The psychopathic sub

[Netzach]

PS. Why is this a heated argument? The subject was psychopathic subs, lol.

Because you think there's some difference between a psychopathic sub and a psychopath who isn't a sub that really REALLY matters.

And Netzach (and nobody else in the world, sure) disagrees with this train of thought, because all the safeguards, all the issues, all the red flags, all the questions are pretty much identical and it's fucking dangerous to intimate that a psychopath who has gone dangerous is less dangerous because he's a submissive, or somehow differently psychopathic, or somehow differently unable to maintain boundaries between self and world.

What exactly is the behavior in question? Since we defer to Wiki a hell of a lot, I will too.

"Although no psychiatric or psychological organization has sanctioned a diagnosis titled "psychopathy", assessments of psychopathic characteristics are widely used in criminal justice settings in some nations, and may have important consequences for individuals.[5] The term is also used by the general public, in popular press, and in fictional portrayals.[6]"

I'm not sure this is a particularly more meaningful diagnosis than "something about that guy was always a little off" after said guy is shown to be Andrew Cunanan.

(For the record, all male pronouns now refer to submissives, all Female pronouns now refer to Dominants, bear with Me.)

 

[CutieMouse]

Y I made the analogy because in D/s subs will come to a Dom and place themselves in his responsibility and care, much like a patient would with a therapist.

Nope; bad analogy.

Competent [ethical] dominants are no more playing the role of therapist in a submissive's life, than the family pet.

Now, in a healthy relationship, with a competent/ ethical partner, might a submissive work on themselves (with their partner's encouragement and support), and possibly overcome whatever issues they have? Yes. But that is the result of a healthy relationship with a competent/ ethical partner and has jack to do with D/s dynamics.

If you DO believe in the dominant as therapist model, then the same thing (that one person puts themselves in the position of responsibility and care to the other) could be said of marriage, long term adult relationships (life partners; unmarried), parent/ child relationships, mentoring relationships, etc.

But what would happen if this sub is actually a psychopath? Would a Dom fail to notice? That is the question!

Do people (who aren't therapists) in relationships ever fail to realize what a nutter they're dealing with, until it's too late?

All.The.Damn.Time.

In the vanilla world this does not happen. The relationship does not involve care and responsibility by one member of the relationship. Care is mutual...

Where did you get the idea that care and responsibility in a D/s relationship is only flows one way?

 

[IrisAlthea]

Yes, because "she-sub" and "He-Dom" can be considered "style".

This is hilarious.

Oh, be quiet and relish.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Don't you just love bonobos? Lol...



Thank you for the link.

I came across Mr Dobbs a while ago, when I was researching loneliness. It had come to my attention that there were too many deaths - at quite a young age - among members of the Greek BDSM community. I wanted to see if loneliness could in some way affect our health. This is how I discovered Steve Cole, a UCLA researcher and his work, the lonely people studies. You can read about it here, where it mentions gene expression theory and is actually quite related to the issue I was researching:

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/the-social-life-of-genes-64616/

I fail to see, though, how the theory of gene expression negates the mechanism of mating. Among all species, from the peacock to the Wodaabe (made famous by Werner Herzog, whose film you can watch here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnO1QDqpaQ ) mating ritual is geared towards finding the best - not the second best, lol.

you make the same mistake that so many many people do-- procreation is NOT mating.

In my humble opinion, constant use of "they" would seriously hamper my writing style - which I have honed over the years to what you are relishing now (English is my second language by the way). I do thank you for your kind suggestion though and please allow me to congratulate you on your sensitivity towards the LGBTQ community.

I'm looking forward to the day when I can extend the same congratulations to you.

I agree it's a damn shame that the English language has no singular pronoun which does not denote what rides between the legs. "It" has been dehumanised, object-ified. And "they" although it is acknowledged to be useable as a singular gender-neutral pronoun, in practice... it's really difficult. I just read a bit of fiction that used it for one character, and it threw me off every time.

But let's try, okay? This forum probably has a higher GLBT component than most places you hang out at. Genderqueer and kink go together like horses and carriages. Pay attention to the people you are talking to-- assuming you don't want to antagonise them.

Personally, I try to do what I consider more important in helping the LGBTQ community in my home country by collecting, posting and translating articles pertaining to gay rights, new laws about adoption by homosexual parents etc. You can find some of that work here - though it will be all Greek to you, lol:

http://www.greekbdsm.com/showthread.php/3599-Έρευνες-για-ομοφυλόφιλους-γονείς

http://www.greekbdsm.com/showthread.php/3449-Ομόφυλα-ζευγάρια-και-παιδιά/page6

Yeah, we all do that, but this forum requires some acknowledgement of the fact that you are actually conversing with LGBT people. i can give you ten news items for each one of your links-- this is my life. Mine. Not yours. DO NOT condescend to me on the matter of identity or gender roles.

Okay, back to mating strategies.

I agree with you actually on that one (how could I not...) An excellent book about such fallacies is "Thinking fast and slow" by Kahneman. I cannot be certain that there is no single female anywhere in the world who is not looking for the best, when searching for a mate. There might be crazy people out there, idiots, self-destructive women, how on earth would I know?<smiles>



Absolutely right. Got me there. I cannot prove it. There is no research on self-evident matters such as that one, no one will do it, you see, the scientific community will laugh at them. It is taken for granted that women will take Mozart any day of the week and not Salieri, for the simple reason that women are really, really shrewd in such matters. And they will never actually seek out a mediocrity for a mate.

it is indeed recieved wisdom, as we call such things.

The reason mediocrities get to mate is that other mediocrities accept them, thinking they are the best for them. And indeed, for them they are.

I am sorry if I sound condescending. I had to make the point, which had not been understood, I think. Perhaps it is more clear now. Of course, if one claims to truly understand what "average" is, one will realize on the spot that most of us are mediocrities who think highly of themselves. That's the way the cookie crumbles. Lol.

You really, really, do sound condescending. 'Mediocre,' in the English language means something more like 'much lower than average' (which I think you know, and chose to use it anyway. May I point out that graceful language use is not always conducive to genuine conversation).
However, I do understand what you are saying, and I would suggest that what you call "mediocre" might better be thought of as "Perfectly fitting that there ever-so-important Evolutionary Niche."

You'd think that niche-fitters would get more respect.

 

[KoPilot]

Oh, be quiet and relish.

-brats-

 

[Bramblethorn]

Don't you just love bonobos? Lol...

I'm afraid several years of hanging out on poly discussion boards left me with an eye-twitch reaction to any mention of bonobos. Poor little apes, it's not their fault...

We are an exceptional species, and one of the keys to our if-we-don't-kill-ourselves success is our ability to think and adapt. We're only a few thousand years from Stone-Age hunter-gatherer life, not nearly enough time for evolution to make major changes - and yet our brains are so flexible that we're able to take that grey matter that evolved in Stone-Age circumstances and use it for 21st-century problems that our ancestors never imagined.

We can overcome instinctive terrors of drowning and fire - fears that have very strong reason for existing - and walk into a burning building or submerge ourselves for hours at a time, with the right survival equipment. We can drive cars, perform calculus, fly rockets to the Moon. We can program computers.

But somehow, when it comes to relationships, we need to look for validation in the animal kingdom. Imagine if Newton and Leibniz had said "screw this, I'm not going to publish my ideas about calculus until you can show me a monkey that's already written something in the field."

I came across Mr Dobbs a while ago, when I was researching loneliness. It had come to my attention that there were too many deaths - at quite a young age - among members of the Greek BDSM community. I wanted to see if loneliness could in some way affect our health. This is how I discovered Steve Cole, a UCLA researcher and his work, the lonely people studies. You can read about it here, where it mentions gene expression theory and is actually quite related to the issue I was researching:

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/the-social-life-of-genes-64616/

I fail to see, though, how the theory of gene expression negates the mechanism of mating. Among all species, from the peacock to the Wodaabe (made famous by Werner Herzog, whose film you can watch here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnO1QDqpaQ ) mating ritual is geared towards finding the best - not the second best, lol.

It doesn't completely negate it, but it makes it much less important.

First, because it provides a different mechanism for creatures to adapt to their environment - one that is faster and less haphazard than gene selection through mating. It takes hundreds if not thousands of generations for genetic selection through mating to make a substantial difference to a population. As the grasshopper/locust example shows, changes in gene expression can transform a population within a single generation.

Second, because Dawkins assumes a blind optimisation process - he assumes that genes (or for pedants, alleles) that confer an advantage will be selected for and will come to dominate. Gene expression and other discoveries teach us that it's not so much about "an advantageous allele" as "an advantageous COMBINATION of alleles".

To steal an example from the Dobbs article, you can look at the rules of poker and conclude that the two of clubs is - on average - a less valuable card than the ace of spades. But in practice, what's really important is how it fits with the rest of the cards in your hand; if you're already holding four clubs, 2C is far more valuable than AS.

This is important because once we start talking about combinations of genes interacting with one another, we're talking about a massively multivariate nonlinear optimisation problem. Even with a guided search process and an intelligent designer, optimisation for that sort of problem is horrendously complex. Throw in things like stochastic processes and founder effects, and the "best gene wins" mindset becomes unhelpfully over-simplified; you really need some high-powered mathematics to process things.

(BTW, I don't intend to present myself as an expert in this field - I'm not. But I've had enough exposure to modern genetic science and I have enough of a background in related areas to look at it and say "wow, that's complicated".)

In my humble opinion, constant use of "they" would seriously hamper my writing style - which I have honed over the years to what you are relishing now (English is my second language by the way). I do thank you for your kind suggestion though and please allow me to congratulate you on your sensitivity towards the LGBTQ community.

Truth be told, I also find "they" a bit clunky. It doesn't flow as naturally as "he" or "she", probably because I've been surrounded by the latter usage for most of my life, and I'm sure it sounds less natural to many of those who hear it.

But in my view, making non-normative people feel comfortable and included is more important than me feeling a little clunky. So if I can't find some other way to avoid heteronormative language, in particular language that reinforces stereotypical Mdom/Fsub roles, I try to use "they".

Absolutely right. Got me there. I cannot prove it. There is no research on self-evident matters such as that one, no one will do it, you see, the scientific community will laugh at them. It is taken for granted that women will take Mozart any day of the week and not Salieri, for the simple reason that women are really, really shrewd in such matters. And they will never actually seek out a mediocrity for a mate.

Salieri was married for 33 years and had eight children, although about half of them died in childhood. Evidently at least one woman thought he was worth her time!

 

[dora_salonica]

Because you think there's some difference between a psychopathic sub and a psychopath who isn't a sub that really REALLY matters.

The analogy had to do with placing oneself in the care and responsibility of another person. Which is the definition of D/s, last time I looked.

It is evident that if someone does not accept that definition, one will not understand at all the analogy. I think it depends on how each one of us views BDSM.

I see it as a submissive, with a big emphasis on D/s and not on S/M or role playing. I think that makes all the difference.

(For the record, all male pronouns now refer to submissives, all Female pronouns now refer to Dominants, bear with Me.)

I will do my best to use "he" or "she" or "they" to avoid upsetting people. I have always taken it for granted that BDSM is practiced by dominant and submissive people of both genders, as well as by transsexuals, and I was simply using the genders from the situation that I am most familiar with, which is male dom/female sub.

But let's try, okay? This forum probably has a higher GLBT component than most places you hang out at. Genderqueer and kink go together like horses and carriages. Pay attention to the people you are talking to-- assuming you don't want to antagonise them.
Yeah, we all do that, but this forum requires some acknowledgement of the fact that you are actually conversing with LGBT people. i can give you ten news items for each one of your links-- this is my life. Mine. Not yours. DO NOT condescend to me on the matter of identity or gender roles.

Point taken. I shall do my best.

You really, really, do sound condescending. 'Mediocre,' in the English language means something more like 'much lower than average' (which I think you know, and chose to use it anyway. May I point out that graceful language use is not always conducive to genuine conversation).
However, I do understand what you are saying, and I would suggest that what you call "mediocre" might better be thought of as "Perfectly fitting that there ever-so-important Evolutionary Niche."

You'd think that niche-fitters would get more respect.

Indeed, you are right. I knew when I was using the word that it would carry negative connotations. I tried to soften them by saying that we are all somewhere in the middle, including myself, but it probably went unnoticed.

Competent [ethical] dominants are no more playing the role of therapist in a submissive's life, than the family pet.

I am afraid I will have to disagree with you on that. Whether we like it or not, if one delves into D/s, one will have to deal with the sub's inner world, their thoughts and emotions. Otherwise, we would be dealing with T/b situations or S/M and not D/s. I was talking about D/s though, from the beginning. Otherwise the analogy does not make sense.

If you DO believe in the dominant as therapist model, then the same thing (that one person puts themselves in the position of responsibility and care to the other) could be said of marriage, long term adult relationships (life partners; unmarried), parent/ child relationships, mentoring relationships, etc.

A D/s relationship resembles a lot, in my opinion, the relationship between a therapist and their patient. I have recently read an article, which I will try and translate for you, I think you will all love it. It has to do with the relationship between psychotherapy and BDSM. I hope it will not be the cause of World War III, lol.

Where did you get the idea that care and responsibility in a D/s relationship is only flows one way?

As a sub I love and care deeply for my Master and I do have the responsibility to follow. But I am in his care, he is not in mine. He is responsible for leading me correctly and if something goes wrong, he assumes the responsibility and tries to put it right. I do not have any other responsibility than to obey, follow his lead and tell the truth. Anyway, that is how I do it, but perhaps there are different models of D/s around.

 

[dora_salonica]

But somehow, when it comes to relationships, we need to look for validation in the animal kingdom.

Why not? Aren't we part animal? Don't we share quite a lot with them?

It doesn't completely negate it, but it makes it much less important

Yes, I think I see what you mean.

Perhaps then nature has made certain that it would not matter so much if we did not choose the best.

Why then the mating ritual? Why is it that in all species, including the human species, we go through so much trouble to ensure that the other person is the best?

And this does not happen only when we want to procreate. Even when you are just looking for a one-night stand, isn't it natural to be looking for someone who will be worth your while?

When all is said and done, aren't people geared towards the best? Don't we look up towards ideals, don't we personally always strive to become better? I think that most of us would admit that when faced with two choices, we will choose the one we consider the better one. And we would consider madness the opposite. Am I wrong?

(BTW, I don't intend to present myself as an expert in this field - I'm not. But I've had enough exposure to modern genetic science and I have enough of a background in related areas to look at it and say "wow, that's complicated".)

Yes, it is. But it is an interesting discussion, especially when people keep to the train of thought.

But in my view, making non-normative people feel comfortable and included is more important than me feeling a little clunky. So if I can't find some other way to avoid heteronormative language, in particular language that reinforces stereotypical Mdom/Fsub roles, I try to use "they".

I shall do my best.

Salieri was married for 33 years and had eight children, although about half of them died in childhood. Evidently at least one woman thought he was worth her time!

He was not so bad really. He was just born in the wrong time. If he lived now he would be a super star!!!

 

[Netzach]

Fascism/ I'm an untermensch of course. /Fascism.

That's all I really heard, someone else tell me if I missed something important?

Look, you want to believe there's one human metric of worthiness, a Platonic Man among men, fine, but if you think that other people are going to nod along in agreement, you're nuts.

You're dealing with people who basically don't believe that, so your arguments based on this are going to make no sense. People who find the idea of a central hierarchy that is obvious to all humanity basically hysterically funny or terrifyingly dangerous.

If I want to listen to music NOW in 2014, I want Mozart. If you want to know who I'd marry back then it would be the guy with the solid gig, whose tunes were enjoying Katy Perry like status AT THE TIME IN VIENNA.

So would anyone with half a brain. Actually, this supports your point that women want "the best" but you miss the boat by not answering "best at what?"

How can this be? "The best" is malleable, changing, fickle, and ultimately a meaningless metric in human culture. Thank fuck.

I'd also be choosing the mediocrity of Salieri over the genius of Mozart, because frankly I'd probably never heard the latter's music. The good shit is always left of the dial, that never changes.

 

[Netzach]

Salieri was married for 33 years and had eight children, although about half of them died in childhood. Evidently at least one woman thought he was worth her time!

Going for a batshit crazy artist with no money isn't exactly something one does eagerly after she's no longer a hormone blinded emo kid. Some never leave that stage.

This "real D/s is DIFFERENT than regular human exchange and an exception to ALL common sense because we do it DIFFERENT" thing is as annoyingly unrealistic as Shades of Grey fans, though they'll never accept that fact.

 

[Netzach]

The analogy had to do with placing oneself in the care and responsibility of another person. Which is the definition of D/s, last time I looked.

It is evident that if someone does not accept that definition, one will not understand at all the analogy. I think it depends on how each one of us views BDSM.

I see it as a submissive, with a big emphasis on D/s and not on S/M or role playing. I think that makes all the difference.

No, I'm accepting that I am a Domme looking for tpe with my slave. And in the courting stages he exhibits inconsistencies, instabilities, and creepy emotional manipulations.

What do I need to do that I don't need to do if I am merely looking to vanilla be-with-him? Other than "considering that this is not a viable relationship, I'm outta this."

You tell me. Role playing doesn't enter into it, S/M doesn't enter into it, don't pull this "realer than thou, or your don't get it" card.

 

[CutieMouse]

I am afraid I will have to disagree with you on that. Whether we like it or not, if one delves into D/s, one will have to deal with the sub's inner world, their thoughts and emotions. Otherwise, we would be dealing with T/b situations or S/M and not D/s. I was talking about D/s though, from the beginning. Otherwise the analogy does not make sense.

"Dealing with the sub's inner world, their thoughts and emotions" is not the same as therapy. Yes, there is often an intensified curiosity from the dominant re: what makes the submissive "tick", but therapy exists for people to work on issues, change perceptions, heal old wounds, find new coping mechanisms, etc. That is not the primary function of a D/s relationship, nor should it be. If a dominant sees issues in their submissive that need work (anxiety, for example), the responsible way of dealing with it would be to get the submissive into therapy, have her work with her doctor to see if meds are necessary, etc - NOT attempt to fix it themselves from some misguided belief that D/s is similar enough to a therapist/ client relationship to go mucking about in the submissive's head [sans proper training].

A D/s relationship resembles a lot, in my opinion, the relationship between a therapist and their patient. I have recently read an article, which I will try and translate for you, I think you will all love it. It has to do with the relationship between psychotherapy and BDSM. I hope it will not be the cause of World War III, lol.

Ummm... Jung had a fantastically tumultuous affair with one of his patients, that supposedly included elements of BDSM. And?

As a sub I love and care deeply for my Master and I do have the responsibility to follow. But I am in his care, he is not in mine. He is responsible for leading me correctly and if something goes wrong, he assumes the responsibility and tries to put it right. I do not have any other responsibility than to obey, follow his lead and tell the truth. Anyway, that is how I do it, but perhaps there are different models of D/s around.

I don't live in that world.

Yes, I am in my lover's [dominant's] care (when I have one); however, he is just as much in my care, as I am his. I usually end up with lovers [dominant's] who NEED women like me in their lives. They may run the show, I may belong to them, but to pretend that in a D/s model the "in __'s care" only flows downhill, minimizes and negates what the submissive brings to the table.

I live in the world where regardless of D/s, at the end of the day I carry and equal share of the responsibility of what happens. Which means (for example) if I get triggered, injured, etc I am responsible for speaking up. I am responsible for communicating my needs. I am responsible for making my lover's [dominant's] life easier - which sometimes that means carrying their weight, or utilizing skills I may have that they do not, etc.

 

[Netzach]

For the record, the language thing doesn't bother me. Use "she/sub" all you want, what I resent is the idea that A. I don't exist and B. Everything you do, I do the same, just backwards and in heels.

No. A F/m relationship is NOT the backwards and in heels version of everything you do and everything you want. I am a woman, and I'm over the growing assumption that what I want is remotely possibly in the least bit known to ANY of you people.

So use whatever words you want, but don't be surprised when the rest of us show up if you put "BDSM D/s" on the door. I'm not going to crash your Nietzschean Gorean M/f parties, but I'm not going to sit there with my finger in my ass if you want to present them as the gold standard of TPE for all.

Honestly, here's how it works in my TPE world.

He's a fucking slave. If he's not with the program, there's the door.

Therapy, you have to be kidding me. If he's in therapy, that's good. If he's feeling shitty, that's sad. He should come back when he's all focused and better.

He is there to take care of me. I am not there to take care of him.

That last one is a doozy isn't it? Sounds a lot like BAD DOM, but when you have me saying it with my tits bouncing nobody really dwells on it. Boing. That's because feminine energy and woo and power is different. A lil' nelly leather queen with a butch guy can also say "HE IS THERE TO TAKE CARE OF ME!" and no one will bat an eye.

That's slavery. It's passionate. It's not sustainable. (Really it's not. That's why the pyramid builders were paid!) It's not romantic. It's not pretty. There's nothing like it.

Everything else is romance plus a little D/s. (God love it.) See why emo girls don't like this version of TPE so much?

If D/s is the primary feature of the relationship, then a psychopathic (?) sub is the equivalent of a broke down car. You either put it in the shop or get rid of it, and whether it goes in the shop has to do with how much upside there is in the future versus how much work it is to fix. (In this case, whether you wait around outside the shop.)

If romantic (?) love is the primary feature of the relationship, then you'll do what vanilla people do. Whatever it takes. As much as you can take. Or else you are seriously freaking lacking.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Fascism/ I'm an untermensch of course. /Fascism.

That's all I really heard, someone else tell me if I missed something important?

Look, you want to believe there's one human metric of worthiness, a Platonic Man among men, fine, but if you think that other people are going to nod along in agreement, you're nuts.

You're dealing with people who basically don't believe that, so your arguments based on this are going to make no sense. People who find the idea of a central hierarchy that is obvious to all humanity basically hysterically funny or terrifyingly dangerous.

If I want to listen to music NOW in 2014, I want Mozart. If you want to know who I'd marry back then it would be the guy with the solid gig, whose tunes were enjoying Katy Perry like status AT THE TIME IN VIENNA.

So would anyone with half a brain. Actually, this supports your point that women want "the best" but you miss the boat by not answering "best at what?"

How can this be? "The best" is malleable, changing, fickle, and ultimately a meaningless metric in human culture. Thank fuck.

I'd also be choosing the mediocrity of Salieri over the genius of Mozart, because frankly I'd probably never heard the latter's music. The good shit is always left of the dial, that never changes.

This!
I have only been hearing "Fascism/ I'm an untermensch of course. /Fascism" with a side of "there was a man named Darwin you see", <smile> and "Imagine Galileo trying to talk to people about the truth" for the longest time.
Some of the following post seem to indicate something else to an extent though, so here goes:

Yes, I think I see what you mean.

Perhaps then nature has made certain that it would not matter so much if we did not choose the best.

Why then the mating ritual? Why is it that in all species, including the human species, we go through so much trouble to ensure that the other person is the best?

And this does not happen only when we want to procreate. Even when you are just looking for a one-night stand, isn't it natural to be looking for someone who will be worth your while?

When all is said and done, aren't people geared towards the best? Don't we look up towards ideals, don't we personally always strive to become better? I think that most of us would admit that when faced with two choices, we will choose the one we consider the better one. And we would consider madness the opposite. Am I wrong?



Yes, it is. But it is an interesting discussion, especially when people keep to the train of thought.



I shall do my best.



He was not so bad really. He was just born in the wrong time. If he lived now he would be a super star!!!

Yes, people want the best but there is no absolute best to be determined until afterwards. There will be different interpretations about what is best and that creates a variation that makes a species resilient in a changing environment.

Also, in a species where every individual selected for the same criteria for "best", variety would diminish and the species risk not being able to handle environmental change.

As several people have pointed out, a lot of what is culturally perceived as an ideal has no influence at all on how nature selects.
It is in the end the selection pressure of our environment, that passes judgement on our choice of mate.

The analogy had to do with placing oneself in the care and responsibility of another person. Which is the definition of D/s, last time I looked.

It is evident that if someone does not accept that definition, one will not understand at all the analogy. I think it depends on how each one of us views BDSM.

I see it as a submissive, with a big emphasis on D/s and not on S/M or role playing. I think that makes all the difference.


I am afraid I will have to disagree with you on that. Whether we like it or not, if one delves into D/s, one will have to deal with the sub's inner world, their thoughts and emotions. Otherwise, we would be dealing with T/b situations or S/M and not D/s. I was talking about D/s though, from the beginning. Otherwise the analogy does not make sense.



A D/s relationship resembles a lot, in my opinion, the relationship between a therapist and their patient. I have recently read an article, which I will try and translate for you, I think you will all love it. It has to do with the relationship between psychotherapy and BDSM. I hope it will not be the cause of World War III, lol.



As a sub I love and care deeply for my Master and I do have the responsibility to follow. But I am in his care, he is not in mine. He is responsible for leading me correctly and if something goes wrong, he assumes the responsibility and tries to put it right. I do not have any other responsibility than to obey, follow his lead and tell the truth. Anyway, that is how I do it, but perhaps there are different models of D/s around.

There is no universally accepted definition of D/s and no place for you to go check such a defininition.
Your idea that there is some absolute truth to come spread is what creates the conflict you were wondering about.
So yes, there are different models of D/s.
Several different ones are represented here as well as totally non D/s people.

I think we can all learn a lot from each other as long as we keep an open mind and accept that people come from totally different ways of thinking and that there is no universal truth when it comes to how people structure their relationships.

 

[Netzach]

M/f TPE - feudalism.
F/m TPE - chattel slavery.

M/m F/f T/t Other/other - pick and mix as you like.

Animal husbandry is also a neat option.

Gender is a performance so anyone can do any of these, but I think the roles do break down like this a lot.

Also: not all D/s is anything remotely like a TPE and most actual life partnerings are not, sorry to say.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The analogy had to do with placing oneself in the care and responsibility of another person. Which is the definition of D/s, last time I looked.

It is evident that if someone does not accept that definition, one will not understand at all the analogy. I think it depends on how each one of us views BDSM.

I see it as a submissive, with a big emphasis on D/s and not on S/M or role playing. I think that makes all the difference.

OMG I am so sorry to keep picking on you for your word choices. But I DON'T accept that definition, and yes, I DO understand that analogy-- I just don't agree with it. In fact, I could not say that I don't agree, if I did not understand it.

(I wrote a lovely long, pointless half-a-novel in which the mae sub insisted that he had placed himself in his Mistress's care and keeping. Pretty much that's why it went nowhere because the premise stopped making sense to me as the writer, or his Mistress as a character...)

I will do my best to use "he" or "she" or "they" to avoid upsetting people. I have always taken it for granted that BDSM is practiced by dominant and submissive people of both genders, as well as by transsexuals, and I was simply using the genders from the situation that I am most familiar with, which is male dom/female sub.

Point taken. I shall do my best.

Welcome to a new world! If you hang around here for long you will become familiar with a lot of other situations

Indeed, you are right. I knew when I was using the word that it would carry negative connotations. I tried to soften them by saying that we are all somewhere in the middle, including myself, but it probably went unnoticed.

Yeah... I've made that same mistake many a time. In the interests of conversational clarity, I've learned, you make those points real loud and more than once-- because people tend to read poorly once you've pissed them off.

The rest of it, I think cutiemouse, IrisAlthea, and Netzach are telling it better than I ever could.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Animal husbandry is also a neat option.

Fuck, that's hot...

 

[Bramblethorn]

Why not? Aren't we part animal? Don't we share quite a lot with them?

Sure. And I'm tremendously interested in the variety of sexual/social behaviour in the animal kingdom. Whether it's male squid posing as females to seduce other females, or lizards with five genders, or male penguin couples raising an adopted egg, or fish that change sex depending on their social circle... this stuff is fascinating.

But it's fascinating for its own sake. It doesn't validate human behaviour. Rape is wrong, regardless of whether ducks and dolphins do it. Polyamory, consensual BDSM, and same-sex relationships would still be okay even if there was no example of these behaviours in the animal kingdom. I don't need Animal Channel to validate me.

The whole "let's invoke animals to justify our behaviour" attitude also risks distorting the science about animals - our interpretation of bonobo behaviour becomes influenced by wishful thinking about what we want them to say about humans, and we risk mapping human motivations onto things that only look like human behaviours.

I do enjoy using examples from nature to show up the errors of those who claim things like same-sex relationships are "unnatural" and therefore bad - but that only goes as far as debunking their position, it's not a positive argument for mine.

Perhaps then nature has made certain that it would not matter so much if we did not choose the best.

Why then the mating ritual? Why is it that in all species, including the human species, we go through so much trouble to ensure that the other person is the best?

Er, a lot of species don't. Cane toads are so non-picky they've been observed trying to mate with other toads that have been run over by trucks. Some fish will get together and spawn in gigantic schools.

And this does not happen only when we want to procreate. Even when you are just looking for a one-night stand, isn't it natural to be looking for someone who will be worth your while?

I'd expect so. But there's a big difference between "someone who'll be worth your while" and "best in the world"/"one-in-a-million True Master".

He was not so bad really. He was just born in the wrong time. If he lived now he would be a super star!!!

Don't feel too sorry for Salieri. He was a successful musician, a widely-sought-after teacher (who was doing well enough that he was able to give free tuition to most of his students), and he lived to what seems to have been a pretty comfortable old age.

The image of Salieri as an embittered man consumed by envy for Mozart's talent is pretty much a myth. "Tumultuous life of a prodigy who died young, with a scheming rival" makes for a sexier story than "Popular composer has solid career, does pretty well for himself, dies comfortable".

 

[Bramblethorn]

Fuck, that's hot...

[obligatory Tom Lehrer quote goes here]

 

[KoPilot]

Animal husbandry is also a neat option.

Ughghgh using this in the future.

Also, I think I'm way more the armchair therapist with S than he is with me. And I'm the pet in the relationship. I guess it's like that one slogan?

 

[YourCaptor]

If D/s is the primary feature of the relationship, then a psychopathic (?) sub is the equivalent of a broke down car. You either put it in the shop or get rid of it, and whether it goes in the shop has to do with how much upside there is in the future versus how much work it is to fix. (In this case, whether you wait around outside the shop.)

What exactly are you saying. I this what you do? Or is this suppose to be some kind of truth?

 

[YourCaptor]

This always starts with BDSM and ends up with bonobos, wolf pack sociology and Richard Dawkins.

Lol, cute little bonobos. What we need is a bonobo raised by wolves, caught and mistakenly placed in a zoo exhibit with chimps, purchased by an eccentric millionaire and taught how to use a cane, and rescued/reintroduced to a wild bonobo population under the funding of animal planet as they make a reality tv series out of it. "Bonobo Bondage"

 

[Netzach]

What exactly are you saying. I this what you do? Or is this suppose to be some kind of truth?

Neither, necessarily?

If I am in a relationship primarily where I am Mistress he is slave, then yes, my personal energies are not going to go into his mental health drama.

If she is my life partner or a life partner, I am open to much more mutuality and willing to do much more drama.

Actually have done, with provisional service-arrangement things, now that I think about it - it's very clear s/he is there to serve, focus on service, and I am not there to pat heads, babysit, or worry about their feeewings. That to me, is D/s. Not the constant concern about how my power might bite me, him, or society in the ass, but the right to relish and enjoy the pleasure of that power. Yes "with great responsibility" but I feel like we've gotten so into the responsibility piece we don't even give a shit about anything else. The entire dialogue about Mastery sounds like mandating a responsibility fetish (and poor personal boundaries - the responsibility for the other that never ends is a demented Stella Dallas mothering parody, not Mastery.)

D/s for me? It's more service less caretaking. The entire point of service has been so lost in the shuffle of all this essay writing and navel gazing. There is so much focus on the flow of things from top down and absolutely none on the flow of focus from bottom up.

I figured since we're doing one true way and pronouncements about what actually characterizes D/s versus vanilla, I'd try pointing out how I view it.

 

[LesbianChickLit]

The analogy had to do with placing oneself in the care and responsibility of another person. Which is the definition of D/s, last time I looked.

Actually, in the U.S. at least, that's the definition of a "Sugar Daddy" relationship . Or some "Cougar" relationships. I'm not trying to be gender specific. (Neither really feels right to me for lesbian couples. My friends and I call them "junior partner" relationships, like when Dr. Susan Madison, M.D. lives with Snowflake the ceramic pot painter.) It can be unseemly depending largely on the age of the "senior" partner, but that's about it.

D/s would seem by necessity to be a relationship based reciprocal responsibilities to one another, even if those responsibilities are as unemotional as not physically scarring your partner or alerting your partner to a loss in circulation.

But somehow, when it comes to relationships, we need to look for validation in the animal kingdom. Imagine if Newton and Leibniz had said "screw this, I'm not going to publish my ideas about calculus until you can show me a monkey that's already written something in the field."

Fucking hilarious.

Obviously, dora_salonica, you're right about there being widely accepted standards of physical attractiveness (the multi-billion dollar fashion industry is built on exploiting and refining those standards), but I think you're wrong in assigning them primarily to biological imperatives beyond our having biology as a commonality. (Or maybe you're right and I just read to much Asimov.)

Take a few examples from makeup, which primarily functions in most cultures to increase attractiveness. Rouge is commonly used across multiple societies and time periods to redden women's cheeks because it mimics the biological blushing effect of sexual arousal in women. Dark eyeliner is used across multiple societies and time periods because the physical contrast makes eyes "pop" against the whites. Purple eye shadow, however, was considered particularly beautiful in 16th century England where it was especially meant to suggest royalty, a wholly and specific societal ideal with no biological or practical basis.

In the pre-Industrial U.K. and U.S., un-tanned skin was considered attractive because it suggested the affluence to spend time almost exclusively indoors or in shade. (Incidentally, it still is among folks I've visited in the Philippines, Maldives, Singapore, and Hong Kong. I was offered an umbrella to carry in sunshine to avoid tanning and had difficulty explaining the Irish burn-and-peel that keeps me forever pale.) Conversely, modern individuals are considered more attractive here if they've the free time and inclination to develop a "healthy" tan.

It's entirely subjective within historical movements great and small and doesn't indicate that humans have developed a damned bit on a social, psychological, or evolutionary level. We're just an extremely adaptive species that has an appreciable snowballing effect on the conditions we adapt to.

I think that generalizations of attraction tend to annoy those of us in sexual proclivity minorities because we are so frequently bombarded with theories as to the cause of our particular abnormality or abnormalities. Depending on my generation in my country, in theory I could be gay because I am possessed, any man tall enough to have me won't want me, I choose a career and have no time for a husband, I'm a Communist, I need religious help, I hate men, I'm on all these drugs, I was abused by a male, I have no moral boundaries, I just haven't been fucked by a real man, I want to be a rebel, I'm in a curious phase, or I want attention.

Personally, I just find sex with other women more enjoyable and multifarious than sex with men. While I'm not a "true master" by anyone's definition, I find the control and power lent by a D/s aspect exciting and unpredictable, whatever the presumed genetics therein may say about me. Nonetheless, God help the poor fool who puts [any possessive pronoun] emotional care in my hands.

 

[Netzach]

Ughghgh using this in the future.

Also, I think I'm way more the armchair therapist with S than he is with me. And I'm the pet in the relationship. I guess it's like that one slogan?

Cats and humanoid cats are completely different. Is it even D/s? (Disclosure - wife is kitty.)