Ultimate submission and domination

Let us assume there is such a thing, what would it be?

For ultimate submission the first answer is fairly simple: killing yourself upon command is surely a sign of ultimate submission (maybe also the sign of ultimate stupidity or ultimate mental illness, but that's a different topic).

But what about killing someone else? Was Charlene Gallego the ultimate submissive? (http://murderpedia.org/male.G/g/gallego-gerald-armond.htm, scroll down to the article by David Lohr). What about not committing crimes, but merely sacrificing core morals: Spreading the pussy lips of your legal aged daughter for him?

Or is the concept of quantizing (applying values that can be compared with each other and determined as greater or lesser than the other) submission inherently wrong? This is also an interesting question, as it ties in with quantizing human life - most people will have no problem to do this and rule that killing 10 people to save 1000 people is okay. I have found only one instance that deemed this method unacceptable, the German supreme court. While the US supreme court did decide that it's okay to shoot down a hijacked plane full of passengers to protect more people on the ground, the German supreme court ruled that the government is not allowed to do this - it has to do the best it can do to save everyone without killing anyone innocent, even if in theory it could result in more casualties - because the value of life cannot be quantized. A very interesting ruling.


And what about ultimate domination? Is it the ultimate protection of her, Kevin Costner's Bodyguard with whips and chains? Is it the ability to maintain peace in the Middle East? Is it the amount of people who will yield to him or is it how much control he can get over a single person, see above?

Excellent OP.

A lot of good points to consider. This is why I cannot fully submit to anyone 24/7. I have a set of ethics and values I live by and I pride myself on my integrity and ability to make decisions based on my informed knowledge of a matter.

Nonetheless, I absolutely love giving over my control at certain times for sessions to be pushed beyond my limits sexually. It's just sexual for me. I actually experimented with things yesterday that I have never explored before. But this impacted on no one else nor did it breach any of my moral boundaries or break any laws in my country.

We were just two sexually aroused consenting adults exploring and experimenting
Sam xx

xxxSubSamxxx said:

I actually experimented with things yesterday that I have never explored before.
[...]
We were just two sexually aroused consenting adults exploring and experimenting

Click to expand...

What makes you say that it was submission and not just consenting adults exploring and experimenting?

It's interesting how little I can come up with when it comes to ultimate domination.

As for ultimate submission, I think it would depend on the way the person reasons around what they are doing.
Some people seem to be able to outsource the moral reasoning to someone else and the think that they would be absolved of responsibility too - kind of like the oath of allegience (is that what it's called?) or like a child perhaps.
Others would still have a feeling of personal responsibility, for following orders against their own, perhaps better judgement.

ETE:
The ruling of the German supreme court is really interesting, if you follow through with that reasoning.

I think the difference between the US court order and German court order has mainly to do with their countries' ethical and philosophical traditions. The American ethical philosophy is more rooted in utilitarian and pragmatic philosophies, which were influenced by people such as Bentham, John Stuart Mill and James, which goes with the famous "greatest happiness for the greatest numbers" equation for their moral and ethical compass. While Germany's ethical tradition is more rooted in Kantian ethics, which was started by Kant (who is a German, of course), which goes that it is not the result that makes something an ethical act, but rather the intention behind it. So even if the result would be considered good and ethical, if the intention was not to be ethical based on the idea of a moral duty, then it would not make it an ethical act.

I think I've come to the conclusion that bringing morality into BDSM is futile, because BDSM is an inherently amoral act.

IrisAlthea said:

As for ultimate submission, I think it would depend on the way the person reasons around what they are doing.

Click to expand...

So there is no objective element or is it objective and subjective? The latter case is how most judicial systems work - punishment is based upon the result and the intention. Yet, you can take only the objective element and make a rating - thievery is always considered less of a crime than murder, no matter what the intentions have been. Of course, a single individual might find it easier to kill someone than to steal. Does this make him less criminal than someone who truly believes that it is wrong what he does and still does it? Interesting question.

So is it possible to rate submission without taking the reasons into account?

Another thing I've wanted to add...

xxxSubSamxxx said:

A lot of good points to consider. This is why I cannot fully submit to anyone 24/7. I have a set of ethics and values I live by and I pride myself on my integrity and ability to make decisions based on my informed knowledge of a matter.

Click to expand...

A "workaround" to this is to say "I can't", instead of perhaps saying "no". If we're not talking about supernatural or transcendent forces such as religion or God, then ethics and morality basically boil down to what it's in our long-term self-interest. We do what is Right because it would be ultimately good for us in the long run, it's what will make us grow into better human beings. We have an innate sense of fairness because it keeps the society running smoothly and so on.

Anyway, if your orders conflict with your ethical values or if you think that such orders would cause you physical or mental exhaustion, then you simply say "I can't". You're not saying that you don't want to do it or you're denying orders, you're actually putting (realistic) limits on what you can and cannot do (it cannot be helped if you can't do something). So perhaps setting these limits, whether spontaneously as they arise or discussing about it beforehand, might be a good idea. Again, morality is whatever that is in our own or others' best self-interest.

Primalex said:

So there is no objective element or is it objective and subjective? The latter case is how most judicial systems work - punishment is based upon the result and the intention. Yet, you can take only the objective element and make a rating - thievery is always considered less of a crime than murder, no matter what the intentions have been. Of course, a single individual might find it easier to kill someone than to steal. Does this make him less criminal than someone who truly believes that it is wrong what he does and still does it? Interesting question.

So is it possible to rate submission without taking the reasons into account?

Click to expand...

I'd say that it depends on the reasons for trying to rate and who is doing the rating.

A judical system often tries to both protect the rest of society from the criminal and at the same time give the majority of us some sense that justice has been served. Hence the look at both the objective and the subjective aspect.

I guess, if someone wanted to rate their own submissivness for personal, say for personal developement reason or the submissiveness required of them in a situation/relationship - then it would make sense to consider both the subjective and the objective element, much like in the case of the judical system.

If you are trying to rate it from the outside, say to get a grasp of what you are asking of someone or if someone is right for you/the situation?
Then I guess there could be situations where you only value the outcome.
As in "just fucking do what I tell you and don't burden me with your inner turmoil" perhaps?
In other situations, different relationships, I'm sure the inner turmoil can be interesting.

I don't know if this is just a very long way of saying that the reasons always will play a part if you are looking at the big picture or if there are people who only ever would be interested in the outcome, even in the bigger picture.

Primalex said:

What makes you say that it was submission and not just consenting adults exploring and experimenting?

Click to expand...

Well because he was taking the lead and getting me to do the experimenting while he was a passive observer enjoying giving me instructions. I gave over control of my actions to him. He was expressly in charge.

Sam xx

Anyway, if your orders conflict with your ethical values or if you think that such orders would cause you physical or mental exhaustion, then you simply say "I can't". You're not saying that you don't want to do it or you're denying orders, you're actually putting (realistic) limits on what you can and cannot do (it cannot be helped if you can't do something). So perhaps setting these limits, whether spontaneously as they arise or discussing about it beforehand, might be a good idea. Again, morality is whatever that is in our own or others' best self-interest.[/QUOTE]

Yes exactly the case It would be a hard limit, however I don't think I would want association with someone who didn't have the same moral values as me.

Sam xx

I think this is one of those questions with endless answers, because the answer of what constitutes ultimate submission or domination is intensely personal. Getting inside your partner's head is a large part of the enjoyment for me. Finding what their ultimate submission might be would be different for most, though you will of course be able to encounter overlap when looking across any subset of a community.

And there are things that most would consider outrageous, which would land high on any quantizized? quanticized? scale. However, you could find others out there that would take a life without blinking an eye, and then be utterly humiliated by being ordered to simply kneel. Again I think the answers are all intensely personal, being a result of the characteristics of any given combination of people in a relationship.

Collar_N_Cuffs said:

I think this is one of those questions with endless answers, because the answer of what constitutes ultimate submission or domination is intensely personal.
[...]
Again I think the answers are all intensely personal, being a result of the characteristics of any given combination of people in a relationship.

Click to expand...

But would you say the ultimate chef is everyone who cooks the best dish he personally can do? This seems to be a fairly low bar.

Primalex said:

But would you say the ultimate chef is everyone who cooks the best dish he personally can do? This seems to be a fairly low bar.

Click to expand...

For themselves, perhaps yes.
To others, probably no.
I attempted to point out the difference between personal values and where certain acts might fall on a scale with input from others. That is what I meant by "ultimate" being a deeply personal descriptor.

The title says it all. Submission AND domination. The two go hand in hand. My dominance might be viewed as too tame, too wild or just right. Likewise, the level of submission someone has needs to mesh with their dominant. One needs the other, it can't be measured alone. When the D meshes beautifully with the s, it is their combined definition of ultimate being met.

Primalex said:

But would you say the ultimate chef is everyone who cooks the best dish he personally can do? This seems to be a fairly low bar.

Click to expand...

Taking the analogy further, if one ultimate chef served their dish and no one really liked it much, yet one person thinks it is the best food they ever have and ever will, they become the ultimate chef to that one person. Rather than grade the dish, it's the reviewer who finds their ultimate, not the dish itself.

Collar_N_Cuffs said:

For themselves, perhaps yes.
To others, probably no.
I attempted to point out the difference between personal values and where certain acts might fall on a scale with input from others. That is what I meant by "ultimate" being a deeply personal descriptor.

Click to expand...

Exactly this. It's the input from the other party that determines whom is their ultimate. One working with other and creating their own definition, their own path, their ultimate that works solely and uniquely for them.

Well, this won't be nearly as weighty as the German Supreme Courts ruling on the value of human life, it's a fun question to ponder. Sir has had me do some very painful things to myself. It's amazing how much more powerful his domination and my submission is when I have to do something to myself that is hard enough to bear when he does it to me. It takes it everything to a whole new level. Does that make any sense?

DudeA said:

II think I've come to the conclusion that bringing morality into BDSM is futile, because BDSM is an inherently amoral act.

Click to expand...

Morality is guided by your own compass. If two people consent to an act, then who is to say it is moral or not? If someone presses their partner into crossing a limit, is there not an issue of morality there? What about pressing someone into play who is not in the proper mental state to consent?

BDSM has principals of safety and consent. I feel comfortable saying that majority of those in the lifestyle would consider ignoring safewords, pushing limits without consent, and not having general consent (i.e. rape) is highly immoral.

I believe that morality belongs in BDSM. Even in terms of the ultimate submission or domination, it's still about the people involved in the act and what they believe is right or wrong.