Is there an inherent inferiority/superiority to PYL/pyl?

[Netzach]

it would be easy to blame this trend on heteronormative mainstreamers entering BDSM, except that the leather clubs used to try to maintain the same dynamic. Tops-- Masters-- could run the clubs, not bottoms, slaves. However... nothing got done in a timely fashion in most cases, until the clubs began electing the less superior types -- who would talk to each other and damn the protocol.

This this a hundred times this. I'm not saying sexism in leather never, hardly that, but I AM saying the veneer of "Domism" and "lil silly subbies" is more often comically silly than anything else the moment you leave people's fantasies behind and take a look at who's actually leadership material.

Still the leader = better fallacy is so ingrained in us as people it's amazing.

 

[StrayKat]

~ Nudges pile of bottle rockets closer to the fire and stand back ~

This made me laugh. So appropriate

 

[KoPilot]

Normally I'd agree with this, but it really depends what echo chamber you hang out in and what the majority kink dictates. In the world at large, sure. In the subsets of the subculture I also move in, "I am male therefore inferior therefore submissive" is the cri de coeur de rigeur to mix it up a bit.

It's just as patently ridiculous, but I did mention it's a FINE way to spend an afternoon, I hope.

I spent quite a while among giantess fetishists before I realized that I could find folks more like me and less like manchildren, and the tendency to deny women their humanity seemed to be the same flavor as near anywhere else despite fantasizing about being enslaved and murdered by them. But YMMV, and get a little gayness in there and you're probably right that it's other stuff.

 

[StrayKat]

It's actually not worth discussing this, because in order to have a semi-intelligent discussion about this topic would, first of all, require the ability to see that these two statements are different:

a) I'm inferior, therefore I'm submissive.
b) I'm submissive, therefore I'm inferior.

I see they are different but for me that is irrelevant since submissive and inferior dont compute in my world.
There is a certain person who can and does act as submissive to me now and then, but I find him so worth adoration and respect I cant see him as anything but a superior being.
And there are visibly dominant people who are so under my level in everything I find important, I cant see them but as inferior.

I can see the discussion from the point of generalizations and causes for it, though I dont really find it appealing enough to participate. I can discuss about superior and inferior, for me; or dominant and submissive again from my point of view. But related? No, I fail to see the connection.

 

[Primalex]

Mathematically, where A = B, B = A.

No.

That statement is only valid for algebra, a subset of mathematics.


If Submission implies Inferiority, the only inference that can be made is that non-Inferiority implies non-Submission - but not that Inferiority implies Submission or that non-Submission implies non-Inferiority.

(I used capital letters for the logical placeholders.)

From a causation standpoint, neither one of your statements are equal to the statement put forth by the OP. In SW's original post, the cause is inferiority, and the effect is submission.

"I am submissive because I am inferior."
equals
"I'm inferior, therefore I am submissive."

And why not? Why not worthy of a conversation? Do you have something better to do?

If you discuss topics with people who are challenged with 7-word-statements, you always end up arguing about statements you've never made. This is just annoying for both participants.

 

[Primalex]

I see they are different but for me that is irrelevant since submissive and inferior dont compute in my world.

Inferiority and Submission is the most boring point of view to "compute" and therefore very easy to dismiss.

If there is no correlation, then you would have to agree with the following statement:


A guy can feel inferior to everyone else and still be dominant.


Can you agree with that statement or do you go:"No, wait..this sounds..wrong"?

 

[Netzach]

Inferiority and Submission is the most boring point of view to "compute" and therefore very easy to dismiss.

If there is no correlation, then you would have to agree with the following statement:


A guy can feel inferior to everyone else and still be dominant.


Can you agree with that statement or do you go:"No, wait..this sounds..wrong"?

What if I do agree with that statement?

Sure, we like to think that everyone comes from a place of personal power and a submissive can smell the smell of fear, but no.

He or she can be scared shitless or completely insecure and faking it, or maybe their sub is the one person on earth who they don't react to with total lack of confidence.

People are weird. One person's John Galt is another person's Pee Wee Herman.

I've seen people with NO control over their own shit and total control over a slave. Often a very fucked up train wreck of a slave, sometimes a slave of much better quality than they ever deserved, but the control is, for better or for worse, real.

 

[StrayKat]

Inferiority and Submission is the most boring point of view to "compute" and therefore very easy to dismiss.

If there is no correlation, then you would have to agree with the following statement:


A guy can feel inferior to everyone else and still be dominant.


Can you agree with that statement or do you go:"No, wait..this sounds..wrong"?

I dont know, maybe I have twisted idea of what dominant is, but I can perfectly fine imagine someone being dominant just because they feel inferior.
To try and fight their way to superiority by controlling the superior, or to get some of that superiority the same way some primitive tribes thought eating a heart of a strong one makes you strong too.
I dont think its that simple.

 

[All_4_Love]

I dont know, maybe I have twisted idea of what dominant is, but I can perfectly fine imagine someone being dominant just because they feel inferior.
To try and fight their way to superiority by controlling the superior, or to get some of that superiority the same way some primitive tribes thought eating a heart of a strong one makes you strong too.
I dont think its that simple.

I think that is why there is so much discussion in the community about dominant versus domineering behavior, SK. When someone is dominant, they don't have to fight to be so, destroying others around them, so they can feel superiority. That's not dominance. It's weakness. There is no strength in that. There is no control in that, only an illusion. Dominance will stand it's ground when challenged but it won't go searching for a challenge.

Going totally off topic here, but you get the jest of what I'm saying...or not. Heck if I know. It's very interesting, though. I will probably be "googling" a lot now.

 

[StrayKat]

I think that is why there is so much discussion in the community about dominant versus domineering behavior, SK. When someone is dominant, they don't have to fight to be so, destroying others around them, so they can feel superiority. That's not dominance. It's weakness. There is no strength in that. There is no control in that, only an illusion. Dominance will stand it's ground when challenged but it won't go searching for a challenge.

Going totally off topic here, but you get the jest of what I'm saying...or not. Heck if I know. It's very interesting, though. I will probably be "googling" a lot now.

And that is why I said I probably have a twisted idea about what dominant is

But then, what is a "real" dominant? And what isnt... I think if we could all look deep down in ourselves we might find some definitions and reasons we do things that would probably go against some other views. I never claimed I was a dominant, I rather call myself a sadist. But I can still be caring and loving and controlling, so I truly dont know. I admit I am still searching for definition that would suit me, all of them are lacking in this or that way so far.

 

[Collar_N_Cuffs]

No.

That statement is only valid for algebra, a subset of mathematics.


If Submission implies Inferiority, the only inference that can be made is that non-Inferiority implies non-Submission - but not that Inferiority implies Submission or that non-Submission implies non-Inferiority.

(I used capital letters for the logical placeholders.)



"I am submissive because I am inferior."
equals
"I'm inferior, therefore I am submissive."



If you discuss topics with people who are challenged with 7-word-statements, you always end up arguing about statements you've never made. This is just annoying for both participants.

If --> Than logic tables return 3 true values and 1 false value.
If you consider this an If and Only If logic table issue, that still returns 2 true and 2 false values... So there are actually more choices than your single solution.
I'm really only messing with you anyway. (This is the bit I edited, because I didn't like how it appeared in the light of day. It had nothing to do with my response, and was simply a comment that I wasn't overly proud of when I re-read it) Fixed

 

[All_4_Love]

And that is why I said I probably have a twisted idea about what dominant is

But then, what is a "real" dominant? And what isnt... I think if we could all look deep down in ourselves we might find some definitions and reasons we do things that would probably go against some other views. I never claimed I was a dominant, I rather call myself a sadist. But I can still be caring and loving and controlling, so I truly dont know. I admit I am still searching for definition that would suit me, all of them are lacking in this or that way so far.

I know, Stray. It's confusing. I think in most cases it's like a pendulum, you're either on one extreme end of the spectrum, or the other, or somewhere in between. Then again, so much of it seems to be primal, something instinctual.

A real dominant is just that. I don't think there is even a question when you encounter one. You just know. You sense it.

And also, I believe there are huge distinctions between being dominant and being a sadist. But don't confuse yourself, because unless you are a sociopath, a sadist is very loving, caring, and controlling. Don't let that confuse you. I know this to be true and I've never even been touched by one before. I just know.

I can oftentimes think myself into absolute confusion about this. Total sadness, even. Self exploration is such a b%#ch!

 

[BiBunny]

A guy can feel inferior to everyone else and still be dominant.

Given what I know about a lot of men/doms/whatever, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case more often than not, actually.

 

[StrayKat]

A real dominant is just that. I don't think there is even a question when you encounter one. You just know. You sense it.

You probably do dear. But I dont. I am not inherently submissive. I dont "sense" much apart from vague annoyance at first when I encounter someone who is or claims to be a dominant. I have to get to know them and decide if their particular type of dominance suit me.

I can oftentimes think myself into absolute confusion about this. Total sadness, even. Self exploration is such a b%#ch!

You can say that again. Thought for me its not sadness but anger, at myself, for being so dense

 

[All_4_Love]

You probably do dear. But I dont. I am not inherently submissive. I dont "sense" much apart from vague annoyance at first when I encounter someone who is or claims to be a dominant. I have to get to know them and decide if their particular type of dominance suit me.

Well, then perhaps you are dominant, as well? You are sensing that inherently but in a different way? Haven't you ever seen an MMA fight? Haha! Instead of feeling submissive, you're ready to "get it on", well...you know, just not "get it, get it on"

You can say that again. Thought for me its not sadness but anger, at myself, for being so dense

No anger. You're not dense, my friend. You're self aware. That's an admirable quality. The world would be a much better place if everyone was.

 

[IrisAlthea]

I think that is why there is so much discussion in the community about dominant versus domineering behavior, SK. When someone is dominant, they don't have to fight to be so, destroying others around them, so they can feel superiority. That's not dominance. It's weakness. There is no strength in that. There is no control in that, only an illusion. Dominance will stand it's ground when challenged but it won't go searching for a challenge.

Going totally off topic here, but you get the jest of what I'm saying...or not. Heck if I know. It's very interesting, though. I will probably be "googling" a lot now.

I know, Stray. It's confusing. I think in most cases it's like a pendulum, you're either on one extreme end of the spectrum, or the other, or somewhere in between. Then again, so much of it seems to be primal, something instinctual.

A real dominant is just that. I don't think there is even a question when you encounter one. You just know. You sense it.

And also, I believe there are huge distinctions between being dominant and being a sadist. But don't confuse yourself, because unless you are a sociopath, a sadist is very loving, caring, and controlling. Don't let that confuse you. I know this to be true and I've never even been touched by one before. I just know.

I can oftentimes think myself into absolute confusion about this. Total sadness, even. Self exploration is such a b%#ch!

This is really just the "twue dominant" discussion again, using "real" instead.
I get that this concept is very tempting but being domineering, manipulative, sneaky, pushy and generally annoying doesn't mean that you're not dominant. It just means your're a bit of an asshole.
There is no inherent white hat in dominant and black hat in domineering.
Besides, out in the real world all hats are gray anyway.

 

[All_4_Love]

This is really just the "twue dominant" discussion again, using "real" instead.
I get that this concept is very tempting but being domineering, manipulative, sneaky, pushy and generally annoying doesn't mean that you're not dominant. It just means your're a bit of an asshole.
There is no inherent white hat in dominant and black hat in domineering.
Besides, out in the real world all hats are gray anyway.

Call it what you will, white hat, black hat, "twue" dom. I just don't agree. I personally think these twue sub/twue dom conversations are for the birds. And I don't mean when someone discusses dominant traits in the way that I did in this thread. I mean the way that you have chosen to discuss it.

Manipulative is certainly not a trait that I would ever relate with dominance.

Dominance comes from strength, the other from weakness.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Call it what you will, white hat, black hat, "twue" dom. I just don't agree. I personally think these twue sub/twue dom conversations are for the birds. And I don't mean when someone discusses dominant traits in the way that I did in this thread. I mean the way that you have chosen to discuss it.

Manipulative is certainly not a trait that I would ever relate with dominance.

Dominance comes from strength, the other from weakness.

Well most dictionarys I know talk about influence, control, power.
All of those things can of course be obtained by superior strength, but just as well by other means.

For me there is a world of difference between saying that something is right or wrong for you and saying that something is true or real.
The first is discussing what you want and believe in. The other is declaring other peoples views or way of doing it invalid.

 

[All_4_Love]

Well most dictionarys I know talk about influence, control, power.
All of those things can of course be obtained by superior strength, but just as well by other means.

For me there is a world of difference between saying that something is right or wrong for you and saying that something is true or real.
The first is discussing what you want and believe in. The other is declaring other peoples views or way of doing it invalid.

I just don't see how my stating to another person that "when you're in the presence of a true dominant, you will just know" could declare another's view or way of doing invalid. This confuses me so.

If someone possesses the traits that you stated earlier, such as domineering, manipulative, sneaky, etc. but yet, they are still assured in who they are and how they define themselves, then one would think that seeing my statement would be meaningless and be blown off as insignificant.

I understand that I may be speaking freely from an emotional standpoint and also from a clear lack of experience. Perhaps I am not in a position to be so confident about my opinions. Pardon me for feeling comfortable enough to participate in a discussion without feeling like I need to be corrected or reminded every time I don't phrase and police my words well enough.

It is not my intent to invalidate anyone. If I am defensive in this post, I stand corrected. I do feel a bit frustrated right now.

 

[IrisAlthea]

I just don't see how my stating to another person that "when you're in the presence of a true dominant, you will just know" could declare another's view or way of doing invalid. This confuses me so.

If someone possesses the traits that you stated earlier, such as domineering, manipulative, sneaky, etc. but yet, they are still assured in who they are and how they define themselves, then one would think that seeing my statement would be meaningless and be blown off as insignificant.

I understand that I may be speaking freely from an emotional standpoint and also from a clear lack of experience. Perhaps I am not in a position to be so confident about my opinions. Pardon me for feeling comfortable enough to participate in a discussion without feeling like I need to be corrected or reminded every time I don't phrase and police my words well enough.

It is not my intent to invalidate anyone. If I am defensive in this post, I stand corrected. I do feel a bit frustrated right now.

I'm sorry if it makes you feel frustrated.
Unfortunately it makes me feel a bit frustrated when people use words like true or real because it implies that the rest is false.
Not everyone who comes here is assured in who they are and how they define themselves and it's already easy to get the impression that there is a universally right way of doing things.

It's not my intention to make you feel uncomfortable, but I do think words are important when communicating with a lot of people with only the written word to rely on.

 

[All_4_Love]

I'm sorry if it makes you feel frustrated.
Unfortunately it makes me feel a bit frustrated when people use words like true or real because it implies that the rest is false.
Not everyone who comes here is assured in who they are and how they define themselves and it's already easy to get the impression that there is a universally right way of doing things.

It's not my intention to make you feel uncomfortable, but I do think words are important when communicating with a lot of people with only the written word to rely on.

Thank you for clarifying. I do understand what you're saying.

Do you not think in my conversation with Stray Kat, who was saying that she is not assured in how she defines herself, that I was offering her validation? I am not being sarcastic when I ask this.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Thank you for clarifying. I do understand what you're saying.

Do you not think in my conversation with Stray Kat, who was saying that she is not assured in how she defines herself, that I was offering her validation? I am not being sarcastic when I ask this.

Thank you.

Yes, I get that. It's just that on an open message board, you are never talking to just one person.

I do think that all this defining and labeling is frustrating for most people because it implys that we are the same all the time and in relation to everyone. I don't think that is true for most of us and just when we think we found that perfect label, we feel something new about ourselves or someone we met.
It's just hard to hit a moving target, you know?
And in that way, I think you are right that it is usually easier to find a person who is right for you, than to predict what label you will find them under.
I'm just really annoying about the "for you" part.

 

[CutieMouse]

A guy can feel inferior to everyone else and still be dominant.

Given what I know about a lot of men/doms/whatever, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case more often than not, actually.

Yep.

I'd also argue that in the end, people are people are people. Which means you're still going to have people who deal with insecurity, self doubt, imperfection, blah blah blah... who also happen to be [or ID as] dominant. To ignore the messy humanity stuff [insecurity, doubt, etc] would be like saying that to be dominant, one must have XYZ [powerful job], ___ amount of $$ in the bank, and... oh, shit. 50 Shades already did that...

You probably do dear. But I dont. I am not inherently submissive. I dont "sense" much apart from vague annoyance at first when I encounter someone who is or claims to be a dominant. I have to get to know them and decide if their particular type of dominance suit me.

Well, then perhaps you are dominant, as well? You are sensing that inherently but in a different way? Haven't you ever seen an MMA fight? Haha! Instead of feeling submissive, you're ready to "get it on", well...you know, just not "get it, get it on"

I wouldn't necessarily ping someone as dominant, if their "dom-dar" is wired for annoyance, more often than not. I'd estimate that 85%[+] of people I meet in day to day life who ping possibly dominant, annoy me. I have to get to know them as a person, to decide if their dominant nature is a pro or con [for me personally, socially, professionally, etc].

 

[All_4_Love]

Thank you.

Yes, I get that. It's just that on an open message board, you are never talking to just one person.

I do think that all this defining and labeling is frustrating for most people because it implys that we are the same all the time and in relation to everyone. I don't think that is true for most of us and just when we think we found that perfect label, we feel something new about ourselves or someone we met.
It's just hard to hit a moving target, you know?
And in that way, I think you are right that it is usually easier to find a person who is right for you, than to predict what label you will find them under.
I'm just really annoying about the "for you" part.

Thank you, too, Iris. Yes, I do understand. We are always adapting in relation to everyone. I don't see dominant and submissive as labels, which may be why my communication here is misunderstood (or so it seems).

I know the moving target is hard to hit. It keeps pushing us toward more understanding of who we are, being more authentic. That is the good thing, albeit very frustrating, indeed.

When I am speaking on this board, I do speak directly to one person more often than not. I do not know if that is something that I will be more conscientious of in the future. It would have to be extremely deliberate for me to do so. I am a "present moment" person much of the time, fully engaged, participating. This gives me something to think about for my future posts.

 

[Curious_in_Cali]

I do think that all this defining and labeling is frustrating for most people because it implys that we are the same all the time and in relation to everyone. I don't think that is true for most of us and just when we think we found that perfect label, we feel something new about ourselves or someone we met.
It's just hard to hit a moving target, you know?
And in that way, I think you are right that it is usually easier to find a person who is right for you, than to predict what label you will find them under.
I'm just really annoying about the "for you" part.

I wish my literal brain could embrace the idea that energy is much better saved in NOT labeling and just being ok with whatever is. Those "I am" statements that so many people seem so comfortable and confident wearing sure are alluring though.

Maybe my often chameleon like response to a mate is not about indecision as much as it's a response to what we are together and being happy just feeding that under the label of "us".