Butch and Femme / Dom and Sub

sub_girl

Experienced
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Posts
34
Heya, I'm a uk girl and i would love to have the experience of another woman. I'm pretty sure i'm bi and i'm pretty sure i want to try this out. Any Uk girlies up for showing me the ropes?! I'm 19, feminine and prefer the feminine look. Pm me or feel free to add a msg on here! xx
 
sub_girl said:
Heya, I'm a uk girl and i would love to have the experience of another woman. I'm pretty sure i'm bi and i'm pretty sure i want to try this out. Any Uk girlies up for showing me the ropes?! I'm 19, feminine and prefer the feminine look. Pm me or feel free to add a msg on here! xx

While I realize you are discussing a one night stand, you raise a few interesting questions regarding fem/fem relationships. I have never met a femme who was domm, nor have I met a dyke who was ever polite to a chick in a mini-skirt, except maybe to get laid. I find the lesbian community is not much different than the heterosexual one. Just questions and observations.

As for your query? I am not across the pond.
 
yeah I think theres a bit of tension between butch and femme, theres also the misonception that all butch women are dominant and all femme women are submissive - just shows how wrong labels can be!
 
I was going to move this thread to GLBT Personals, but it looks like this is taking a very interesting turn. A while back I started a thread on the Butch-Femme.com forums called Society says: butch = top, femme = bottom - it hasn't seen any posts in over a year but there was some good discussion there. I'm eager to see similar discussion here.
 
Etoile said:
I was going to move this thread to GLBT Personals, but it looks like this is taking a very interesting turn. A while back I started a thread on the Butch-Femme.com forums called Society says: butch = top, femme = bottom - it hasn't seen any posts in over a year but there was some good discussion there. I'm eager to see similar discussion here.

Very interesting topic indeed! Could we change the title of the thread perhaps or start another? No disrespect intended to sub_girl who want to find her first experience. (good luck lady!) I'm just thinking people who are not in the UK won't read the thread - and will certainly not know what the topic of conversation is.

Ideas?
 
Nirvanadragones said:
Very interesting topic indeed! Could we change the title of the thread perhaps or start another? No disrespect intended to sub_girl who want to find her first experience. (good luck lady!) I'm just thinking people who are not in the UK won't read the thread - and will certainly not know what the topic of conversation is.

Ideas?
I've already PM'd her with that suggestion for that reason! I'd love to hear more thoughts about this.

Is butch supposed to equal top because it's the male role, and therefore males are supposed to be the dominant ones? Where does femdom (And femme-domme!) fit into the equation?
 
Sorry for my ignorance in this topic, but what is dom, femme, and all other terms that go with the same subject?

Thank you for clearing it up for me! And sorry for sounding like an idiot :D ---all of you seem to understand already...

Kasumi
 
kasumi ryu said:
Sorry for my ignorance in this topic, but what is dom, femme, and all other terms that go with the same subject?

Thank you for clearing it up for me! And sorry for sounding like an idiot :D ---all of you seem to understand already...

Kasumi
How will you know if you don't ask? Of course you don't sound like an idiot! I am way oversimplifying it, but:

Dom means dominant, some people use domme for a female version. The counterpart of a dom is a sub or submissive. These are both roles in the world of BDSM.

Femme is someone who is feminine and feels feminine. The counterpart of a femme is a butch, someone who is female but feels masculine and also may look masculine.

So armed with that, do the above posts make more sense? http://www.amanita.net/images/smilies/pinkhope.gif
 
Etoile said:
How will you know if you don't ask? Of course you don't sound like an idiot! I am way oversimplifying it, but:

Dom means dominant, some people use domme for a female version. The counterpart of a dom is a sub or submissive. These are both roles in the world of BDSM.

Femme is someone who is feminine and feels feminine. The counterpart of a femme is a butch, someone who is female but feels masculine and also may look masculine.

So armed with that, do the above posts make more sense? http://www.amanita.net/images/smilies/pinkhope.gif

Thank you so much! Yes, the recent posts are clearer now that I know. Thanks again. :)

Kasumi
 
Hi everyone! This is my first post! I think the even the butch & femme are too constrictive to define people. They are individuals. When we put people in a category there is always going to be someone that says that is not who they are.
 
Is butch supposed to equal top because it's the male role, and therefore males are supposed to be the dominant ones? Where does femdom (And femme-domme!) fit into the equation?

Yes, this is exactly the problem. People assume that someone who looks femme can't possibly take on roles which are associated with masculinity (i.e dominance) and so the only people who can are those who identify with being butch! :rolleyes: As for fem-dom, well i'm not sure where that would fit in. I'm sure theres butch women out there who like to be dominated by femme women. :)
 
Etoile said:
I've already PM'd her with that suggestion for that reason! I'd love to hear more thoughts about this.

Is butch supposed to equal top because it's the male role, and therefore males are supposed to be the dominant ones? Where does femdom (And femme-domme!) fit into the equation?

There is so much to say on this topic i don’t know where to start!

A huge part of my attraction to women is about being drawn to strong lesbian energy. (please note I am not saying butch) I crave feminine mostly, but strong feminine. There's the paradox. I want gentle and intense, yet strong and passionate. I want her to know what she wants, but I also want her to know how to give me what I want. I find that power-play is essential in any healthy relationship.

In addition, I think it seems polar if it's compared to a hetero point of view of male= strong. We all know that varies.

My opinion? It's all in the attitude - which might include mannerisms and body language and style - yet many intangibles there.

P.S.Let's add being a "switch" to this discussion
 
I am embarrassed to say how I found this thread, I would not have opened it unless I was busy with a mild stalk of a certain poster (who is going to remain unnamed).
-----
Opinion section:

I have never found the terms Butch and Dom to be synomyous in any way; one refers to a style and the other to a habit. The same follows for Femme and Sub.
Being butch in no way prevents you from assuming a submissive role in your relationships, nor does being a femme require a submissive attitude.

Nobody who has ever viewed my dress habit, or appearance would call me 'butch' but anyone who has been on the receiving end of my ire would not hesitate to call me 'dom'. This of course does not hold true in all aspects of life, at times I affect the stereotypical style of the 'butch dyke' and at others the 'lipstick les'. My partner is similar; in her dealings with me, she can be either dominant or submissive depending on current mood and situation, and she looks equally good (to me) in coveralls or summer dresses.

Most of us are far too complex to be sorted into Top/Bottom based on our haircut and shoes.

(shoulder length and work boots today, since you ask.) :emoticon:
 
I hadn't expected that this thread would take the turn it did and I was rather expecting some snarky comments. Is it more or less embarrassing that that's why I'm here?

To address to topic at hand, I have said before and I will say again that I utterly despise the concept of butch-femme and I think we should all profit greatly from the demise of that ridiculous contrivance. That is not to say that I am in any way distraught by people's varied and varying personalities and appearances, but simply that I regard the idea of butch-femme and especially any implication of some natural dynamic between as a wholly unnecessary derivation of rightly maligned heteronormativity -- and doubly insulting to boot.

Having said that, I don't regard it as being in any way, shape, or form corresponding to the idea of dominance or submission, or Domme/Sub relationships. That is a whole different question which I feel is not related in any meaningful way to the concept of butch and femme (which as an aside, I would say are adjectives, if you absolutely must use them -- one is butch or femme, one is not a femme or butch).

Nirvanadragones said:
I find that power-play is essential in any healthy relationship.

I would disagree. Statements like that are, in my experience and observation, based either upon a confusion of terms, and especially confusing that which is intentional and controlled with that which is the fluid product of natural interaction, or based upon a sort of wishful thinking and self-justification, depending upon the strength of the conviction. In this case, I would say it is the former. In fact, I would go so far as to say the opposite is true. Power-play is a characteristic of any unhealthy relationship.

I am not saying that it doesn't also exist in healthy relationships, certainly it does, but many, perhaps most, relationships that are healthy and well-adjusted do not involve power-play on any meaningful level. If, for instance, you goes out with a friend and your friend asks "What do you want to do tonight?" and you let them decide, there is no actual power-play involved, your friend is not the Domme of the relationship, since there is no intentional appropriation and relinquishing of power for the purpose of power exchange -- there is no difference because the relationship is not sexual or romantic, either. There is no intent on either party to exercise personal power over the other, it is simply arriving at a decision, the same as any other decision involving two or more people. Without the pre-arranged agreement and intent of engaging in a relationship based upon power, or strongly involving an element of power exchange, if a person is willfully exercising some power over another, who has not agreed to that, they're just controlling -- their power-play is mere manipulation. Which is not generally regarded as the hallmark of healthy relationships.

Now, purely with regard to sex, you might have a slightly better case, but I think it would still be dependent upon the perspectives and intentions of the involved parties -- which need not even agree and that adds a wholly different element. If she feels that she's in control when she does something and you feel that you're in control -- which is it? Or if she has no sense of power being involved and you do -- which is it? Dominance and submission, power-play, is a purely subjective matter.

Having said that, there are certain things which are generally true and at one time or another one partner will take the more assertive role either in a situation or in bed, but that's liable to change at any time -- indeed, in most cases that changes several times over in a, er, session. It would therefore, I think, be better to categorise them in another way, which is less dependent upon those terms, since it isn't expressly about power and isn't explicitly dominant/submissive. Transient incidental leadership, for lack of a better word, is a very different thing from straightforward dominance and power.
 
Quick note - I've gone ahead and changed the thread title.
More thoughtful response to come later!
 
wow what a thread! I can imagine that emotions will be flying high here soon but thats ok. Most of us start this kind of post with saying we dont believe in labels but then go on to talk about it anyway and that is just what im going to do as well :catroar:

Ive always identified as a futch as in feminine dress but prefer to be in control in my life and with my partner. But ive realised lately that im changing. Im tired of being the hunter and the one to always chase and make the first move. I need that too and only recently have I noticed how much i enjoy being more relaxed with women and not being after them but rather the other way around.

I also want to add to this thread that in my 25 odd years of living life as a dyke i am seen as the tom boy type. Im too girly to be butch. But because of the tomboy thing i am expected to go for femmes and for me to make the first move. Ive been very attrated to soft butches and wouldve loved for them to make the first move.

The comment that Nirvana made about power play in a relationship i have had with most of my relationships. Its a give and take thing i think. i like to feel save enough with my SO to know i can tell her when i want her to be in control in the bedroom and in life.
 
Equinoxe said:
I would disagree.
Absolutely! Thank you for point this out to me Equinoxe. My statement is unclear and I apologise for leaving it just there. When I referred to power-play, I was specifically referring to what works for me in my relationships. The dimensions of yin and yang, and many other so called "opposites” are very much part of who I am, including how I relate to a SO, and how I prefer to be related to – this includes a shift of power.

From a sexual perspective, I desire the same. I prefer a swap of "roles and responsibility" if I could be so clinical. Putting the connotation of labels aside, I’d risk saying that I’m a typical switch. I prefer to call it adaptable.

It was a purely subjective statement - I should not have generalised it.

:rose:
 
Nirvanadragones said:
Absolutely! Thank you for point this out to me Equinoxe. My statement is unclear and I apologise for leaving it just there. When I referred to power-play, I was specifically referring to what works for me in my relationships. The dimensions of yin and yang, and many other so called "opposites” are very much part of who I am, including how I relate to a SO, and how I prefer to be related to – this includes a shift of power.

From a sexual perspective, I desire the same. I prefer a swap of "roles and responsibility" if I could be so clinical. Putting the connotation of labels aside, I’d risk saying that I’m a typical switch. I prefer to call it adaptable.

It was a purely subjective statement - I should not have generalised it.

:rose:

I can understand that entirely and I can appreciate that mindset and world-view. :rose:

You're welcome and I hope my response didn't seem too scolding, it's just that particular generalisation (when meant with conviction and not incidental) happens to be something I have fairly recently come to dislike -- I was just having a similar discussion the other week. I should say that right after I had finished and posted that, I really did not wish to actually have to debate that topic, so I was hoping selfishly the the thread would die, but I'm pleased that it didn't.

As for yin and yang, I like a little wu wei.
 
Originally Posted by Nirvanadragones
I find that power-play is essential in any healthy relationship.************



Equinoxe said:
I would disagree. Statements like that are, in my experience and observation, based either upon a confusion of terms, and especially confusing that which is intentional and controlled with that which is the fluid product of natural interaction, or based upon a sort of wishful thinking and self-justification, depending upon the strength of the conviction. In this case, I would say it is the former. In fact, I would go so far as to say the opposite is true. Power-play is a characteristic of any unhealthy relationship.


And i would have to disagree with you on this Equinoxe....In my experience and opinion, Nirvana's original statement was right on target. You may be right in confusion on terms, but sexuality is fluid and that includes the terms used by us and others to describe ourselves...not necessarily to label. I would suggest that we do need some terms that are uniquely queer, but at this moment in time... i'm not aware of the language, but..... i digress.

There is a power exchange in each and every human encounter and i think that it is on rare occasions that the exchange is damaging. One need only be aware of the fact that the exchanges exist to embrace their presence and use them as any other tool in our emotional arsenal, not to get over on anyone, but rather to improve ourselves and our relationships!

The very fluid nature of the power exchange is in whether or not it is a blatant or subtle exchange, whether it is significant for the circumstance or not, and whether or not the people involved are aware or oblivious to the dynamic among other possibilities. None of these cases need involve unhealthiness... none of these instances have to be manipulative!

Equinoxe said:
Now, purely with regard to sex, you might have a slightly better case, but I think it would still be dependent upon the perspectives and intentions of the involved parties -- which need not even agree and that adds a wholly different element. If she feels that she's in control when she does something and you feel that you're in control -- which is it? Or if she has no sense of power being involved and you do -- which is it? Dominance and submission, power-play, is a purely subjective matter.

Having said that, there are certain things which are generally true and at one time or another one partner will take the more assertive role either in a situation or in bed, but that's liable to change at any time -- indeed, in most cases that changes several times over in a, er, session. It would therefore, I think, be better to categorise them in another way, which is less dependent upon those terms, since it isn't expressly about power and isn't explicitly dominant/submissive. Transient incidental leadership, for lack of a better word, is a very different thing from straightforward dominance and power.

You are correct in the fact that these positions and roles, for lack of better brain power at the moment, do change, but that does not mean that on each and every level, with each and every change that there is not a power exchange. There IS an exchange of power and i, for one, would not have it any other way! It is how we feel the ebb and flow of one another. It is a process of learning to give and accept and reciprocate and exchange our own unique, individual powers!
 
Anniejustagirl said:
And i would have to disagree with you on this Equinoxe....In my experience and opinion, Nirvana's original statement was right on target. You may be right in confusion on terms, but sexuality is fluid and that includes the terms used by us and others to describe ourselves...not necessarily to label. I would suggest that we do need some terms that are uniquely queer, but at this moment in time... i'm not aware of the language, but..... i digress.

There is a power exchange in each and every human encounter and i think that it is on rare occasions that the exchange is damaging. One need only be aware of the fact that the exchanges exist to embrace their presence and use them as any other tool in our emotional arsenal, not to get over on anyone, but rather to improve ourselves and our relationships!

The very fluid nature of the power exchange is in whether or not it is a blatant or subtle exchange, whether it is significant for the circumstance or not, and whether or not the people involved are aware or oblivious to the dynamic among other possibilities. None of these cases need involve unhealthiness... none of these instances have to be manipulative!

Very well, but I think that just renders the term meaningless. If everything is power exchange then nothing is power exchange.

I don't think you (general you, not specific you) can prove that all human interaction involves power. If power is an element of all relationships and every single human interaction, then there either has to be an objective dominant and submissive role, which cannot be demonstrated, or everyone's subjective ideas of power would have to be innately tuned in to every interaction and everyone would have to, on an essential level, regard every interaction as being about power, which again cannot be proven.

Any statement about an inherent facet of every human interaction is untenable, there's no way of demonstrating that is universal. One assumes that it is universal, generally to some end.

I don't think it is rarely damaging either, in fact, I think such power is probably more often damaging than not. People are regularly in unhealthy, manipulative relationships. I can't say for certain of course, but if I had to hazard a guess, I would say more relationships are unhealthy than healthy. Of course, that could lead into a tangent about what constitutes a healthy relationship, and I would concede that's a very difficult if not impossible question, to be sure. If one person is aware of having power over another and consciously exercising it and the other has not agreed to it or perhaps is not even aware of it, that is manipulation. I suppose one might think that healthy, and granted, not all manipulation is inherently damaging and unhealthy, but if it's a fundamental part of one's interaction with another, it is liable to become so.

Again, I would disagree that any interaction in any capacity inherently involves power, because in my opinion it doesn't inherently involve anything. An honest power exchange exists solely when and where people regard it as a power exchange. If you do not accept another's power over you, they have no power over you (in a healthy framework of interaction, where no one is physically forced into something, which along with subtler manipulation would fall in the realm of dishonest power exchange). Now, as a caveat to that, one doesn't always accept things consciously and one may accept another having power over them without realising it, which can be potentially painful or not.

Besides which, accepting this idea of power for the sake of argument, if individuals have power over each other, then it becomes somewhat meaningless to discuss power, because one cancels the other out. That I think may be the crux of the issue. In a sense, you could argue that every single person you care about has some power over you (which is perhaps a bit of an assumption, but bear with me), or more accurately, your mind assigns some power over you on their behalf (which has nothing to do with them in fact), but if and when they care about you, the opposite becomes true for them. On a quintessential level, that does not change at any given time either (it can only changes when one ceases to care); there is no exchange in that respect, such power is not in play.

Anniejustagirl said:
You are correct in the fact that these positions and roles, for lack of better brain power at the moment, do change, but that does not mean that on each and every level, with each and every change that there is not a power exchange. There IS an exchange of power and i, for one, would not have it any other way! It is how we feel the ebb and flow of one another. It is a process of learning to give and accept and reciprocate and exchange our own unique, individual powers!

Fair enough, but I still disagree. I don't think that constitutes a power exchange in any meaningful capacity. As I said earlier, if you do not regard it as involving any element of power, it does not involve any element of power. Your relationships and your interactions involve power because you believe that they do and you accept that they do and you want them to -- and more power to you.

Having said everything that I've said in here, I think one could easily make the case that none of this actually constitutes real power exchange anyway. Indeed, it does not, which I would say is a good thing. Power in the sense of real control, not I accept and will do what you ask because I want to, but I will do what you ask because I don't have a choice -- which is a very dangerous proposition. Murder, rape, and theft are exercises of power in that sense. Of course, the original statement was in reference to power-play, which by nature of being play is fundamentally something put-on and pretended -- there is no real exchange of power, because one never cedes the right to say no, even if they agree to do something -- which makes it somewhat nebulous of a concept anyhow. In that sense, power exchange is an elaborate game, where people feign control that they don't have. And only still if such is their wont, which it need not be.

P.S. Would you believe me if I said I was restraining the number of tangents I was going off on?
 
Last edited:
Equinoxe said:
Very well, but I think that just renders the term meaningless. If everything is power exchange then nothing is power exchange.
Not true.... a power exchange is a gift that is often overlooked. When you bring manipulation and greed into the equation, then you bring out the destructive nature of the exchange.... when trying to dominate or gain your own goal at any cost... When power is understood and embraced for it's positive qualities, it truly is a gift! Just because you choose to ignore the exchage or discount it's varied qualities does not mean that it doesn't exist...it exists in all things and therefore does not exist? Sorry... that makes no sense to me. i would argue that all of nature is a power-play, -exchange, -struggle... etc...
Equinoxe said:
I don't think you (general you, not specific you) can prove that all human interaction involves power. If power is an element of all relationships and every single human interaction, then there either has to be an objective dominant and submissive role, which cannot be demonstrated, or everyone's subjective ideas of power would have to be innately tuned in to every interaction and everyone would have to, on an essential level, regard every interaction as being about power, which again cannot be proven.

I think that you can break all interactions down to their base elements... it's not ALL about power exchange, but it is there.... and who said anything about needing proof... i think therefore i am.... it's an opinion and agreeing to disagree is just fine... and as the power Struggle continues... i disagree with you.
Equinoxe said:
Any statement about an inherent facet of every human interaction is untenable, there's no way of demonstrating that is universal. One assumes that it is universal, generally to some end.
There are always exceptions to every rule... that is part of the proof and part of the universality of it all.
Equinoxe said:
I don't think it is rarely damaging either, in fact, I think such power is probably more often damaging than not. People are regularly in unhealthy, manipulative relationships. I can't say for certain of course, but if I had to hazard a guess, I would say more relationships are unhealthy than healthy. Of course, that could lead into a tangent about what constitutes a healthy relationship, and I would concede that's a very difficult if not impossible question, to be sure. If one person is aware of having power over another and consciously exercising it and the other has not agreed to it or perhaps is not even aware of it, that is manipulation. I suppose one might think that healthy, and granted, not all manipulation is inherently damaging and unhealthy, but if it's a fundamental part of one's interaction with another, it is liable to become so.
I have no difficulty seeing that you think power exchanges are damaging. Wish i could gift to you one of my power exchanges... maybe then you could see and feel what i am speaking of.... how the freely exchanged and explored power is a learning experience... an opportunity for growth as are all interactions.

and that is where you keep bringing the negative into it... a power exchange does not have to be about holding power over someone. Lording it over someone does make it destructive.

Power is abused all over the world, everyday... that does not mean that the proper use of power cannot be a good thing.
Equinoxe said:
Again, I would disagree that any interaction in any capacity inherently involves power, because in my opinion it doesn't inherently involve anything. An honest power exchange exists solely when and where people regard it as a power exchange. If you do not accept another's power over you, they have no power over you (in a healthy framework of interaction, where no one is physically forced into something, which along with subtler manipulation would fall in the realm of dishonest power exchange). Now, as a caveat to that, one doesn't always accept things consciously and one may accept another having power over them without realising it, which can be potentially painful or not.
Here, you are not discussing an exchange, but a struggle... hence the confusion in terms and meanings for each, as you mentioned previously. And even in your scenario it can be turned to the positive. IF you see the person is trying to have power Over you... call them on it. Make sure that it is known that you see and do not submit..Negotiate... the person who has refused to submit has now brought her own personal power to the table... will it be freely accepted as the gift of exhange or shall the struggle continue?
Equinoxe said:
Besides which, accepting this idea of power for the sake of argument, if individuals have power over each other, then it becomes somewhat meaningless to discuss power, because one cancels the other out. That I think may be the crux of the issue. In a sense, you could argue that every single person you care about has some power over you (which is perhaps a bit of an assumption, but bear with me), or more accurately, your mind assigns some power over you on their behalf (which has nothing to do with them in fact), but if and when they care about you, the opposite becomes true for them. On a quintessential level, that does not change at any given time either (it can only changes when one ceases to care); there is no exchange in that respect, such power is not in play.

Fair enough, but I still disagree. I don't think that constitutes a power exchange in any meaningful capacity. As I said earlier, if you do not regard it as involving any element of power, it does not involve any element of power. Your relationships and your interactions involve power because you believe that they do and you accept that they do and you want them to -- and more power to you.

Having said everything that I've said in here, I think one could easily make the case that none of this actually constitutes real power exchange anyway. Indeed, it does not, which I would say is a good thing. Power in the sense of real control, not I accept and will do what you ask because I want to, but I will do what you ask because I don't have a choice -- which is a very dangerous proposition. Murder, rape, and theft are exercises of power in that sense. Of course, the original statement was in reference to power-play, which by nature of being play is fundamentally something put-on and pretended -- there is no real exchange of power, because one never cedes the right to say no, even if they agree to do something -- which makes it somewhat nebulous of a concept anyhow. In that sense, power exchange is an elaborate game, where people feign control that they don't have. And only still if such is their wont, which it need not be.

P.S. Would you believe me if I said I was restraining the number of tangents I was going off on?
Yes, i do believe you. I tried to do the same. But i would make this suggestion... step away... and then reread your posts and opinions. In each instance you Seem to be looking at only the negative side to power. Can you see that? You appear to be missing my point of power as a nurturing gift to one another. In my opinion what you are putting forth in your arguments are politicized views of power... the kind of abused powers that too many of us are subjected to in our lives.. and i think that it is blinding you to the potential benefits of healthy power exchanges...whether or not we agree that they are involved in Every exchange. and that's my truth and not necessarily shared by the management. and yet, i stand by it.
 
Anniejustagirl said:
That is long winded.... *sigh*

Well, don't worry about that, I think I got it off on the long-winded portion of today's show.

Firstly, I would say that I understand completely that my posts seem very negative about the idea and I can appreciate why you feel that way, but I don't intend to be so negative about it and I do not mean to imply that all interactions or relationships involving that element are negative, nor do I wish to denigrate or demean your personal opinions or feelings on the subject and I deeply apologise if I seem a bit harsh. I'm not in anyway suggesting that you are wrong about yourself or relationships, or that it is fundamentally damaging, or that it doesn't work wonderfully for you and is not a beautiful experience. I feel I have to point out though that you are suggesting that I am wrong and I am ignoring facets of myself, other people, and my relationships therewith. I do not wish to second-guess your sense of yourself and your relationships and I would appreciate the same courtesy. Or if not, something a bit more substantial to address on that topic.

It's getting a bit lengthy, but to address a few things:

Regarding the issue of whether or not it is an element of all interactions and proof of that, well, I'm sort of shifting in my philosophical schools and debating perspectives throughout and that was wearing my scientist hat, but I'm horrible with logic and empiricism. That does relate somewhat to the aforementioned substantiality though. I simply do not agree with you on it being universal and we shall have to agree to disagree.

With regard to it being rendered meaningless by being universal, what I mean is that if every interaction is a power exchange, then it loses all value and becomes meaningless, it becomes an awkward way of saying interaction. Power in that sense certainly isn't special or in anyway meaningful if it's part of everything, if you engage in a power exchange when go to the market it sort of loses all meaning.

As for struggles and exchanges, yes, I would agree that there is a difference, and a struggle occurs when the exchange is not amenable to one partner.

I think that we are disagreeing a bit on what constitutes power.
 
Last edited:
Equinoxe said:
Firstly, I would say that I understand completely that my posts seem very negative about the idea and I can appreciate why you feel that way, but I don't intend to be so negative about it and I do not mean to imply that all interactions or relationships involving that element are negative, nor do I wish to denigrate nor demean your personal opinions or feelings on the subject and I deeply apologise if I seem a bit harsh. I'm not in anyway suggesting that you are wrong, or that it is fundamentally damaging, or that it doesn't work wonderfully for you and is not a beautiful experience. I feel I have to point out though that you are suggesting that I am wrong and I am ignoring facets of myself, other people, and my relationships therewith. I do not wish to second-guess your sense of yourself and your relationships and I would appreciate the same courtesy. Or if not, something a bit more substantial to address on that topic.

I do not suggest that you are wrong, i suggest another perspective. Disagreeing with someone does not constitute wrongness in my eyes. I disagree, but respect your own truth.



Equinoxe said:
With regard to it being rendered meaningless by being universal, what I mean is that if every interaction is a power exchange, then it loses all value and becomes meaningless, it becomes a awkward way of saying interaction. Power in that sense certainly isn't special or in anyway meaningful if it's part of everything, if you engage in a power exchange when go to the market it sort of loses all meaning.

i think this too is a difference in definition... and i hold to... Power freely and openly exchanged is a gift and never without meaning or the potential to learn and grow... even at the market... and here too, i respect your truth though i disagree.

Equinoxe said:
As for struggles and exchanges, yes, I would agree that there is a difference, and a struggle occurs when the exchange is not amenable to one partner.

I think that we are disagreeing a bit on what constitutes power.

Yes, and then some... and it's all good!

Thank you for the openness to put yourself out there... I have enjoyed the interaction. :cool: And with that.... i bid you a peaceful and gentle morning. :rose:

The sheets have ceased to call my name and are now Screaming at me. Be gentle with yourself. Annie
 
Anniejustagirl said:
I do not suggest that you are wrong, i suggest another perspective. Disagreeing with someone does not constitute wrongness in my eyes. I disagree, but respect your own truth.

Fair enough, I can respect that.

Anniejustagirl said:
i think this too is a difference in definition... and i hold to... Power freely and openly exchanged is a gift and never without meaning or the potential to learn and grow... even at the market... and here too, i respect your truth though i disagree.

I can appreciate that.

Anniejustagirl said:
Yes, and then some... and it's all good!

Thank you for the openness to put yourself out there... I have enjoyed the interaction. :cool: And with that.... i bid you a peaceful and gentle morning. :rose:

The sheets have ceased to call my name and are now Screaming at me. Be gentle with yourself. Annie

Yes, I believe so.

You're most welcome and thank you; I have quite enjoyed the discussion, it has been thought-provoking and rather personal.

Sleep well, I would hate to keep you from the sheets screaming your name. :rose:
 
Back
Top