RE: The Question

RE: The Question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

breatheasone -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 10:07:49 AM)
quote: I need to look into my Master’s eyes and know he sees a capable and healthy human being that can take care of herself and not one that sees some broken and inferior person. QFT~~

Padriag -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 10:10:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chellekitty because when dealing with another person you cannot take control without crawling inside their heads and as far as i know, that is impossible I disagree with this statement. I take control of other people all the time. I do not ask permission, I do not obtain their consent... I take control. I do it in business when I'm negotiating with sub contractors, I did it with a jerk of a store manager, I do it when I get discounts on materials, I do it everytime I get any of the hundreds of people I deal with in business to do what I want, when I want, and how I want, even when (and especially when) that isn't in their best interest. It isn't always necessary to "crawl inside their head", in fact most of the time it isn't. But even when it is necessary to "get inside their head" that isn't really difficult... most people are remarkably transparent to begin with. Exercising control is simply the application of force, whether that be force of personality, force of reason or logic, force of ideology, force of arms, brute force, etc... it always the application of force from which all forms of authority are originally derived and by which they are ultimately preserved. Now I'm pretty sure someone (probably a lot of someone's) are going to take exception to that rather blunt statement. And I would anticipate that someone would claim that their domiant didn't take authority over them, that rather they gave it willingly and no force was used. To which I would ask, can you (whoever you may be) say that the dominant didn't coerce you in any way... didn't charm you, didn't persuade you, didn't use reason, logic or romance to influence you? All those things are subtle applications of force... they are attempts to take control of your choice, to direct what you will do according to what the dominant wanted. If a submissive were to tell me that truly their dominant in no way took control of them... I would question whether they actually have a dominant at all.

dragonslave77 -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 10:11:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dnomyar For those that think that others cant make them happy then you have never seen a good comedian. But is that true happiness or some moments of joy and laughter? Not that there is anything wrong with moments of joy and happiness, and certainly I am one to watch Buster Keaton or point my browser to Foamy the Squirrel for a good laugh when I need it, but those are moments, not an overall sense of happiness in my life. I too subscribe to the philosophy of the only person who can make me happy, or allow myself to have true happiness within my life is myself. However, my Mistress is my choice: who She is and what influence She has in my life and my level of submission to Her. That choice that I have made, makes me happy. She enriches my life, and increasing my happiness by my letting Her be a part of it. And at this point in my life, I cannot imagine Her not being a part of it, nor do I want to contemplate such a situation. I want the happiness within my life, and my submission to Her, to continue.

Padriag -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 10:41:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chellekitty FR... i am not sure who said that a submissive is not equal to a Dominant...which is why i am using fast reply and not quoting... i disagree with that...and it may be a case of semantics....i believe a submissive is different that a Dominant....but equal...because there must be power to give up, for a power exchange to go on....they are inherently different...that is what draws us to the D/s side of this lifestyle...but they are not unequal....when people are unequal, that tends to lead to one person draining on the other and leaving them a shell of a person....and then the other one moves on to the next person when the there is nothing left to drain...whether it be energy or life or power.... chelle But you didn't answer the question. You asserted your belief, which is fine and I see that. But here's the question again. In what way or ways are you equal? In what way or ways are you unequal? My problem with this "presumption of equality" is just that... its an assumption unsupported by facts... and its also an American obsession. My question thus is essentially,"prove it." One "proof" you gave was that the submissive must have some power to give up in order for it to be a power exchange relationship. In most cases that's true... but who says the submissive had equal power to the dominant to begin with? What exactly do we mean by "power"? Are we really talking authority as LA often reminds us (wink to LA)? If so, what authority is this... authority over one's self... over our own lives perhaps? If that's the case, suppose a dominant had taken control of their life and was very self-disciplined... would a submissive who had less control over thier life, less self-discipline, still have as much authority to give... are they still equal? You also said... quote: when people are unequal, that tends to lead to one person draining on the other and leaving them a shell of a person Why? On what do you base this? Wouldn't that only be true if a more "powerful" individual was trying to oppress a less "powerful" individual? Thus in the case of a "more powerful" individual who seeks to build up and protect a "less powerful" individual, would not the opposite be true? I'm not trying to be an asshole or attack anyone, let me be clear about that. However, I am challenging assumptions that I often hear presented by various individuals. I realize that what chellekitty wrote is something many people believe. But should we? Do we know why we believe it? And is that belief so fragile it cannot tolerate being challenged? For me personally, no, I don't believe in equality between individuals. Some people are wiser, smarter, stronger, faster, more talented, more gifted, better trained, better educated, etc. than others (not necessarily all those things). Some people are superior, in various ways, to others. I have met people whom I considered superior to myself... meaning I was inferior to them in some ways. Likewise there are people who are inferior to me in some ways. That's not said out of any sort of arrogance... its a statement of fact. For example, I can play the tenor banjo... can you? If you answered no, the I'm a superior tenor banjo player to you. But, because I'm just learning to play, anyone who is at all experienced at playing is probably superior to me. Again, these are just simple facts. Have you ever asked yourself why those two words... "superior" and "inferior", are often such a threat to people's egos? I can also guess that someone might say, "But Pad, just cause you can play the banjo a lil bit and I can't doesn't make you superior to me." And I'd agree... except that in that one thing, I am superior (to some of you anyway... Jerry O'Connor however still kicks my ass in his sleep! LOL). But here's the thing... if its possible for one person to be superior to another in one thing... what happens when they are superior in several ways, or many ways? At what point does the scale become so weighted that it tips one way or the other and we can no longer say these two people are equal? If we all have differing skills, differing gifts and talents... if all of us could be said to be superior to someone else in some way... then were we really ever equal? Perhaps that dearly held belief in equality was just a dearly held illusion? And perhaps an unhealthy one... for it made words like "superior" and "inferior" such a threat to our egos. It left us less able to accept our own weaknesses (and we all have them), and more likely to resent another's strengths. Consider it philosophical food for thought folks... points to ponder and nothing more.

scottjk -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 10:51:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: breatheasone quote: In other words they enjoy fixing an inferior being because they just know how to do things better then others and enjoys that feeling. The control the OP talks about comes from not thinking of the other as an equal. Yep....I agree, thats not a good or healthy thing to have present in a relationship..... So we are on the same page after all it seems [:)] I didn't realize I came across as so unenlightened and provincial. I know I didn't use or imply inferior or anti-equality attitudes. I have to nip this in the bud. I'll do my best to help clarify for you two. Fixing implies something is broken. For myself, I fix and repair many things, and enjoy doing so. Kinesthetic activity can have a meditative effect for me and helps me recenter. Also, as it relates to another human, if there is some physical injury, I can, in a limited scope, provide a diagnosis, some minor treatment, even bring to bear some triage, but I'm not a doctor, who are trained to fix people. Emotionally, I can provide some therapy or therapeutic activity, but, ultimately, as any therapist will agree, I cannot 'fix' them. They have to do that themselves, or fail to do that themselves. To a limited extent, I can provide some control to facilitate that, say for instance, a controlled environment that will be helpful for some one to recover from emotional distress without additional distractions until they can manage again. We all get hammered down when we get overwhelmed, and often retreat to a refuge to recover, regroup and sometimes rebuild. However, when I said I enjoy providing control, you misunderstood. Providing control doesn't 'fix' anyone or anything, and I certainly didn't suggest that my enjoyment involved 'an inferior being'. With some minor exceptions, perhaps only one, there are no real inferior human beings. In fact, I just don't know how you got 'inferior being' out of my entry and posting. It just baffles me. My enjoyment from providing control involves an environment where a sub would be free to express herself emotionally, intellectually and sexually, and learn how to develop, expand and enhance those areas. I rather look at it as providing physical therapy for a hand that has been clenched tight for too long. It'll hurt like hell at first, but with a lot of sweat and tears, you can get it open and have it fully functional again, if not stronger, more supple and dexterous. In my case, I seek out the feminine potential in a sub. From what I've seen so far, the feminine potential is breathtakingly beautiful. This also allows me to explore the masculine potential in myself as well. In a society where the feminine and the masculine are crushed for the sake of equality even in relationships, I know that freedom that would be welcome relief. I will say you're right about viewing my sub, wherever she is, as not my equal. A woman, in my view, is a complement to a man, not an equal. Emotional and physical equality is a rather horrific thought to me. I do, however, agree with social and intellectual equality between genders. As humans, we have a tendency to do little in half measures, and often take things to extremes with too much focus on results and too little on consequences, if at all. I'll agree that we have done a great deal of good socially and intellectually by teaching, preaching and enforcing equality, but physically and emotionally, it's been an unmitigated disaster. One that we're trying to resolve with ever greater quantities of medication as we get closer and closer to the 'utopia' of absolute equality. We should have focused more on individual talent and capability, then gender equality. It would have taken longer, but we probably would have benefited more as a society, (not to mention suffered less) rather than the 'quick fix' which, as you know, is rarely a fix, and in the long run, never quick. There's always more damage to repair and takes even longer to get the desired result.

YesMistressIrish -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 10:54:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jasmyn quote: I'm a Dominant because I want to provide control. Scott, I like your epithany ... I have a lot of vanilla friends ... when first meeting me (knowing I identified as a dominant female) they expected to find me barking orders and demanding their acquiesence ...when the reality was ...it was nice to be around people I (now love and adore) who do not require me to be 'in control' all the time ... but put a subservient creature in my midst and I love nothing more than giving them the opportunity to stand in their own light ;) Scott; I really enjoyed reading your profile and journal. I wrote you on the other side. I SO agree with what you said here Jasmyn! I feel the same way. Irish

RCdc -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 11:02:15 AM)
scott I didn't see any reference to gender equality - just equality in general - regardless of gender. Your initial post, as does this second is lovely. It is a beautiful concept. However it does come across as one sided, regardless of what you meant. (Hence the impression of no equality.) You asked what would make one happy. As I responded, I am already happy so I cannot answer. If you want to know what improves happiness and what makes people happy, then the simple answer is that no one and nothing can 'make' anyone happy. The only thing/person that can make one happy is oneself and how one takes the energy that exists and 'makes' it or utilises it. the.dark.

laurell3 -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 11:03:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: scottjk To get the background of why I'm posting this, you'll have to check my latest journal entry. (No! I'm NOT being an attention whore! LOL) It would be simpler this way. :) I know, some of you won't read the journal entry, and that's okay. You'll miss the point of this post. :) The Question is: What would make you happy? The short version of my answer is this: I'm not a Dominant because I want control. I'm a Dominant because I want to provide control. That and structure for others to benefit by. Until recently, my failing has been to not ask The Question. Of myself and not of others. I guess you could say I had an epiphany this morning and I just had to share. Read the journal and you'll see. FYI: I rarely do journals, but recently, I felt a need to try. I'm a poor writer in my opinion. :) The problem with the epiphany in my opinion is that rarely to people fit in such neat boxes. Survivors can become victims or victimizers in other areas of their lives. Dom/mes and subs alike struggle and need help with things from the other. In my opinion, roles aside, it's a relationship which should be based first on friendship and compatibility. To presume the Dom/me is doing "fixing" alone or doesn't at times need "fixing" themselves at times would be selling the relationship short in my opinion. Balance is everything.

scottjk -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 11:04:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Padriag Scott, we're different as to why we're dominant. I have no desire to provide structure and control as any sort of service, I provide it as a means of getting what I want. That's just a difference in personal style and I don't believe either is right or wrong. Dale Carnegie, among many others, was a strong advocate of what might be called "service oriented leadership". That is, leaders who do so in order to serve the needs of others, to better others. If that works for you and makes you happy, good for you! Personally, it would not work for me, I'm just not oriented that way. There are pitfalls to everything, what happens when you can't fix someone, or when the person you depend on for happiness is gone? But likewise, for myself, what happens if I fail in my goals... what happens when there is no one to pick me up but me... and what if I can't? Nothing is perfect, and no matter what any of us chooses there will always be risks. Life is a matter of choosing what risks we can accept and cope with... and that's a personal choice for each of us. I guess I should have quibbled just a little with juliaoceania. ;) No, I don't consider it a service. :) I consider it a necessity for a desired result for both, rather than just my own needs. We're more similar than you realize. Just distracted or influenced by others. lol

toservez -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 11:16:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: scottjk quote: ORIGINAL: breatheasone quote: In other words they enjoy fixing an inferior being because they just know how to do things better then others and enjoys that feeling. The control the OP talks about comes from not thinking of the other as an equal. Yep....I agree, thats not a good or healthy thing to have present in a relationship..... So we are on the same page after all it seems [:)] I didn't realize I came across as so unenlightened and provincial. I know I didn't use or imply inferior or anti-equality attitudes. I have to nip this in the bud. I'll do my best to help clarify for you two. Fixing implies something is broken. For myself, I fix and repair many things, and enjoy doing so. Kinesthetic activity can have a meditative effect for me and helps me recenter. Also, as it relates to another human, if there is some physical injury, I can, in a limited scope, provide a diagnosis, some minor treatment, even bring to bear some triage, but I'm not a doctor, who are trained to fix people. Emotionally, I can provide some therapy or therapeutic activity, but, ultimately, as any therapist will agree, I cannot 'fix' them. They have to do that themselves, or fail to do that themselves. To a limited extent, I can provide some control to facilitate that, say for instance, a controlled environment that will be helpful for some one to recover from emotional distress without additional distractions until they can manage again. We all get hammered down when we get overwhelmed, and often retreat to a refuge to recover, regroup and sometimes rebuild. However, when I said I enjoy providing control, you misunderstood. Providing control doesn't 'fix' anyone or anything, and I certainly didn't suggest that my enjoyment involved 'an inferior being'. With some minor exceptions, perhaps only one, there are no real inferior human beings. In fact, I just don't know how you got 'inferior being' out of my entry and posting. It just baffles me. My enjoyment from providing control involves an environment where a sub would be free to express herself emotionally, intellectually and sexually, and learn how to develop, expand and enhance those areas. I rather look at it as providing physical therapy for a hand that has been clenched tight for too long. It'll hurt like hell at first, but with a lot of sweat and tears, you can get it open and have it fully functional again, if not stronger, more supple and dexterous. In my case, I seek out the feminine potential in a sub. From what I've seen so far, the feminine potential is breathtakingly beautiful. This also allows me to explore the masculine potential in myself as well. In a society where the feminine and the masculine are crushed for the sake of equality even in relationships, I know that freedom that would be welcome relief. I will say you're right about viewing my sub, wherever she is, as not my equal. A woman, in my view, is a complement to a man, not an equal. Emotional and physical equality is a rather horrific thought to me. I do, however, agree with social and intellectual equality between genders. As humans, we have a tendency to do little in half measures, and often take things to extremes with too much focus on results and too little on consequences, if at all. I'll agree that we have done a great deal of good socially and intellectually by teaching, preaching and enforcing equality, but physically and emotionally, it's been an unmitigated disaster. One that we're trying to resolve with ever greater quantities of medication as we get closer and closer to the 'utopia' of absolute equality. We should have focused more on individual talent and capability, then gender equality. It would have taken longer, but we probably would have benefited more as a society, (not to mention suffered less) rather than the 'quick fix' which, as you know, is rarely a fix, and in the long run, never quick. There's always more damage to repair and takes even longer to get the desired result. Thank you for straightening me out on this as I thought I could have been wrong in my assumption. I will though echo what chellekitty wrote. To me what you describe gets to be a little chicken or the egg philosophy as you communicate you enjoy using control in ways to a submissive to flourish. I think you will see most submissives though state quite clearly that we want to be controlled to please our dominant and the feeling of control has, which for me is in the family of domination. If things are being done just for me, regardless of the intention, that will drive me away because to flourish I need my dominant to be true to himself and not worry about me being true to me. The control you write about is on a reactive level while most submissives are looking for a proactive control. To clarify so not to confuse the simple if it makes dominant happy it should make submissive happy. It is one thing to exercise control on someone and to gain enjoyment and other things from that control while also enjoying seeing your submissive flourish from a person ONLY exercising control or MAINLY the type of control being done is JUST based on the submissive and feeding a happiness/enjoyment from seeing their own. Not saying the latter is wrong, just saying that would be dicey for a lot of submissives who are quite frankly wanting to take pleasure in giving you pleasure and which to me becomes a chicken or the egg type situation.

scottjk -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 11:29:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 quote: ORIGINAL: scottjk To get the background of why I'm posting this, you'll have to check my latest journal entry. (No! I'm NOT being an attention whore! LOL) It would be simpler this way. :) I know, some of you won't read the journal entry, and that's okay. You'll miss the point of this post. :) The Question is: What would make you happy? The short version of my answer is this: I'm not a Dominant because I want control. I'm a Dominant because I want to provide control. That and structure for others to benefit by. Until recently, my failing has been to not ask The Question. Of myself and not of others. I guess you could say I had an epiphany this morning and I just had to share. Read the journal and you'll see. FYI: I rarely do journals, but recently, I felt a need to try. I'm a poor writer in my opinion. :) The problem with the epiphany in my opinion is that rarely to people fit in such neat boxes. Survivors can become victims or victimizers in other areas of their lives. Dom/mes and subs alike struggle and need help with things from the other. In my opinion, roles aside, it's a relationship which should be based first on friendship and compatibility. To presume the Dom/me is doing "fixing" alone or doesn't at times need "fixing" themselves at times would be selling the relationship short in my opinion. Balance is everything. The entry regarding victims and victimizers is totally unrelated to this thread, or anything else, really. The night I wrote that, I was coping with some one's emotional crisis, which in turn created one in myself that was piled on top of a current crisis I'm struggling with. In short, I was overwhelmed, I needed to recenter and making that entry helped me with all the rage, dispair and helplessness I needed to express. I do, however, regard it as valid statement of life from a very dark and bloody point of view. I do disagree with you, though. We do fit in neat little boxes. The nice thing is, there are so many boxes to choose from! ;) Take what Doctor Who once said. "There are two kinds of people in the world; the intelligent and the stupid. The intelligent people change thier point of view to fit the facts. The stupid people change the facts to fit thier point of view." I'm sure there are many, many more neat little boxes to choose from. [:)]

laurell3 -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 11:48:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: scottjk quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 quote: ORIGINAL: scottjk To get the background of why I'm posting this, you'll have to check my latest journal entry. (No! I'm NOT being an attention whore! LOL) It would be simpler this way. :) I know, some of you won't read the journal entry, and that's okay. You'll miss the point of this post. :) The Question is: What would make you happy? The short version of my answer is this: I'm not a Dominant because I want control. I'm a Dominant because I want to provide control. That and structure for others to benefit by. Until recently, my failing has been to not ask The Question. Of myself and not of others. I guess you could say I had an epiphany this morning and I just had to share. Read the journal and you'll see. FYI: I rarely do journals, but recently, I felt a need to try. I'm a poor writer in my opinion. :) The problem with the epiphany in my opinion is that rarely to people fit in such neat boxes. Survivors can become victims or victimizers in other areas of their lives. Dom/mes and subs alike struggle and need help with things from the other. In my opinion, roles aside, it's a relationship which should be based first on friendship and compatibility. To presume the Dom/me is doing "fixing" alone or doesn't at times need "fixing" themselves at times would be selling the relationship short in my opinion. Balance is everything. The entry regarding victims and victimizers is totally unrelated to this thread, or anything else, really. The night I wrote that, I was coping with some one's emotional crisis, which in turn created one in myself that was piled on top of a current crisis I'm struggling with. In short, I was overwhelmed, I needed to recenter and making that entry helped me with all the rage, dispair and helplessness I needed to express. I do, however, regard it as valid statement of life from a very dark and bloody point of view. I do disagree with you, though. We do fit in neat little boxes. The nice thing is, there are so many boxes to choose from! ;) Take what Doctor Who once said. "There are two kinds of people in the world; the intelligent and the stupid. The intelligent people change thier point of view to fit the facts. The stupid people change the facts to fit thier point of view." I'm sure there are many, many more neat little boxes to choose from. [:)] Ok, but your reply ignores the use of your terms to answer the question, which is that control is not one-sided, relationships are not one-sided, life is not one-sided. As toservz pointed out much better (as usual), it's kind of a circle, dominating to please while someone is submitting to please is kind of a mess. Relationships are not static and consist of people, not roles. We each give and take, learn and hopefully benefit from each other.

scottjk -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 12:11:50 PM)
quote: The control you write about is on a reactive level while most submissives are looking for a proactive control. To clarify so not to confuse the simple if it makes dominant happy it should make submissive happy. It is one thing to exercise control on someone and to gain enjoyment and other things from that control while also enjoying seeing your submissive flourish from a person ONLY exercising control or MAINLY the type of control being done is JUST based on the submissive and feeding a happiness/enjoyment from seeing their own. Not saying the latter is wrong, just saying that would be dicey for a lot of submissives who are quite frankly wanting to take pleasure in giving you pleasure and which to me becomes a chicken or the egg type situation. (chuckle) You're overthinking it, little one. :) If you want to understand my philosophy, apply the concept of complementaries. It's not a matter of being reactive or proactive, that's just merely a process. Complimentaries is like the ying/yang symbol. Black is feminine energy, white is masculine energy. No, don't bother with semantics. Each has a dot with the opposing color, demonstrating that both have a small amount each involved. Also, remember, gender is irrevelant. Some women can be masculine dominant, some men can be feminine dominant. Neither is dominant, by themselves, but one has to be dominant in one person, and the other has to be dominant in the other. As the two people interact, one being more feminine than the other, and the other being more masculine than the other, those energies compliment each other, giving the other what they need, and in the giving, providing even more fulfillment. The interaction of the couple establishes a kind of closed loop exchanging those energies. Like the ying/yang symbol. The interesting part is that the more masculine one person becomes, the more feminine the other becomes, and the more feminine the other becomes, the more masculine the one becomes. Nothing changes except the intensity. So, if all that is true, and you want your man to be more masculine, then you must become more feminine, as you become more feminine he'll become more masculine. Both of you can exert yourselves or just one, but the result is the same. D/s enhances this to profound levels once at least one of pair understands what is happening. Moreso if both. The trouble most people have with the D/s dynamic is that it's so cluttered with differing concepts and views and interminglings, it becomes a communications nightmare. They MIGHT be talking about the same thing, but they're not sure. :) The chicken and egg thing is a rather flawed model, frankly, but the ying/yang is perfect for this instance. What came first is not important, but how it fits together is.

scottjk -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 12:30:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 Ok, but your reply ignores the use of your terms to answer the question, which is that control is not one-sided, relationships are not one-sided, life is not one-sided. As toservz pointed out much better (as usual), it's kind of a circle, dominating to please while someone is submitting to please is kind of a mess. Relationships are not static and consist of people, not roles. We each give and take, learn and hopefully benefit from each other. You know, the interesting thing about all this? Somehow, it's assumed that.... 1. I love to fix people. 2. I view control as one sided 3. That the relationship is unequal 4. The sub would be considered inferior 5. The only way for me to be happy would be to be in control of another and even more! [sm=confused.gif] And the reality is, I said nothing of the kind! (chuckle) It's like seeing the results of a message being relayed via whisper from person to person. You never know what you'll get when it's done. :)

ctrlaltdelete -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 12:38:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: scottjk I'm not a Dominant because I want control. I'm a Dominant because I want to provide control. I am not a Dominant, because I want [insert XYZ]. I am a Dominant, because I am innately dominant. It is just that simplistic for me. No reasoning or rationalizing it. quote: ORIGINAL: scottjk What would make you happy? This may sound like I asked to "supersize my ego". But I don't ask what would make me happy. I simply am happy by being true to myself and by being me.

pinksugarsub -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 12:39:08 PM)
i read Your journal entry and found it profound; i need to re-read it slowly to absorb all You had to say, but personally i think You write very well. What makes me happy? Depends on what You mean by 'happy'. On a day to day basis i have peace, security, and contentment, despite life's bumps. So in that sense i'm happy pretty much all the time. To me, what You were asking was more like 'what makes Y/you joyful?' i am joyful when my UM is doing well, and when i get to see her or talk to her. i am joyful when i am speaking to a Dom who might be the One....but that is fleeting and i know it. i have moments of joy just from watching my parakeets make little love sounds at each other. i am joyful when i see my brother. Lots of things, big and small, make me feel joy. One of my goals for myself is to bring ever more joy into my life. pinksugarsub

laurell3 -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 12:50:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: scottjk quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 Ok, but your reply ignores the use of your terms to answer the question, which is that control is not one-sided, relationships are not one-sided, life is not one-sided. As toservz pointed out much better (as usual), it's kind of a circle, dominating to please while someone is submitting to please is kind of a mess. Relationships are not static and consist of people, not roles. We each give and take, learn and hopefully benefit from each other. You know, the interesting thing about all this? Somehow, it's assumed that.... 1. I love to fix people. 2. I view control as one sided 3. That the relationship is unequal 4. The sub would be considered inferior 5. The only way for me to be happy would be to be in control of another and even more! [sm=confused.gif] And the reality is, I said nothing of the kind! (chuckle) It's like seeing the results of a message being relayed via whisper from person to person. You never know what you'll get when it's done. :) (shrug) you've said what you said, whether you recognize it or not is the issue. I didn't imply any of those things on that list however and I can see any attempt at a conversation on this isn't going anywhere. Good luck to you.

toservez -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 12:55:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: scottjk quote: The control you write about is on a reactive level while most submissives are looking for a proactive control. To clarify so not to confuse the simple if it makes dominant happy it should make submissive happy. It is one thing to exercise control on someone and to gain enjoyment and other things from that control while also enjoying seeing your submissive flourish from a person ONLY exercising control or MAINLY the type of control being done is JUST based on the submissive and feeding a happiness/enjoyment from seeing their own. Not saying the latter is wrong, just saying that would be dicey for a lot of submissives who are quite frankly wanting to take pleasure in giving you pleasure and which to me becomes a chicken or the egg type situation. (chuckle) You're overthinking it, little one. :) If you want to understand my philosophy, apply the concept of complementaries. It's not a matter of being reactive or proactive, that's just merely a process. Complimentaries is like the ying/yang symbol. Black is feminine energy, white is masculine energy. No, don't bother with semantics. Each has a dot with the opposing color, demonstrating that both have a small amount each involved. Also, remember, gender is irrevelant. Some women can be masculine dominant, some men can be feminine dominant. Neither is dominant, by themselves, but one has to be dominant in one person, and the other has to be dominant in the other. As the two people interact, one being more feminine than the other, and the other being more masculine than the other, those energies compliment each other, giving the other what they need, and in the giving, providing even more fulfillment. The interaction of the couple establishes a kind of closed loop exchanging those energies. Like the ying/yang symbol. The interesting part is that the more masculine one person becomes, the more feminine the other becomes, and the more feminine the other becomes, the more masculine the one becomes. Nothing changes except the intensity. So, if all that is true, and you want your man to be more masculine, then you must become more feminine, as you become more feminine he'll become more masculine. Both of you can exert yourselves or just one, but the result is the same. D/s enhances this to profound levels once at least one of pair understands what is happening. Moreso if both. The trouble most people have with the D/s dynamic is that it's so cluttered with differing concepts and views and interminglings, it becomes a communications nightmare. They MIGHT be talking about the same thing, but they're not sure. :) The chicken and egg thing is a rather flawed model, frankly, but the ying/yang is perfect for this instance. What came first is not important, but how it fits together is. Sorry I just trying to answer it reality based. Ying/yang is about each one affecting another that fits not perpetual motion. If the dominant is mainly feeding off the submissive’s happiness the submissive is not getting fed anything from the dominant to be happy about. That is not ying/yang. In reality I am not going to respond to a person who main motivation is seeing me happy as a guide to what and how to control me. I am going to respond to a dominant that is their own person and gets extra enjoyment and happiness from being with me and the way we live. As others have referred to what you wrote in your journal entry and OP is become quite different from the words you have defended them with. You clearly state you enjoy and determine the type of control by how the other flourishes from it. Several of us have pointed out we respond to the person and their personality, soul and derived pleasures and not from a person feeding on our’s as the big factor on control decisions. The dominant has got to bring something to the dance other then reactive things. Whether your original words are poorly expressed or you are more about being a service top I do not know but my comments are strictly based on what you wrote about wanting to provide control and structure for the other to benefit. If that is the main motivation for me personally that would leave a huge whole in the relationship as the domination aspect would not be there as I can provide and structure my own life for happiness. I am just happier bending my life around my Masters who brings something to the table on his own independent to my reaction. Leading is not mutually exclusive from merging two people together.

chellekitty -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 1:52:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Padriag quote: ORIGINAL: chellekitty because when dealing with another person you cannot take control without crawling inside their heads and as far as i know, that is impossible I disagree with this statement. I take control of other people all the time. I do not ask permission, I do not obtain their consent... I take control. <snipped for brevity> we may be arguing semantics here...i still say you force them to provide them with control...not take control...but, whatever works for you in the phrasing.... quote: In what way or ways are you equal? In what way or ways are you unequal? there was a whole lot more to the post, but those were the questions asked....if anyone is reading this post and not knowing were the questions are coming from, they are from post #25 (the first part was in reply to post # 22) first, i am not equal to all people, i am not even equal to all people i have been in relationships with in the past, what follows about equallity, is something i what i strive for in my future relationship(s)...and for brevity, this is all non-physical... when i talk about equallity between a Dominant and a submissive, i am talking about innate equallity, the things you have whether you want them or not...they are things you can nourish or starve, but they are there...energy, power (not to be confused with authority), self control, and i am sure there are some other things that fall into this catagory... things that are unequal, are unequal between all human beings...there is no way for them to be exactly the same between any two human beings, not even twins...things like skills - cooking, cleaning, banjo playing, weaving, etc, intelligence, wisdom (and those are two completely different things)...skills you can learn with practice...other things you have to have an inate ability for...some skills you can rise above the rest with an inate ability... i have a vocal range that extends 1 line above the trebel clef (used to be higher [a C above, 1 line is just an A], damned smoking, maybe i could change that by quitting) and i don't know how far below the bass clef, i have never reached my lowest note while someone was keeping track...it was never necessary, they don't write vocal music that low....does that make me a better person that anyone else? no, it makes me different... that covered the things you mentioned....we are also unequal in our emotions, in our coping skills, in our personalities, amongst other things...things that are developed through a bit of nature and a whole lot of nurture (learned through life experience)...and in our personalities, i believe, at least within the D/s or M/s lifestyle we have recognized it, we have a need to relenquish authority and a need to take authority or both (depending on your orientation)...that thing that was not to be confused with power.... now, let me go back to my original statement...well, let me rearrange and reword the whole paragraph.... for a D/s relationship to be healthy, i believe the Dominant and submissive must be equal, they are inherently different in those things learned, but they must be equal in those things that are innate...after all what good is a Power Exchange if there is nothing (or not enough) to be exchanged? chelle

Kana -> RE: The Question (11/14/2007 2:11:26 PM)
OK I am going to jump back to the original question, which is what makes me happy. Now its tangent time. For me there are two separate ideas that get confused a lot, happiness and what for lack of a better word I will call joy. Happiness is something that is externally based. That means that things outside of me can affect my happiness quotient. If I hit the lotto, guess what I am going to be happy, shit I will even be thrilled. On the contrary, should I walk out for work this morning and my car is gone, I am gonna be unhappy, quite a bit. To say that I am happy all the time would be to deny my emotions and the capacity that events have to affect me. Stuff happens, good and bad and an emotional response is evoked. I would love to say that I am so spiritually advanced that nothing affects my even keeled approach to life, but that’s just not so. Maybe if I ever each the eighth rung of buddhism that will happen but for now, if I leave work and someone has burned my house down, I am not going to experience equilibrium, I am going to be pissed. So to answer your immediate question, lots of things make me happy. Sunny days, pretty women, obedience, new friends, old friends, success, raises, family, beaches etc... There are also lots of things make me unhappy, most of which boil down to things just didn’t go the way I wanted them to. What I don’t do anymore is confuse pleasure with happiness. Au contraire. Matter of fact some of the things that have brought me the greatest pleasure over the years have brought me the greatest pain. I cannot be the only one who has been with someone who is fantastic in bed but awful in life or made a decision based on short term pleasure that cost me tremendously over the long run. Now joy is a different beast entirely. That’s something that is internal and no outside events can touch that. For me its simply being alive, the sheer exuberance of life. I wake up and know that today is a special gift, that there will never be another today as long as eternity lasts and that I am graced to participate in it. That enables me to approach life from a vantage point that dissapates much of the external affects. Am I unhappy if my house burns down, you betcha. But I still am alive, I still have hope and I still have the opportunity to see, taste, touch, feel and hear. So that cannot be shaken. That’s just my two cents worth, take it for what its worth.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875