Benevolent Dictator

[Pure]

taintedb, said** the dom practices or should practice

not equal-partners fairness, but rather the fair and just rulership of a benevolent dictator,

thoughts?

**{{Added: tainted says I've misrepresented her, so here is her entire posting; also readers might consult the 'romance' thread. As she says, she purports to be speaking for the Marquis.}}

{{ Added further: the view of dom as 'benevolent dictator' is pretty common, and can, I hope be discussed on its own. Whether the Marquis uses that label or whether 'tainted' has correctly represented the Marquis on the subject-- are all irrelevant to the issue.}}


Heh. I am going to speak for the Marquis. We'll see later, when he's not so busy, what he thinks about that! What he means by fairness is not equal-partners fairness, but rather the fair and just rulership of a benevolent dictator, I think. The dictator, however benevolent, is always the one in charge, which is something trangressors taking advantage of his kindness tend to learn the hard way, and the extremes of power can be quite extreme while he goes about his quiet business of doing things _his_ way, which, in a benvolency, often involve concepts of fairness.

About the difference between sadomasochism and dominance/submission. In real-life experience (at least in mine) the former is episodic and unsustainable over the long term without tremendous energy on the part of everyone involved, which pretty much negates the fun of it. The second is very sustainable over a lifetime, plus you can introduce the S&M into it whenever you please (assuming you are the one running things).

 

[TaintedB]

taintedb, said the dom practices or should practice

not equal-partners fairness, but rather the fair and just rulership of a benevolent dictator,

thoughts?

My thought is you misrepresent me and I have to wonder if it is on purpose. Also, if you disagree with me, why not do so in the thread where we were talking about this? Why make up a whole new thread and even a poll about it? Do you perhaps imagine yourself in some sort of competition with me where others much just the merits of our differing ideas? Pure, I'm this far away from putting you on ignore for playing such ridiculous forum games. Drawing attention to something someone supposedly said in this way is down on the level of what the 14 years do in their forums. (I've seen them pull this same silly ploy, btw, over and over again.) I guess if you are a 14 year old you cannot help yourself. But if you are a bit older I would like it if you listen to the following words: I do not appreciate being played with in this immature way, and if you continue in the future to grab my words and stick some sort of spotlight on them I will just dump you in the ignore bucket, down with the other two or three people who've managed to make it in there after all this time.

Now for the misrepresentation. I didn't say "the dom," I only described Marquis's relationship as a benvolent dicatorship, and also as I thought he personally might describe it. It was not a generalization applicable to all dominants nor was it intended to set up a counter-pardigm to whatever sadistic generalization you were proposing. I am _so_ not about generalizations or theories, that your trying to place me in that pigeonhole would be laughable if it didn't remind me so much of the hateful little Internet kiddies.

So. Leave me the fuck alone, kk? Or reply with some long drawn-out argument about how you're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong bla bla bla bla bla and make more polls about my statements rather than trying to respond to them in an adult fashion and you'll get plonked posthaste.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Oh Pure, has a busy weekend here meant I have missed out on some of the excitement your return has elicited?!! As to the question of this thread, I think it depends on the relationship and what those in the relationship find works for them.

Catalina

 

[h_i_s]

my thoughts toward this topic are just as Catalina has already stated: it depends on the relationship and what those in the relationship find works for them.

In speaking of what works for us, based on our own personal preferences, and the established dynamics (and all that defines the dominant role for us ) in our own D/s relationship: We are certainly not "equal" partners, and my Master is quite fair and just in His rulership as the benevolent dictator in this relationship.

It is very well understood by me, that not all are in relationships which share the exact same dynamics, and i am certain that not all are capable of maintaining, and that not all desire a relationship which focuses on a benevolent dictator/dictatorship.

i don't know who TaintedB was referring to in this quoted statement, but their statement does describe my Master (and His dominant role in this D/s relationship) quite well.

 

[Pure]

tainted said



My thought is you misrepresent me and I have to wonder if it is on purpose. Also, if you disagree with me, why not do so in the thread where we were talking about this? Why make up a whole new thread and even a poll about it? Do you perhaps imagine yourself in some sort of competition with me where others much just the merits of our differing ideas? Pure, I'm this far away from putting you on ignore for playing such ridiculous forum games. Drawing attention to something someone supposedly said in this way is down on the level of what the 14 years do in their forums. (I've seen them pull this same silly ploy, btw, over and over again.) I guess if you are a 14 year old you cannot help yourself. But if you are a bit older I would like it if you listen to the following words: I do not appreciate being played with in this immature way, and if you continue in the future to grab my words and stick some sort of spotlight on them I will just dump you in the ignore bucket, down with the other two or three people who've managed to make it in there after all this time.

Now for the misrepresentation. I didn't say "the dom," I only described Marquis's relationship as a benvolent dicatorship, and also as I thought he personally might describe it. It was not a generalization applicable to all dominants nor was it intended to set up a counter-pardigm to whatever sadistic generalization you were proposing. I am _so_ not about generalizations or theories, that your trying to place me in that pigeonhole would be laughable if it didn't remind me so much of the hateful little Internet kiddies.

So. Leave me the fuck alone, kk? Or reply with some long drawn-out argument about how you're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong bla bla bla bla bla and make more polls about my statements rather than trying to respond to them in an adult fashion and you'll get plonked posthaste.

I've posted your entire piece [added to the initial posting of this thread], so anyone may see any alleged 'misrepresentation'.

I will accept one small correction I have now noted: You did purport to be representing the Marquis's thinking on the issue of 'fairness.' In effect you said HE aspired to be, or thought it appropriate to be the 'benevolent dictator.' Since you have no way of knowing that, I simply thought it was fair to ascribe the view to you.

'Leaving you alone'? Your postings to this public forum are 'fair game.' All the yelling should not obscure the issue, which I have, in the interests of peace, summarized and added to the original post of this thread:

Pure's addition to the description of the original quote and issue, above:
Added further: the view of dom as 'benevolent dictator' is pretty common, and can, I hope be discussed on its own. Whether the Marquis uses that label or whether 'tainted' has correctly represented the Marquis on the subject-- are all irrelevant to the issue.

 

[Marquis]

There is no greater authority than the power of truth.

"'Cause I said so" may work in the moment, but it's long term riches and bitches I desire.

 

[TaintedB]

[SIZE=bullshit]

'Leaving you alone'? Your postings to this public forum are 'fair game.'

Fair game? I see. So this forum is your metaphorical hunting ground where you get to offend and hurt the feelings of whomesoever you choose in whatever ways you chose? BIG YAWN! How 14-year-old-ish can one get? Not much more than this, I hope! You bring this place down to a new low, Pure. As in Pure Kiddieland.

"All the yelling should not obscure the issue..."

Unmanageable nasty little children always see just scoldings for their bad behavior as "yelling." WAH!!! SHE YELLED AT ME! BOO-HWO-HWO!!! How melodramatic they are. Yawn redeux. And... "plonk!" Buh-bye bozo.

 

[Marquis]

What the fuck are you two fighting about?

You're both lunatics.

 

[sunfox]

What the fuck are you two fighting about?

You're both lunatics.

Shh. This is getting really amusing.

 

[graceanne]

*quietly backs out of the thread before they start throwing things*

 

[TaintedB]

Sunfox, honey, it's quite ok in my book to be a cunt, but Gah, do you have to _show_ it so very obviously? Declasse, my dear. Tsk-tsk.

 

[Pure]

returning to the thread topic

i'm uncomfortable with the 'benevolent dictator' concept and its elaboration in terms of justice and fairness. it does not matter who stated such a position, for it is common (with numerous variants). Marquis appears to have endorsed it, as far as I can tell. but only the position or issue is discussed below.

the problem is that there is no referee, no godlike figure to state what 'just' is; it's mostly going to come down to the sub.

i do not understand how that person could be 'dominated' if s/he had the 'stick'(accusation) of "you're unjust" at his/her disposal, and if it were given that the self-said 'dom' was going to alter his/her behavior to suit that 'subs' view of 'justice.'

If I may use a perhaps distant analogy. Every parent hears 'that's not fair' a lot, from bedtimes, food at mealtimes, to homework, to curfews. Only very rarely would an emotionally stable, experienced, and confident parent set about to change his or her behavior on that basis.

(Indeed the stronger point may apply; such a parent may most of the time [as policy] decline to 'discuss', i.e. argue about the judgment as to its fairness, though occasionally permitting occasional, true discussions where clarification is needed.)

 

[Marquis]

the problem is that there is no referee, no godlike figure to say what 'just' is; it's mostly going to come down to the sub. i do not understand how that person could be 'dominated' if s/he had the 'stick' of "you're unjust" at his/her disposal, and if it were given that the self- said 'dom' was going to alter his/her behavior to suit that 'subs' formulation of 'justice.'

Why is it a given that the Dom would suit his/her behavior to the sub's idea of fairness?

I don't think your analogy is distant at all, I hear "that isn't fair" from my subs all the time. Generally I try to take the time to explain to them why what I've requested is fair or at the very least necessary. I think this is something I would do as a parent as well however.

 

[Pure]

well, you're a genteel and reasonable sort of person. always a pleasure!

as to
Why is it a given that the Dom would suit his/her behavior to the sub's idea of fairness?

I'm not clear about your point. Is it about the 'subs idea.' Well, it *has* to be the 'subs' idea we're talking about, at least sometimes, and that's clear from other threads and postings including those of catalina. the 'dom' wants to be 'just' and 'fair' and the only reasonable way to interpret that is that s/he is NOT just going to go by his own definition.

Is it about the dom altering his/her behavior? Well, that seems clear; those of this position sometimes speak of apologizing, which surely indicates changes of behavior. Further isn't it a bit odd to say,[dom:] "Sure I'll discuss the fairness of my doing X, with you. But it will absolutely not affect my actions."

ps: is your willingness (for parents) to discuss 'fairness' because you're NOT a parent?

 

[graceanne]

ps: is your willingness (for parents) to discuss 'fairness' because you're NOT a parent?

I have to say that I don't always discuss 'fairness' with my kids, but that's just cause they don't always understand. When I tell my three year old not to run into the street, she's not gonna understand that a car can hit her. What she will understand is if she does run into the street I'll spank her. On the other hand, if they capable of understanding, I will explain it to them. And I expect the same from K. I'm not a child, and I'm not stupid. If he wants me to do something, he can explain why. But if it's supposed to be something that's a surprise or if he doesn't have time to explain right then, I also trust him enough to know that eventually it will become clear to me.

 

[Lorihw]

I'm with you Graceanne - I do not discuss fairness with my kids as they feel everything is "not fair!" My 3 year old is often found yelling those words at me. Life's not fair, who ever told you it was? I also work in HR, and deal with the same concept with employees. Just because it is not fair doesn't mean it is illegal. Tough shit, deal with it.

 

[sunfox]

Sunfox, honey, it's quite ok in my book to be a cunt, but Gah, do you have to _show_ it so very obviously? Declasse, my dear. Tsk-tsk.

Where did I say I was a charm school graduate?

And not only am I a cunt.. I also have one. I'm a double threat.

Anyways, quit dodging your cute little spat with Pure. I was enjoying it.

 

[graceanne]

I'm with you Graceanne - I do not discuss fairness with my kids as they feel everything is "not fair!" My 3 year old is often found yelling those words at me. Life's not fair, who ever told you it was? I also work in HR, and deal with the same concept with employees. Just because it is not fair doesn't mean it is illegal. Tough shit, deal with it.

My mother always said that 'fair' is a four letter 'f' word, and she better not catch us using it.

 

[Lorihw]

That is fantastic - that may work with my 5 year old... It's so funny how kids have this sense of fairness. I mean if I were ever to give my 5 year old a bigger half of a cookie than my 3 year old, he would be all over me.

 

[graceanne]

That is fantastic - that may work with my 5 year old... It's so funny how kids have this sense of fairness. I mean if I were ever to give my 5 year old a bigger half of a cookie than my 3 year old, he would be all over me.

Oh, I know. You'd swear the world is ending if everything isn't perfectly fair. Just point out that he doesn't complain when things aren't fair in his favor. Like if he got the bigger piece. All things even out in the end, another saying of my mom's. What she meant is that this time it might not be fair to me, but next time it won't be fair to my sister, etc.

 

[Marquis]

Pure, I have to be honest with you. You are obviously a very educated and intelligent person, but sometimes your perspective seems so far out that I can't even begin to imagine the circumstances behind your existence.

well, you're a genteel and reasonable sort of person. always a pleasure!

Maybe so, but being reasonable is hardly against my own best interests. I doubt my subs would be as inclined to follow my lead if they didn't trust me.

I'm not clear about your point. Is it about the 'subs idea.' Well, it *has* to be the 'subs' idea we're talking about, at least sometimes, and that's clear from other threads and postings including those of catalina. the 'dom' wants to be 'just' and 'fair' and the only reasonable way to interpret that is that s/he is NOT just going to go by his own definition.

I love the absolute terms in which you make statements that are so clearly up for interpretation. My fairness refers more to a sense of justice based mostly on honesty. Although it would likely catch up with me in the longrun, I could use deceptive means of manipulating my subs. The lazy man's way of dominating. But having integrity in myself as a Dom not only gives me a sense of peace, it makes me a better Dom because I believe in myself. Plus, to be a good liar you have to have a good memory and my memory ain't so hot.

Is it about the dom altering his/her behavior? Well, that seems clear; those of this position sometimes speak of apologizing, which surely indicates changes of behavior. Further isn't it a bit odd to say,[dom:] "Sure I'll discuss the fairness of my doing X, with you. But it will absolutely not affect my actions."

An apology to me shows that I learned something. I apologize to myself constantly, because I am on a constant quest of self improvement and how can I expect to be better in the future if I don't own up to the mistakes of my past?

I don't apologize to placate, I apologize when I am convinced I made a mistake because I'm not infallible and to behave as if I were would be dishonorable.

ps: is your willingness (for parents) to discuss 'fairness' because you're NOT a parent?

Unlikely.

I think Graceanne covered this for the most part, but I might as well add that my parents spent an excrutiating amount of time explaining to me the logic of their actions and the cause of their punishments. I do believe a lesson understand is worth a thousand lessons memorized.

Like Nike however, sometimes "Just do it" is understood well enough.

 

[catalina_francisco]

well, you're a genteel and reasonable sort of person. always a pleasure!

as to
Why is it a given that the Dom would suit his/her behavior to the sub's idea of fairness?

I'm not clear about your point. Is it about the 'subs idea.' Well, it *has* to be the 'subs' idea we're talking about, at least sometimes, and that's clear from other threads and postings including those of catalina. the 'dom' wants to be 'just' and 'fair' and the only reasonable way to interpret that is that s/he is NOT just going to go by his own definition.

Is it about the dom altering his/her behavior? Well, that seems clear; those of this position sometimes speak of apologizing, which surely indicates changes of behavior. Further isn't it a bit odd to say,[dom:] "Sure I'll discuss the fairness of my doing X, with you. But it will absolutely not affect my actions."

ps: is your willingness (for parents) to discuss 'fairness' because you're NOT a parent?

This is going into another of those discussions where I suspect you appear you don't get the point because it can generate conversation....which is always good on this forum. And perhaps it is the fact my eyes are not focusing as yet, and I am not 100% awake, but am I reading you as thinking Francisco bends to suit my needs? LOL, now that would be interesting to contemplate. It was because he was not a Dom who was preoccupied with asking the sub what she wanted and needed that attracted me to him in the first place. From the first email he made it clear what he was expecting and how things would be and left the decision to me as to whether I coud live with that. He wanted to give what I longed to receive not he wanted to please me by doing what I wanted over his own wishes. This point in his make up causes me quite a few moments of reflection when I am craving or wanting something he is just not prepared to give me.

As to Dom's apologising ....that doesn't necessarily mean they are apologising because they are afraid they have hurt or upset the submissive. I know here if he does something that upsets me or causes me extreme difficulty and he apologises, it is out of his own feelings about his own code of behaviour he may have broken and thus disappointed himself, not me. If he has done nothing he feels is wrong, he may sarcastically apologise but make clear it is not of concern to him beyond seeing that I continue to serve him in the way he wishes. Sorry to disillusion but our relationship is built on love but that does not mean he is not pushing me into areas I find difficult to endure and sometimes wish I could reverse....he does what he wants, not what I want, and in reality that was what I was seeking and get off on simply because he is not grovelling at my feet afraid to make a move without first getting my seal of approval. If he was preoccupied with being fair and nice toward me I would not have bothered with him...it is a mistake many Dominant's make though when they become emotionally involved....they forget what the foundation was for the relationship.

Catalina

 

[WriterDom]

14-year-old-ish bitches lunatics cunt dishonorable benevolent Dicktators edited of course.

Is this the weekly thread?

 

[Netzach]

Pure, I have to be honest with you. You are obviously a very educated and intelligent person, but sometimes your perspective seems so far out that I can't even begin to imagine the circumstances behind your existence.



I think Graceanne covered this for the most part, but I might as well add that my parents spent an excrutiating amount of time explaining to me the logic of their actions and the cause of their punishments. I do believe a lesson understand is worth a thousand lessons memorized.

I was forced to play with Julia Kristeva in college and it prepared me not one rat turd for actually playing with live boys and girls. The theory of the abject makes a great read, but it doesn't really hold water when it is time to deal with those actual live sacks of liquid, piss, blood, and shit and emotions we call people in the live world. Not in my experience anyway.

Probably why I insisted on being an art major in college -- balancing talking about things with making actual, albeit useless things still seemed closer to the hands-on in some small measure.

As much as I enjoy the idea of mayhem and injustice in sadomasochistic play, I don't find it sustainable as the main dynamic of a serious interpersonal relationship either. I don't believe in crazymaking ambiguity as a way of relating to a submissive as an ongoing thing -- it will not work. It may teach valuable lessons when well deployed and I like to use it that way. Like garlic in food, that can easily become overwhelming and nasty if it's the only flavor you can keep thinking of.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Where did I say I was a charm school graduate?

And not only am I a cunt.. I also have one. I'm a double threat.

Anyways, quit dodging your cute little spat with Pure. I was enjoying it.

Why, hello Contessa ...