to prevent me from doing what I need to do to obtain
: my needs, then zie cannot hold me responsible for my doing so.
: I can be responsible for it, or zie can, or, if zie does not wish
: to have control and final authority over me, we both can. But
: if zie takes final authority, it comes with final responsibilty.
: I cannot reasonably be held responsible for the provision of my
: needs when zie can prevent me from doing any of the things that
: I might do to provide them.
I disagree with what I think you're saying here.
If the dominant has the control and ability to prevent the
submissive from satisfying hir needs, but is not exercising
such control, is it still the dominants responsibility to
ensure that the submissive is satisfying hir needs in the
context of such a relationship?
I don't think so. Unless the dominant is actively preventing
you from satisfying your needs, it *is* reasonable to expect
you to pursue them for yourself. That you may not have final
authority over those actions is irrelevant if the dominant is
not actively preventing them. Active control (authority) is not
needed to retain responsibility, although responsibility may
be waived if passive control is not permitted.
[snip]
Katherine wrote:
: : See, D/s is a positivist construct. In many cases, D/s is only D/s
: : when it's working. When it's not working, often it's abuse and the
: : same standards of judgement do NOT apply.
Well, WIITWD is by definition a positivist construct as
it specifically excludes abuse, but I don't think the
same can apply to the specific actions within that
umbrella term. The logic that abuse isn't what *we* do
therefore some specific actions/processes that we do are
never abusive doesn't work. D/s can (and should IMO) be
empowering, but it can also be destructive and harmful.
Steven S. Davis wrote:
: No, I'm not going to accept that. It's not d&s only when it's good
: and something entirely different when it's bad (that's sort of
: like Donside's view of conservatism). Bad d&s is still d&s.
: Destructive d&s is still d&s. D&S which isn't working is still
: d&s. There are situations in which what's happening is not
: d&s but rather abuse
Which doesn't preclude D/s from *being* abuse.
: (now there's a debate to get into; my own
: quick take is that it's abuse when it's nonconsensual, or when
: it is based upon invalid consent because of fraud, or when one
: party is acting w/o regard for the wellbeing (liberally defined
: - sorry, don - given who we are and what it is that we do) of the
: other.
:
: But people can be consensually, honestly, and caringly engaged
: in things which are harmful to them, including, sometimes,
: bad or ill-considered d&s.
And unfortunately this happens a lot because people may not
want or like what it is that they need.
Nicole.
--
SSB Diplomatic Corps: Brisbane, Australia
SSB Hompage: http://www.phszx81.demon.co.uk/ssb/
Email: nic...@uq.net.au
Katharine Hawks
<snip>
SSD:
>: >But one can have the responsibility for providing the things which
>: >another person needs to be happy and/or to have a meaningful life.
KMH:
>: Sure, and I do that allthefucking time with people who bottom to me.
SSD:
>And so this is something that one can be responsible for, because
>the provision of the needs for happiness can be done (though it
>must also be admitted that no matter how much one wants to do
>so, one may yet fail, which is all the more reason why we should
>all, dom and sub, be careful what one promises). Whether the person
>to whom this is provided will in fact be happy is not within
>anyone's control (nor have I ever said that it was, what's been
>said by me is that the provision of needs is, in some cases, the
>dominant's responsibility, with needs being those things which
>are required for happiness, not that the provision of happiness
>is the dominant's responsibility).
Actually, your phrase, if I remember correctly, was "meet their
needs", which could be interpreted as actualizing needs. That's why I
jumped on your statement. It surprised me.
In this discussion, we're treating d/s as a fairly rigid, monolithic
experience. Most of my D/s relationships are fairly fluid. Among the
couple of folks who submit to me, there's one or two for whom D/s is
an always-present energy. And there are other people for whom the D/s
is more scene based with set start/end times.
That said, the nature of my responsibilities as a dominant aren't
always very clear-cut. While it's easy enough to recognize and accept
responsibilities for scene-space (and any after-effects of scene
space) with regard to the bottom's well-being; external life issues
aren't so obvious.
<snip>
KMH:
>: I can schedule writing time and I can provide
>: editorial feedback and all that stuff. But I can't provide all the
>: internal stuff that makes a writer a writer. I can only provide the
>: externals with any degree of assurance.
SSD:
>Fair enough. If, in fact, being a writer is what someone needs
>to be happy and healthy, and if someone is not already a writer,
>it would be an unsound decision to take control of that person
>because one can't assure that one can provide what that person
>needs and so to take control of them would be setting both people
>up for a great deal of grief. Much better to let the person,
>perhaps with assistance, become what zie needs to be to be happy
>and healthy before letting that person come under one's control.
Now this really surprises me.
I never consider myself 100% actualized, and neither do most folks I
know. I consider myself as always being in-progress. If I had to
wait to meet all my goals before ever entering into a relationship,
I'd be terribly lonely :-)
In a situation like this, what I'd probably be likely to do (and yeah,
it always varies and depends on the people involved); would be to
function as any loving friend would and support that person in hir
endeavors. I enjoy giving that "extra little push" as a dominant, but
that's an altogether different story then assuming responsibility for
another person's dysfunction. In other words, what I don't believe in
addressing, as a dominant; are the ways that people can sabotage their
lives, set themselves up for failure, or behave self-destructively.
Now, I can support a person's goal to *change* those behaviors; but
unless they've internalized that goal, I can't *generate* it, nor can
I change the dysfunctions. Nor will I try to, FWIW.
Personally, I'm very clear about this boundary. I will not enter into
relationships with people who demonstrate, repeatedly, that they are
self-destructive and refuse to commit to the hard work needed to
change these patterns.
I think alot of dominants get sucked into playing pygmalion with
dysfunctional bottoms. Playing pygmalion with issues like this rarely
evolves into anything more noble than dominant-as-enabler.
>Which, of course, wouldn't preclude some occasional bondage
>and thrashings ;->
That goes without saying <g>
<snip>
KMH:
>: For example, in the case of my friend, I was dealing with a bottom
>: who had a really under-developed sense of self-discipline and
>: accountability. As a result -- procrastination, immature
>: decision-making, impulsiveness, avoidance of consequences, etc., --
>: are issues that plague and complicate her daily life. You know what?
>: I could take care of *each and every* one of these problems in a
>: heartbeat if she entered into an agreement with me that included
>: obedience. It wouldn't take long for me to give the illusion that
>: these issues were suddenly, miraculously "managed" as a result of
>: her submission to me.
SSD:
>That you would not wish to do so is a personal choice and, of course,
>a quite acceptable one for you to make. FWIW, what I seem to be
>seeing in this is your perception that what this person needs is
>to be more mature and accountable, which may well not be something
>that one can provide. Her perception may be that she only needs
>(if this is a need at all, in the sense I was using it of "something
>one needs to be healthy and happy") a manager.
The core of the problem, relative to our relationship, was that any
support given her enabled alot of bullshit on her end. This included
management by a dominant.
> It would also be
>a quite acceptable choice, IMO, to address her need by providing
>the management. A personal choice for a dominant, certainly, but
>providing the management could very possibly provide her with one
>of the things that she requires to be happy and be part of meeting
>her needs.
I don't accept this. In the particular example, the three tops this
bottom cycled through in the past year wouldn't accept it, either <g>
I think a dominant can provide an extra little "push" (and that's
something that happens in all relationships -- I've got friends who
motivate me in small specific ways and help me to excel. My boss,
when he's doing his job right, mentors me in a similar way).
I don't know if we're on the same page, but if you're trying to tell
me that a dominant who attempts to *rescue* a bottom from hir
dysfunction is making a healthy choice; I doubt I'll ever agree.
I've never seen a rescue work, either inside or outside of D/s. And I
think dominants, in particular, get really sucked into being rescuers
-- for obvious reasons. Jeezus, what a fucking power trip it is to be
"The One" that can turn a person's life around.
And this is the essence of what I'm talking about when I say that it's
not only unrealistic to take responsibility for the "self" of a
submissive. I'd even go so far as to say it's *unethical* in the case
of any number of dysfunctional and/or self-destructive patterns.
Ugol speaks: of course there's always going to be exceptions to this
-- remarkable cases where a dominant can help a submissive deal with
things like addictions, clear out some serious issues and motivate
personal growth of a deeply meaningful type. However, if and when
that happens, it's only going to happen if the individual (in this
case, the submissive since that's the dynamic we're talking about)
decides to take *responsibility* and exert *personal power* in hir own
life to affect change and growth. This is really therapy and recovery
101: you can't change people, they can only change themselves.
In other words, *if* it works, it works not because the submissive has
transferred hir responsibility to the dominant, but because the
dominant has helped the submissive *own* hir responsibility to self.
(I've snipped the discussions about TPE and its variations, it seems
like a separate topic.)
Sockermom9
>Dysfunction? Now that sounds like some sort of prejudice or
>intolerance toward submissives. Just what is it that's
>"dysfunctional" about wanting to be free of responsibility,
>to let someone else decide?
Well, usually life is a journey, from childhood, in which a person is basically
powerless and unable to take power and responsibility for themselves; to
adulthood, where they have earned their personal power through demonstrating
responsibility and ability.
Someone who chooses to not accept responsibility for themselves is seen as not
yet an adult (see where this is going?). Also, for the most part, we as a
society are suspicious of such a choice.
Where do I stand on the issue? I have nofuckingclue. Just being pedantic, as
usual.
Lynn
New to the world of submission? Check out http://members.aol.com/oldrope/ for
some thoughts for newcomers from those who've been there and decided to stick
around.
Katharine Hawks
<pea...@simconv.com> wrote:
>Katharine Hawks wrote in message
><36ba072f...@news.enteract.com>...
>>Submission is not about giving up responsibility.
>Submission is about
>>giving up control. Those two things may feel like the same
>thing, but
>>they are not. A person can give up control while
>maintaining hir
>>responsibility to self.
>>
>Your basic premise is flawed. Submission _is_ about gving
>up responsibility as well as control. I assume primary
>responsibilty for the relationship as the dominant partner.
>It's my job to decide how to fix problems in our
>relationship. I do expect foggy to participate, but her job
>is to tell me what's bothering her, it certainly isn't her
>responsibility to come up with answers although I would hope
>she might have some suggestions.
You missed the part, Jack, (not surprising, given your propensity for
selective and odd interpretation) where I said that responsibilities
*shift* in a D/s relationship, but they don't go away. Are you saying
that foggy has no responsibilities? Does this mean that you take care
of *everything*?
I realize that you have control, power and authority over foggy. I
also realize that you probably tell her what her responsibilities are.
But that doesn't mean that she relinquishes the notion of accepting
responsibility. Given what foggy's posted here in the past, it seems
to be that she feels a very *strong* sense of responsibility to serve
you.
You seem to have a rather odd notion of what responsibility is.
>>If one wants to submit in order to relieve oneself of
>life's various
>>responsibilities, they are seeking dysfunction. They are
>not seeking
>>a dominant, they are seeking someone to co-sign their
>bullshit (a
>>phrase borrowed from a very smart friend).
>>
>Dysfunction? Now that sounds like some sort of prejudice or
>intolerance toward submissives. Just what is it that's
>"dysfunctional" about wanting to be free of responsibility,
>to let someone else decide?
No, it's an intolerance to a certain kind of destructive behavior
which a few people call "submission."
By the way, when someone lets me decide, that doesn't absolve them of
responsibility. If someone gives me control, power and authority over
their life; I often end up heaping *lots* of responsibilities on them.
Binder
>
> Katharine Hawks wrote in message
> <36ba072f...@news.enteract.com>...
> >Submission is not about giving up responsibility.
> Submission is about
> >giving up control. Those two things may feel like the same
> thing, but
> >they are not. A person can give up control while
> maintaining hir
> >responsibility to self.
> >
> Your basic premise is flawed. Submission _is_ about gving
> up responsibility as well as control. I assume primary
> responsibilty for the relationship as the dominant partner.
> It's my job to decide how to fix problems in our
> relationship. I do expect foggy to participate, but her job
> is to tell me what's bothering her, it certainly isn't her
> responsibility to come up with answers although I would hope
> she might have some suggestions.
I don't agree. In fact I disagree pretty vehemently, consitantly, with
broad based definitions that eliminate a large percentage of the
population. Submission *may* be about lack of responsibility for Foggy, but
it sure isn't in *my* little world. I personally find it offensive when
One's submission makes that person smaller to the point where they can't
fix their own problems. The concept implies to me that the basics of
personality are set aside for the benefit of one rather than embraced as
part of the melding process. Now, this may work perfectly well for a few...
but I cannot presume to have all the answers to all problems, nor expect
that *my* answers all always the most correct.
> >If one wants to submit in order to relieve oneself of
> life's various
> >responsibilities, they are seeking dysfunction. They are
> not seeking
> >a dominant, they are seeking someone to co-sign their
> bullshit (a
> >phrase borrowed from a very smart friend).
> >
> Dysfunction? Now that sounds like some sort of prejudice or
> intolerance toward submissives. Just what is it that's
> "dysfunctional" about wanting to be free of responsibility,
> to let someone else decide?
Removing personal responsibility from another makes them "dependant" does
it not? If one feeds a commonly recognized psychological disorder by
emphasizing, rather than minimizing that disorder, one then reinforces an
already dysfunctional "order". ("Order" in contrast to "disorder," since
many of what are called disorders are (usually) functional coping
mechanisms.)
Now, I admit I don't know foggy, so I have no basis for diagnosis, but I do
have a simple question with a complex answer(s):
What happens to foggy when you die, Jack?
Binder
--
SSB-B Diplomatic Corps: Marin County, CA
to reply, remove the idjit
Binder
>
> Jack Peacock wrote:
>
> >Dysfunction? Now that sounds like some sort of prejudice or
> >intolerance toward submissives. Just what is it that's
> >"dysfunctional" about wanting to be free of responsibility,
> >to let someone else decide?
>
> powerless and unable to take power and responsibility for themselves; to
> adulthood, where they have earned their personal power through demonstrating
> responsibility and ability.
>
> Someone who chooses to not accept responsibility for themselves is seen as not
> yet an adult (see where this is going?). Also, for the most part, we as a
> society are suspicious of such a choice.
>
> Where do I stand on the issue? I have nofuckingclue. Just being pedantic, as
> usual.
Where to snip??? Oh *where*? I guess I won't... I see a dichotomy here, as
Lynn points out so aptly. If one (in this case, a submissive) has not and
cannot be responsible to themself, then they have never left their
emotional childhood (as I interpret Lynn's statements.)
I personally could not maintain a *healthy* emotional and intimate
relationship with such a person [1], simply because I could never trust
that they would be able to consent as an adult. I *could be* a parent to an
adult child, I could be domineering, I do many things with one such, but I
would not accept submission from such an "adult" as I would be unable to
see them as such.
The quality of the gift is reduced by the very lack of awareness that I
feel makes the gift valuable: one that knows precisely what is being
surrendered into my care, can effectively communicate about what goes well
and what doesn't, and knows the difference.
I ask myself, in what respect do I mean by responsible? It isn't about
earning a living, or paying the bills, or the ability to take care of the
business of living. It's about self awareness, and the ability to
communicate awareness and non-awareness effectively. (yes, it isn't that
simple.)
And Lynn, you strike me as one of the least pedantic people around, as
evidenced by the insightfulness of your post... and your presence. :)
[1] BTDTGTSTPI (been there, done that, got the scars to prove it)
Sockermom9
>I ask myself, in what respect do I mean by responsible? It isn't about
>earning a living, or paying the bills, or the ability to take care of the
>business of living. It's about self awareness, and the ability to
>communicate awareness and non-awareness effectively. (yes, it isn't that
>simple.)
Well, by that, I guess I'll probably marginally qualify as "responsible. ;-)
And:
>The quality of the gift is reduced by the very lack of awareness that I
>feel makes the gift valuable:
Not to mention that one must have power to exchange in order to...well,
exchange power. I can't sell a car without being the owner, complete with all
the responsibilities that go with that. I can't give *me* away, either,
without being a responsible adult. And I can never give me away completely,
since, as Buckaroo Bonzai sez, "wherever you go, there you are."
>And Lynn, you strike me as one of the least pedantic people around, as
>evidenced by the insightfulness of your post... and your presence. :)
Sssshhhhhhh!! You'll give it away. Jeez, the minute they hear that I'm
responsible, my kids'll start asking what's for dinner. Besides, if I'm not
pedantic, then I'll opt for merely simplistic. Katharine and Steven are flying
*'way* over my head right now on this topic.
I know--let's start a thread about bondage!
Katharine Hawks
>I know--let's start a thread about bondage!
since you're one of my favorite ssbb bondage bunnies, OK.
Tell me what you think of this. Last night I was out with a bunch of
leatherwomen friends at the Cellblock for CLAW's monthly barnight.
There's an adorable newbie boy there, leaning forward to kiss a pretty
girl, and the boy is holding her hands behind her back in that
adorable way that only a boy can do.
So, I'm standing there, watching the back of this boy, this boy who
has her hands clasped behind her back; and I'm thinking really, really
horrible things. Suddenly, I'm imagining this boy on her back, in a
steel collar, with her knees tied together. And I'm imagining a
length of rope going from her bound knees to her collar, pulling her
legs toward her face. And I'm imagining her laying there, with her
ass raised and her wrists bound.
And then I start to imagine taking advantages of the opportunities
presented by this bondage. Spanking this boy. Teaching this boy to
take it in the mouth. Teaching this boy to take it up the ass.
That's my favorite kind of bondage. The kind that reveals and
presents.
MMan
<kha...@enteract.com> wrote:
<snip>
...
> So, I'm standing there, watching the back of this boy, this boy who
> has her hands clasped behind her back; and I'm thinking really, really
> horrible things. Suddenly, I'm imagining this boy on her back, in a
> steel collar, with her knees tied together. And I'm imagining a
> length of rope going from her bound knees to her collar, pulling her
> legs toward her face. And I'm imagining her laying there, with her
> ass raised and her wrists bound.
> And then I start to imagine taking advantages of the opportunities
> presented by this bondage. Spanking this boy. Teaching this boy to
> take it in the mouth. Teaching this boy to take it up the ass.
>
Whoa, hold on. Are you using "her" to reference the boy? If so, I can
handle that, but it would be nice I knew about it ahead of time (maybe I
haven't been paying enough attention to your posts lately)...
Beyond that, I'm all for it! We're you thinking of one of those nice
polished steel collars, or a classic sorta medevil deal? And shouldn't the
ankles be bound to ensure no one gets kicked? I mean, we gotta think
safety here...
(*sigh*)
M
who is thinking he should look into getting some polished ss gear...
--
Forever surrounded by her almost purely sensual torrents...
Reply address is a Spambuster - I'm 'at scf dot usc dot edu'
Xiphias Gladius
>In article <36bccc01....@news.enteract.com>, Katharine Hawks
><kha...@enteract.com> wrote:
><snip>
>...
>> So, I'm standing there, watching the back of this boy, this boy who
>> has her hands clasped behind her back; and I'm thinking really, really
>> horrible things. Suddenly, I'm imagining this boy on her back, in a
>> steel collar, with her knees tied together. And I'm imagining a
>> length of rope going from her bound knees to her collar, pulling her
>> legs toward her face. And I'm imagining her laying there, with her
>> ass raised and her wrists bound.
[ snip ]
>Whoa, hold on. Are you using "her" to reference the boy? If so, I can
>handle that, but it would be nice I knew about it ahead of time (maybe I
>haven't been paying enough attention to your posts lately)...
"Boy" refers to a specific gender of lesbian. Last time I tried to count
genders, I came up with about seven, but I know I missed dozens. . .
(This is one of the reasons that I so support other pronouns -- the whole
male/female dichotomy idea is so outdated and generally useless that it
doesn't make sense to have pronouns that reference gender at all. But
since there still seems to be a large number of people who are stuck in
the "two gender" paradigm, I suppose that this will take work.)
- Ian
--
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ian
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
Laura Goodwin
> So, I'm standing there, watching the back of this boy, this boy who
> has her hands clasped behind her back; and I'm thinking really, really
> horrible things. Suddenly, I'm imagining this boy on her back, in a
> steel collar, with her knees tied together. And I'm imagining a
> length of rope going from her bound knees to her collar, pulling her
> legs toward her face. And I'm imagining her laying there, with her
> ass raised and her wrists bound.
>
> And then I start to imagine taking advantages of the opportunities
> presented by this bondage. Spanking this boy. Teaching this boy to
> take it in the mouth. Teaching this boy to take it up the ass.
Oh, you mean the boy was a girl? A butch girl? When I read the
following:
> Tell me what you think of this. Last night I was out with a bunch of
> leatherwomen friends at the Cellblock for CLAW's monthly barnight.
> There's an adorable newbie boy there, leaning forward to kiss a pretty
> girl, and the boy is holding her hands behind her back in that
> adorable way that only a boy can do.
I pictured a *male* boy holding a girl's hands behind her back.
Therefore what followed kinda threw me for a minute. This Cellblock, is
it a gay bar? What is CLAW?
You do realize that people read this NG that aren't from your
neighborhood, right?
--
"We are now re-imagining our collective dream, and this time, we all are
heroes victorious."
Laura Goodwin
http://www.cabo-one.com/lalaura
Sockermom9
>since you're one of my favorite ssbb bondage bunnies, OK.
<blush> <shuffling toe in dust>
<I snipped a bit, where I drooled on it>
>So, I'm standing there, watching the back of this boy, this boy who
>has her hands clasped behind her back; and I'm thinking really, really
>horrible things. Suddenly, I'm imagining this boy on her back, in a
>steel collar, with her knees tied together. And I'm imagining a
>length of rope going from her bound knees to her collar, pulling her
>legs toward her face. And I'm imagining her laying there, with her
>ass raised and her wrists bound.
>
>And then I start to imagine taking advantages of the opportunities
>presented by this bondage. Spanking this boy. Teaching this boy to
>take it in the mouth. Teaching this boy to take it up the ass.
>
>That's my favorite kind of bondage. The kind that reveals and
>presents.
Honey, it works for me!
Gawdamn, I just love listening to top-talk. It warms the cockles of my bottomy
little heart to hear that the stuff that makes my brain go bye-bye also makes
those on the outside of the ropes happy.
Sockermom9
>That's my favorite kind of bondage. The kind that reveals and
>presents.
Gee, you're good--you even made me forget why I brought it up.
Last night I attended a demo on Japanese bondage--a lovely way to spend an
evening, second only to doing research into bondage onesself.
Now, I don't actually know a lot about Japanese technique (yes, Philip, I've
seen Angier's tapes, but it's pretty clear that he's not doing the stuff for
the same reasons *I* do the stuff), but I was wondering about what others
thought.
As much as I like lots of rope (ya can never have too much rope), it seemed
kind of out of hand. Like "Love Bondage", it seems more an art form that a set
of useful techniques. Nothing against art, you understand, but there's
something to be said for getting the job done simply and efficiently (*and*
safely and comfortably, of course).
One thing in particular I noticed was that with the "layering" that's common in
Japanese techniques, it seemed there were always these huge knots, or clusters
of knots. Are those bothersome in scene?
Does asymmetry bother people? I'll grant that the one time an asymmetrical
Japanese tie was done on me, I didn't notice it (once the rope goes on, I don't
notice much). Well, not that I didn't notice it, it just didn't bother me the
way I'd expected it to.
Lynn ("hop, hop, hoppity, bondage on it's way...")