Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Reactance : explained


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Reactance : explained Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Reactance : explained - 12/30/2007 1:30:52 PM   
Padriag


Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline
You raise a good point.

In theory, if all possibility of resistance or avoidance can be eliminated, then reactance will peak and then subside into "helplessness" and acceptance.  And the theory is accurate, that is indeed what would happen.  But.... you knew there was going to be a "but" didn't ya?

Let's look at what happens when the "rubber meets the road".

Even in historical slavery where it was enforced by law and brute force, punishable by death, etc. slaves still sometimes rebelled.  This tells us that even under extreme conditions it just isn't possible to eliminate all possibility of avoidance or resistance in every circumstance.  We can do so in specific circumstances, we can do so under limited and finite conditions... but broadly and generally, no.  This grows even more limited when we start including additional restrictions on the dominant such as ethics and obtaining consent.

So the short answer is, sometime a dominant has to accept that no he can't make the submissive do that.

But... there's another "but".

Such short answers are rarely complete or conclusive either.  The truth is that how far the dominant can or should go depends on quite a lot of variables.  Part of that is how much the submissive has agreed to.  Part of it will be decided by the dominants own abilities in dealing with such situations.  How capable is the dominant at eliciting a desired behavior rather than trying to force it?  How willing is the dominant to cope with the circumstance rather than ignoring it, accepting it, or dismissing the submissive entirely?  Sometimes it does come down to who has the stronger Will and that may not always be the dominant.  Sometimes its smarter not to make it a battle of Wills in the first place.  How capable is the dominant of understanding the circumstances surrounding the problem, the root causes, etc. and dealing with those?  How willing is the submissive to allow her/his defiance to be dealt with?  Suppose that defiance comes from fear or a traumatic event, is the submissive willing to let that be examined and sorted through?

In other words, and like so much in dealing with people, it depends on the individuals involved.  Different people mean different outcomes.  As circumstances change, the outcomes with even the same people can and will change.

Sometimes a dominant can remove all possibility of resistance or avoidance... that's the easy stuff.  What is always more difficult and more telling of the dominants character, is how they cope with those things where all resistance can't be removed and they must then elicit the desired behavior (and how they go about attempting to do so).  Brehm's theory, useful as it is, doesn't cover that.

_____________________________

Padriag

A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer

(in reply to littlebitxxx)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Reactance : explained - 12/30/2007 2:46:37 PM   
littlebitxxx


Posts: 732
Status: offline
Thank you Padriag.  There are so many "what ifs" in any given situation that it falls to the Dom and his sub together to resolve them.  The saying "choose your battle" comes to mind and is one I use often.  If the situation resulting in the complete balk of the sub is one of little consequence, the Dom may back off a bit to figure out why she is balking at that point then either gently lead her through it or drop it completely until a future point in time.  I don't think he should drop it completely and forever because then it may become a subconscious thought in the sub's mind that she can balk - he will back off.  Depending on the circumstance, he could push her through it demanding satisfaction but I would tend to think that would work best in situations of non-import.  The "just because I said so" attitude.  It would take a lot of familiarity and understanding on both parts to make sure the situation is not being exacerbated by past experiences, phobias, etc.  If she absolutely refuses to accept out of a deep-seated fear or past trigger, it would behoove the Dom to back off for the moment.  Then they can figure out what/why this is happening and another way to go about it.  Any forcing or coercion at this point could be psychologically damaging. 

Now all this becomes dependent on the discussions between Dom and sub when they started and throughout the training.  Is she willing to be led into situations where she knows there may be a trigger for her to fight back and not accept?  Is she able to trust him enough to get her through it without harm?  For someone who had an abusive childhood or marriage, not necessarily physical abuse but mental/emotional, the willingness to proceed through situations that call for her total surrender of will may be just too much.  How much does she trust him?  Even subs that have healed from such abuse may experience triggers that will derail her completely.  She may not even realize that she harbours anything and an otherwise completely benign situation will bring it up. 

So much in relationships comes down to multiple choice answers.  If I do this then she'll do a) b) c) d) then I'll have to a) b) c) to get the reaction I'm seeking.  A Dom must be spontaneous and versatile if nothing else. ;)   I'm thinking Brehm could take his essay to the next level...shall we approach him about it?  lol

Best to you Padriag, take care. 
Sage


_____________________________

There is no such thing as can't unless it is followed by yet

It is the meaningless little acts that become meaningful in the doing.

The people that mind don't matter and the people that matter don't mind.

(in reply to Padriag)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Reactance : explained - 12/30/2007 3:34:41 PM   
Sirsinini


Posts: 172
Joined: 11/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sirsinini

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

I loved it.  It explained very clearly the answer to so many threads that ask, "Why did I act this way?"  or  "Why did I resist him?"  

Kudos to you for posting it.


Its amazing to me, yes I completely read one article, how something very beneficial in all of life experiences, needs to be reduced to something that only happens in M/s.
 
My therapist and I have been working on these very "ideas" for several years now.   Interesting !


Sir's devoted property 


Who said it's only in M/s?  Brehm (author who influenced OPs article) originally developed the theory in regards to social influence on people's freedom of autonomy - in their decisions, reactions, etc. 

Brockner wrote about Reactance in The Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology (1985) as it relates to self esteem, attitude and motivation.

Knight & Gannon wrote about it as it applies to sexual roles in society.

K.I. Minor wrote an article in 1987 on how it relates to probation policies.

Brammer  wrote on the theory as it relates to rehabilitaion psychology.

Just because someone applies a theory to M/s doesn't mean it is viewed as something "that only happens in M/s." as you surmised.


That was exactly my point.  Thanks for saying it better. 

(in reply to ownedgirlie)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Reactance : explained - 12/30/2007 6:56:07 PM   
Prinsexx


Posts: 4584
Joined: 8/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sirsinini

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

I loved it.  It explained very clearly the answer to so many threads that ask, "Why did I act this way?"  or  "Why did I resist him?"  

Kudos to you for posting it.


Its amazing to me, yes I completely read one article, how something very beneficial in all of life experiences, needs to be reduced to something that only happens in M/s.
 
My therapist and I have been working on these very "ideas" for several years now.   Interesting !


Sir's devoted property 


Who said it's only in M/s?  Brehm (author who influenced OPs article) originally developed the theory in regards to social influence on people's freedom of autonomy - in their decisions, reactions, etc. 

Brockner wrote about Reactance in The Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology (1985) as it relates to self esteem, attitude and motivation.

Knight & Gannon wrote about it as it applies to sexual roles in society.

K.I. Minor wrote an article in 1987 on how it relates to probation policies.

Brammer  wrote on the theory as it relates to rehabilitaion psychology.

Just because someone applies a theory to M/s doesn't mean it is viewed as something "that only happens in M/s." as you surmised.

I didn't pick up on it only relating to M/s dynamics btw but I wanted to chip in about attachment theory......
  • John Bowlby - Attachment Theory
  • Ainsworth's "Strange Situation" Assessment
  • Attachment Through Life
  • Secure Attachment
  • Ambivalent Attachment
  • Avoidant Attachment
  • Disorganized Attachment
  • References
  • References, Continued
    secure, resistant, avoidant and ambivalent styles.
    My upbringing was predominantly mixed messages....and therefore I don't do that resistance or reactance or indeed get to a fight or flight stage....I mostly get stuck in ambivalence and it's a bastard for anyone else to figure out especially a Dom

    (in reply to ownedgirlie)
  • Profile   Post #: 24
    RE: Reactance : explained - 12/31/2007 9:50:21 PM   
    Padriag


    Posts: 2633
    Joined: 3/30/2005
    Status: offline
    Was sitting here sorting through some old notes on behavior modification and came across something I thought relevant here.  Brehm's theory of reactance deals in part with the ways an individual may react to having their behavior controlled, or as Brehm puts it, having a freedom restricted.  The article referenced in the OP touches on a few possibilities.  Here are a few more taken from my own notes.

    By-Products of Control
     
    Escape – The individual may simply run away from the controller.  The hermit escapes from the control of the ethical group by physically withdrawing from it, as the boy runs away from home; but the controllee may be “withdrawn” without being actually separated.  Escape from religious control is represented by disbelief and defection, and from various forms of governmental control by desertion, evasion, renunciation of citizenship, and breaking jail.
     
    Revolt – The individual may counterattack the controlling agent.  He may respond to criticism from the group by criticizing it in turn; the liberal accuses the group of being reactionary, the libertine accuses it of being prudish.  Vandalism is a more concrete example of counter aggression – toward the group as a whole or toward a specific subgroup, as in the willful destruction of school property.  Religious revolt may be directed toward a specific agency, as in protestant reform, or against the theological system used in control, as in atheism.  Revolt against governmental control is exemplified, not only by political revolution, but, when the structure of the group permits, by impeachment or a vote of no confidence.
     
    Passive Resistance – Another result, far less easily described, consists of simply not behaving in conformity with controlling practices.  This often follows when the individual has been extinguished in efforts to escape or revolt.  The behavior is epitomized by the mule which fails to respond to the aversive stimulation of the whip.  The child, unsuccessful in avoiding or revolting against parental control, simply becomes stubborn.  The employee, unable to escape (by resigning) or to revolt in vandalism or other acts of violence, simply “slows down,” “sits down,” or “strikes.”  Thoreau’s civil disobedience, practiced perhaps most conspicuously by Gandhi, is the parallel reaction to governmental control.
     
    Emotional By-Products of Control
     
    Fear – The controlling practice which leads the individual to escape also gives rise to the emotional pattern of fear.  Reflex responses in glands and smooth muscles are first elicited by aversive stimuli used in punishment and later by any stimuli which have occurred at the same time.  The responses may be accompanied by a profound change in operant behavior – an increase in the strength of any behavior which has led to escape and a general weakening of other forms.  The individual shows little interest in food, sex, or practical or artistic enterprises, and in the extreme case he may be essentially “paralyzed by fear.”
     
    Anxiety – A common accompaniment of avoidance or escape is anxiety.  Fear of a future event may be aroused by specific stimuli which have preceded punishing events or by features of the general environment in which such events have occurred.  Anxiety may vary in intensity from a slight worry to extreme dread.  The condition includes both responses of glands and smooth muscles and marked changes in operant behavior.  We imply that the condition is due to controlling practices when we call it shame, guilt, or a sense of sin.
     
    Anger – The emotional pattern which accompanies revolt includes responses of glands and smooth muscles and a well-marked effect upon operant behavior which includes a heightened disposition to act aggressively toward the controlling agent and a weakening of other behavior.  The emotion may be displaced from the controlling agent to other people or to things in general.  A mild example is a bad temper; an extreme one, sadism.  The temper tantrum appears to be a sort of undirected revolt.
     
    Depression – Emotional responses associated with passive resistance are of several kinds.  The stubborn child also sulks; the adult may be depressed, resentful, moody, listless, or bored, depending upon minor details of control.  (Boredom arises not simply because there is nothing to do but because nothing can be done – either because a situation is unfavorable for action or because the group or a controlling agency has imposed physical or self-restraint).

    _____________________________

    Padriag

    A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer

    (in reply to Prinsexx)
    Profile   Post #: 25
    Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
    All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Reactance : explained Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
    Jump to:





    New Messages No New Messages
    Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
    Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
     Post New Thread
     Reply to Message
     Post New Poll
     Submit Vote
     Delete My Own Post
     Delete My Own Thread
     Rate Posts




    Collarchat.com © 2025
    Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

    0.203