Indirect & Direct Aggression in D/s

[Lancecastor]

Today's front page of my local newspaper has a wire service story about The International Society for Research on Aggression's conference, which ended yesterday in Montreal, Canada.

The first three paragraphs read:

" Girls may be biologically hard-wired to engage in sophisticated, non-violent forms of aggression that can hurt just as much as a punch in the face from a boy, a conference heard Wednesday.

Indirect aggression among young girls includes gossip, back-biting and social isolation, which researchers say are types of behavior that can drive victims to suicide in extreme cases.

Researchers at a conference in Montreal this week said society may be encouraging indirect aggression among girls in the mistaken belief that such forms of conflict are a suitable alternative to fighting."

The article goes on to quote an academic researcher from the UK and a few others on the various theories...biological, cultural, behavioral....to explain the differences in the ways genders express aggression. (it's a Canadian Press piece so it's bound to be googled, I'd think, if you want to read the entire piece.)

One interesting finding of the research and the conference is the conclusion that indirect "female" aggression is just as harmful as direct "male" aggression...that it is fundamentally the same thing.

In terms of D/s environments, relationships and communications, I find that interesting and wonder if it might be thought provoking for you as well.

I've wondered out loud before here at the postings of a number of female board members who label themselves as submissives...I've sometimes found their words, positions, articulations ironic and/or amusing, because they sounded quite aggressive and, well, dominant and quite aggressive in what was being attempted in the discussion at hand and have suggested before that D/s labels might not be particularly accurate if one steps back and looks at behavioral dynamics.

So, with this article in hand and its suggestion that "aggression is aggression and it's all bad" I'm wondering whether D/s is really in fact about dominance and submission at all...or if it is simply the dance step that allows standard female and male aggression behavior a structured interconnection point.

Those in long term D/s intimate relationships often say that their relationship is fundamentally different at a soul level and that the whips and leather are in effect red herrings to the real core of what makes D/s compelling for them.

Q1: Is D/s a structured way to express the interconnection of indirect aggression and direct aggression?

Q2: Is what happens in a D/s relationship really more properly identified or explained not as D/s...but as DA/IA?

I'd be interested to see what people think....

Cheers;
Lance

 

[RisiaSkye]

This is a great discussion piece, Lance, and it brings up a series of conversations I had in my RL tonight as well. I very much look forward to reading everyone's thoughts and figuring out how to articulate my own--as soon as I've had a full night's sleep and can give it the attention it merits. Thanks in advance for a good discussion.

 

[cellis]

Lance

This is most thought provoking. I am going to have to think a little about this.

 

[Lancecastor]

You're welcome.

This is a great discussion piece, Lance, and it brings up a series of conversations I had in my RL tonight as well. I very much look forward to reading everyone's thoughts and figuring out how to articulate my own--as soon as I've had a full night's sleep and can give it the attention it merits. Thanks in advance for a good discussion.

You're welcome, RS....the article popped out at me when I retreived the paper this morning, and it struck me that perhaps we all struggle in varying degrees with the way we connect here and IRL over what D/s really "means" to us, the way we relate to each other and with people around us generally.

I've always found behavior generally and relationship/gender behavior fascinating stuff. D/s might be one of the most intense, core expressions of interconnection between people and, as it is couched in terms of aggression (at least on the surface), this research seems to me to create a place for discussing the nature of D/s from a new, neutral, yet thought-provoking perspective.

Lance

 

[CarolineOh]

Lance, can we diffuse the potentail dynamite in this thread by agreeing that because someone is submissive, either in a particular relationship or in their relationship behaviors, that does not necessarily have any bearing on how they behave in other areas?
May I assume that we are all in agreement that submission in the bdsm sense does not create an imperative that one interact as a submissive in any and all circumstances?

 

[Hecate]

OUCH!

I will elaborate on this later, but my spontaneous reaction was:

I am a female Dominant .... and how does that fit in with any "social agression pattern"?

I have a female submissive - again, how does the male/female agression pattern theory fit in D/s there?

I personally - in first reaction anyway - want to scream out that D/s structure has NOTHING to do with aggresion at all ....

but as I said - just let the point sit till I have more time to let it sink in ...

 

[artful]

Lance

To semi-quote MzChrista:
Damnm! The man rocked the house on that one.
OK I got me some thinkin to do.

 

[Lancecastor]

I assume nothing.

Lance, can we diffuse the potentail dynamite in this thread by agreeing that because someone is submissive, either in a particular relationship or in their relationship behaviors, that does not necessarily have any bearing on how they behave in other areas?
May I assume that we are all in agreement that submission in the bdsm sense does not create an imperative that one interact as a submissive in any and all circumstances?

I know that some view their submissive sexual and/or intimate relationship practises as being a separate part of who they are.

I also know that some view their submissiveness as being fundamental and all-encompassing to who they are.

The same can be said of/by Dominance and Dominants.

I see no potential dynamite in any of that.

I just see differing views and expressions of how people choose to live their lives.

And so I see no need to create assumptions, preconceived notions or boundaries of any kind in terms of how people choose to think about how the conference's research on aggression relates to D/s and themselves.

I assume nothing.

But I am interested in your thoughts.

Lance

 

[Lancecastor]

Re: OUCH!

I will elaborate on this later, but my spontaneous reaction was:

I am a female Dominant .... and how does that fit in with any "social agression pattern"?

I have a female submissive - again, how does the male/female agression pattern theory fit in D/s there?

I personally - in first reaction anyway - want to scream out that D/s structure has NOTHING to do with aggresion at all ....

but as I said - just let the point sit till I have more time to let it sink in ...

Hi;

I couched the Questions at the end of the thread-starter in non-gender specific terms with everyone in mind, knowing the permutations and combinations here pretty much run the gamut.

In that regard, for our purposes, the behavioral side of the psychology behind the research likely outweighs the biological component....and as many know, the push and pull in psychology between innate and learned behavior is far from settled.

So, assume nothing. Your thoughts and views are all that matter. That's where any gems in this thread will ultimately be found.

Lance

 

[CarolineOh]

My concern is with what you said in this paragraph:

"I've wondered out loud before here at the postings of a number of female board members who label themselves as submissives...I've sometimes found their words, positions, articulations ironic and/or amusing, because they sounded quite aggressive and, well, dominant and quite aggressive in what was being attempted in the discussion at hand and have suggested before that D/s labels might not be particularly accurate if one steps back and looks at behavioral dynamics. "

That statement could be read to imply that those who do not behave submissively on the board, or take what you might consider submissive positions on issues are in some way less than authentic in the nature of their submission.

I think this is an interesting topic and I would enjoy joining in a discussion of it, but if that is the supposition on which the discussion is premised, I will respectfully decline to participate.

 

[Lancecastor]

All the more reason for you to participate.

My concern is with what you said in this paragraph:

"I've wondered out loud before here at the postings of a number of female board members who label themselves as submissives...I've sometimes found their words, positions, articulations ironic and/or amusing, because they sounded quite aggressive and, well, dominant and quite aggressive in what was being attempted in the discussion at hand and have suggested before that D/s labels might not be particularly accurate if one steps back and looks at behavioral dynamics. "

That statement could be read to imply that those who do not behave submissively on the board, or take what you might consider submissive positions on issues are in some way less than authentic in the nature of their submission.

I think this is an interesting topic and I would enjoy joining in a discussion of it, but if that is the supposition on which the discussion is premised, I will respectfully decline to participate.

I hope it's not lost on you that you are telling us you won't participate unless I change my opinion.

Is that a stick of indirect dynamite you've got there...or are you just happy to see me?

Give it some thought; might be fun.

Lance

 

[CarolineOh]

Re: All the more reason for you to participate.

I hope it's not lost on you that you are telling us you won't participate unless I change my opinion.

Is that a stick of indirect dynamite you've got there...or are you just happy to see me?

Give it some thought; might be fun.

Lance

I did not ask you to change your opinion, I asked you to clarify it. I am not trying to start a pointless argument, but prevent one.

 

[Never]

Lancecastor:
"Girls may be biologically hard-wired to engage in sophisticated, non-violent forms of aggression that can hurt just as much as a punch in the face from a boy, a conference heard Wednesday.

Indirect aggression among young girls includes gossip, back-biting and social isolation, which researchers say are types of behavior that can drive victims to suicide in extreme cases.

Researchers at a conference in Montreal this week said society may be encouraging indirect aggression among girls in the mistaken belief that such forms of conflict are a suitable alternative to fighting."

The article goes on to quote an academic researcher from the UK and a few others on the various theories...biological, cultural, behavioral....to explain the differences in the ways genders express aggression. (it's a Canadian Press piece so it's bound to be googled, I'd think, if you want to read the entire piece.)

One interesting finding of the research and the conference is the conclusion that indirect "female" aggression is just as harmful as direct "male" aggression...that it is fundamentally the same thing."


First, since when is gossiping not direct aggression? It's just less likely to get you a black eye; you can take on someone twice your size with your tongue.

Secondly, since when do boys not gossip? I've listened to boys talk about how people who they don't like are assholes, fags, idiots, etc. And boys don't practice social isolation? That's a new one to me.

Girls don't fight? Please, come to my last high school; an upper-middle class, 98% white, ultra-literal, Pacific NW school. Let me show you the girls who smoke cigarettes, drink, get high, have sex, and kick each other to the ground while everyone else at the bus stop cheers them on, before going home and lying about all of it. No proof, no problem.

None of these finding are new. Desmond Morris used to go on and on about chickens and chimps, pecking and picking, fighting and gossiping. Competitive impulses aren't a bad thing; people who are on top don't get there by holding hands and singing kum-ba-ah. Do you think professional hockey and football are popular because adults have freed themselves from aggressive impulses and it's only those pesky kids who want to play king-of-the-hill?

Aggression can be harmful, yep. But it's also healthy. I've never met a person that didn't gossip, I don't think I ever will or would ever want to. As for telling kids to not physically fight in schools, that's just another way of saying, "Go beat each other up outside of school so when the kid who get the shit beat out of him every week kills himself or others no one can sue us."

As for D/s. Well, I'm no expert on this subject but in my experience aggression becomes assertiveness the higher up the totem pole you climb. The little dog barks the loudest and all that. If you're in control of yourself and sure of yourself you don't need to go around kicking others down, but I don't think that has anything to do with being a dominant or a submissive. Social hierarchies and sexual power roles are not indicative of one another.

I don't think that Z->Y, or Y->Z, or Y<-X->Z.

~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
Does not think calling another girl a slut is sophisticated.

 

[Lancecastor]

Clarity.

I did not ask you to change your opinion, I asked you to clarify it. I am not trying to start a pointless argument, but prevent one.

My anecdotal observation that some submissive female behavior appears to be actually dominant has correlation, I think, with indirect and direct aggression, respectively.

And that possible correlation is what I am hoping to promote discussion about.

Here are Links to ISRA (which I'd never heard of before today) and the story I read:

http://www.israsociety.com/

http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2002/08/01/f177.raw.html

Hope this helps;
Lance

 

[MsWorthy]

Today's front page of my local newspaper has a wire service story about The International Society for Research on Aggression's conference, which ended yesterday in Montreal, Canada.

The first three paragraphs read:

" Girls may be biologically hard-wired to engage in sophisticated, non-violent forms of aggression that can hurt just as much as a punch in the face from a boy, a conference heard Wednesday.

Indirect aggression among young girls includes gossip, back-biting and social isolation, which researchers say are types of behavior that can drive victims to suicide in extreme cases.

Researchers at a conference in Montreal this week said society may be encouraging indirect aggression among girls in the mistaken belief that such forms of conflict are a suitable alternative to fighting."

The article goes on to quote an academic researcher from the UK and a few others on the various theories...biological, cultural, behavioral....to explain the differences in the ways genders express aggression. (it's a Canadian Press piece so it's bound to be googled, I'd think, if you want to read the entire piece.)

One interesting finding of the research and the conference is the conclusion that indirect "female" aggression is just as harmful as direct "male" aggression...that it is fundamentally the same thing.

In terms of D/s environments, relationships and communications, I find that interesting and wonder if it might be thought provoking for you as well.

I've wondered out loud before here at the postings of a number of female board members who label themselves as submissives...I've sometimes found their words, positions, articulations ironic and/or amusing, because they sounded quite aggressive and, well, dominant and quite aggressive in what was being attempted in the discussion at hand and have suggested before that D/s labels might not be particularly accurate if one steps back and looks at behavioral dynamics.

So, with this article in hand and its suggestion that "aggression is aggression and it's all bad" I'm wondering whether D/s is really in fact about dominance and submission at all...or if it is simply the dance step that allows standard female and male aggression behavior a structured interconnection point.

Those in long term D/s intimate relationships often say that their relationship is fundamentally different at a soul level and that the whips and leather are in effect red herrings to the real core of what makes D/s compelling for them.

Q1: Is D/s a structured way to express the interconnection of indirect aggression and direct aggression?

Q2: Is what happens in a D/s relationship really more properly identified or explained not as D/s...but as DA/IA?

I'd be interested to see what people think....

Cheers;
Lance

I think in order to discuss this we must all be "on the same page," as I like to say. What do you mean by "aggression?"

My idea of what aggression is, is not how it is defined in dictionaries. The following is what I, immediately, had access to.



Websters Dictionary

1. Hostile action or behavior; an unprovoked attack.



American Heritage Dictionary
AG-GRES-SION

1. An unprovoked attack on another.
2. The habit or practice of launching attacks.
3. Hostile action or behavior.



Lycos Dictionary
ag•gres•sion


Pronunciation: (u-gresh'un), [key]
—n.
1. the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like: The army is prepared to stop any foreign aggression.
2. any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights.
3. the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.
4. Psychiatry.overt or suppressed hostility, either innate or resulting from continued frustration and directed outward or against oneself.


If this is the definition you are using, or the one meant in that article. I do not think aggression has anything to do with d/s.

~more to say after we are all on the same page~

 

[Hecate]

I told you I'd be back!

You stated in your response to my previous "quicky" the following:
quote: So, assume nothing.
I am left a bit puzzled.... I don't really know what we are supposed to be discussing anymore to be honest. Nevertheless, for argument's sake I need a few basics to be laid out – if nothing is "preset" what can be discussed?

this is the right time to leave before I get into rambling mode – you have been warned!

Indirect & Direct Aggression in D/s


Ok – I HAVE been thinking about it, and NO, I still refuse to acknowledge any aggression pattern as being linked to D/s behaviours.

I furthermore stubbornly refuse to accept D/s as a quote: structured way to express the interconnection of indirect aggression and direct aggression

Mind you, I am not saying there is no aggression in D/s relations – there is, because they are relations first and you can never escape aggression in some even subtle way when people are interacting on a intense, close basis. What I am saying is that the D/s bit is not triggered or changed by that.

Actually – I think one of the least influenced bits by those "aggression patterns" is D/s play itself.

For easier writing let me just make a few assumptions:
Direct ("male") aggression = expressing your aggression in violent ways (= includes open harsh words or physical release)
Indirect ("female") aggression = using more subtle, psychological means (= includes pretense and withdrawing)

For argument's sake (and since the questions were phrased neutral) let's further assume Dom means a dominant partner of either gender while sub is the submissive counterpart in whatever gender combination. Now imagine the above stated "aggression release action" in D/s play.

Let us imagine a Dom / sub – Direct/indirect combination
Situation: Dom uses violence, sub goes "pouting" (= social isolation of aggressor)
Result: Not working – danger of abuse from Dom side and lack of communication on sub side

Let us imagine a Dom / sub – Indirect/direct combination
Situation: Dom plays "mind games" on sub, sub reacts violent
Result: Not acceptable – absolutely blowing that relation in no time!

Let us imagine a Dom / sub – Direct/direct combination
Situation: Dom uses violence, sub reacts violent
Result: Major damage may be avoided since you get a swift counter reaction ... relation???

Let us imagine a Dom / sub – Indirect/indirect combination
Situation: Dom plays "mind games", sub reacts "pouting" (= social isolation of aggressor)
Result: unhealthy though maybe not physically harmful, no fun in the long run.


So I need to ask: How come ANY D/s relation works at all?
Answer (mine anyway): because they are NOT triggered by aggression patterns.


Of course those above VERY VERY simplified patterns will not display themselves that clearly, they may or may not influence people ... but I have seen all sorts of people get into all sorts of D/s relations – and there is one thing they sure did NOT have in common – some form of aggression pattern.

For me, D/s includes control (as well as about a lot of other things) - including the control over your own emotions and reactions being part of it. Aggression is mayinly an uncontrolled emotion when manifested in any harmful way, which has no room in the D/s part of a relation. D/s is about trust - and uncontrolled emotion is not to be trusted - on neither side of the D/s-equation.

I have seen strong, determined men and women who would never step away from any open confrontation, who detest all "behind the back – around the bush" things make wonderful, serving, dedicated submissives. They were facing their demons NOW, on the spot, confronting their respective Dominants with all that caused them reason for aggression – which I would take is the direct type.

I have seen deeply political, social players, never openly going into a confrontation, whom I would consider to be the indirect type. They too made wonderful submissives, of a different kind, with more need to get to their core, their motives. But they enjoyed the "release" from all the politics and hiding in a determined D/s context of open and honest exchange of thought.

Then there are the straight forward Dom/mes, again, rather willing to get into a fight (and I don't mean that only physical, but I count a good "shouting match" in that category as well, where you "hit" your opponent openly with what you have to say) than backing away to hide behind a smile and a venom tooth to be shown at some later point.

And we have the Dom/mes who are playing the full range of mind games in their lives and professions, carefully, secretively plotting and scheming. But very clearly dominant, in charge of their fate and of those they dominate.

The need and feel for power exchange – as far as I am concerned – is not linked to any other "trait" of your personality. It is just something "own".

I was about to now get into the "details" of the copied paragraphs and set off on another rant about the "male/female" "direct/indirect" thing.

But I guess I made my point, so suffice to say that

YES! All forms of aggression if pushed to the limit are BAD, hurting and dangerous.
NO! I don't think a bit of either direct release (shouting at someone) or indirect release (entertaining gossiping) are harmful to society or the individual as long as we respect certain personal rights of each other.

YES! I think the indirect approach is more accepted to "solve conflict" these days. At least it doesn't get you sued as quickly as a slap in the face.
NO! It is not a female thing – men are getting GOOD at it, seeing the mobbing at work places developing lately they must!


Conclusion: Until someone showes me a convincing correlation I still - stubbornly - refuse to see any connection between agression patterns and D/s!

 

[Lancecastor]

Huh?

What do you mean by "aggression?"

My idea of what aggression is, is not how it is defined in dictionaries.

I do not think aggression has anything to do with d/s.

I use the word "aggression" in accordance with its' ordinary dictionary definition(s).

I can't speak for the authors in the links provided, but feel reasonably safe in saying they're using the same dictionaries as you have.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts in full.

Lance

 

[morninggirl5]

Re: Clarity.

My anecdotal observation that some submissive female behavior appears to be actually dominant has correlation, I think, with indirect and direct aggression, respectively.

And that possible correlation is what I am hoping to promote discussion about.

Here are Links to ISRA (which I'd never heard of before today) and the story I read:

http://www.israsociety.com/

http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2002/08/01/f177.raw.html

Hope this helps;
Lance

Your statment about submissives and "aggression" hit me wrong, as well. It's very, very hard to read that statement and not hear the resonations of all those "well, you're not submissive" and "are you sure you're a submissive" remarks that we've heard from the pretenders when we state clearly what we are looking for and question their beliefs and attitudes. Once your submissiveness, your very self has been questioned in this way, there is an alertness to the suggestion that is perhaps too acute at times.

That being out there in my mind, i'm going to take the time to read the article and try to look at it purely from the viewpoint of the Pscychology. From the summary you presented here, i have several questions already about the research itself.

 

[WillowPuss]

I too want to take time to really read (and allow my reading to sink in) before answering this thread.


One thing I am a little puzzled over though is the very point that Caroline and mg5 have touched upon - the fact that some submissives may lay themselves open to the charge of showing 'non-submissive behaviour' if they try to press their point of view.

I may be totally wrong in this, but I thought that being a submissive didn't automatically turn one into a dorrmat so that all and sundry may walk all over them. I thought that it was perfectly in order for a submissive to hold opinions, and would be encouraged to express their opinions by any Dom/me of worth. That they should exprss themselves in a calm and thoughtful manner, but express themselves nonetheless.
Have I got that fundemental thing wrong?

 

[spankableBelle]

this is absolutely most assuredly a fasciating topic...i am learning much here...~smile~

belle

 

[artful]

Ok,...I have done my thinking

I have let this drift in and out of my mind at leisure. Chewing it, while it knawed at my senses. I apologise up front that my keystrokes may not present my thoughts or opinions clearly,
but if anyone has a specific question about it, just fire away.(I may not have an answer,...but it won't offend me)

(the following is not from any dictionary)
Aggressive behavior is forward impacting, it may or may not be felt necessary, dependent solely on the judgement of the aggressor. It can be planned or spontaneous. It is necessarily an action toward SOMETHING, whether it be physical or verbal.

Defensive behavior is quite the opposite. It only wishes to maintain its position.(neither advancing or retreating)

We being creatures of rational thought processes,
can at anytime, switch back and forth from one to the other. Herein lays the problem of defining
what IS,...and what is NOT, aggressive or defensive behavior.

Personally,...I don't see any correlation between
Domination and aggression, or submissiveness to defensiveness.

These are my opinions,...I own them,...but I respect any other views that may not agree with them.

 

[MissTaken]

Random Thoughts! So please, patience!

I believe that there are times when a D/s relationship is based on this theory of patterned aggressive behavior . Unfortunately, the power exhange does not occure in an SSC manner. In fact, the players aren't even aware of D/s or BDSM or anything else.

Now, what is she talking about, you are asking yourselves?


Domestic Violence.

Is their domestic violence in D/s relationships? I have heard of situations, as have we all. These situations often involve Doms who have little or no anger management skills and the violence occurs outside of a mutually sexually satisfying arena.

There is my half baked thought for today.

Essentially, no, I don't believe that D/s has anything to do with aggressive behavior patterns. However, I can't get into the mind of a Dom.

Isn't honesty an essential step in BDSM? Wouldn't that dissolve the issue of indirect aggression in a healthy relationship?

Isn't communication and essential issue in BDSM? Wouldn't that dissolve the issue of D aggression?

Okay okay
I just woke from a nap and have confetti brain.

Be back later!

 

[MsWorthy]

Websters Dictionary

1. Hostile action or behavior; an unprovoked attack.



American Heritage Dictionary
AG-GRES-SION

1. An unprovoked attack on another.
2. The habit or practice of launching attacks.
3. Hostile action or behavior.

Lycos Dictionary
ag•gres•sion


Pronunciation: (u-gresh'un), [key]
—n.
1. the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like: The army is prepared to stop any foreign aggression.
2. any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights.
3. the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.
4. Psychiatry.overt or suppressed hostility, either innate or resulting from continued frustration and directed outward or against oneself.


I am having difficulty seeing any correlation between hostility (the general definition of aggression) and d/s. My opinion would be that d/s is the antithesis of hostility.

In a d/s relationship there is no need to hide one's feelings and desires; this is what our relationships explore. There is no need to harbor resentment; communication takes care of any resentment that may come up. This is why communication is so much a part of a good d/s relationship.

There is no need for explosions of anger. Control over ourselves is our hallmark. There is no need for lying, pretending, pouting, or striking in anger or out of frustration; control of oneself and communication solve these problems; again two important aspects of d/s relationships.

There is no need for temper tantrums, stomping off in anger, or putting one's partner down in order to make yourself feel bigger; we each feel "big" already because of the valued "roles" we hold in our relationship.

These are the causes of hostility and in a d/s relationship there is no place for any of them. They are the very problems we work directly to avoid/solve/confront/prevent.

So, with this article in hand and its suggestion that "aggression is aggression and it's all bad" I'm wondering whether D/s is really in fact about dominance and submission at all...or if it is simply the dance step that allows standard female and male aggression behavior a structured interconnection point.

If, as you and/or the article states, "aggression is all bad," how can a correlation be made between d/s and aggression unless one believes that d/s relationships are inherently "bad?"

I've wondered out loud before here at the postings of a number of female board members who label themselves as submissives...I've sometimes found their words, positions, articulations ironic and/or amusing, because they sounded quite aggressive and, well, dominant and quite aggressive in what was being attempted in the discussion at hand and have suggested before that D/s labels might not be particularly accurate if one steps back and looks at behavioral dynamics.

This only holds true if you believe that dominant = aggressive or, at least, that they are closely related
and that submissive does not equal aggressive.

Q1: Is D/s a structured way to express the interconnection of indirect aggression and direct aggression?

Q2: Is what happens in a D/s relationship really more properly identified or explained not as D/s...but as DA/IA?

I'd be interested to see what people think....

Q1: No, I see no relationship between aggression and d/s.
Q2: No, I see d/s as an exchange of power; a way of relating and expressing personality differences.

 

[artful]

A few observations

Random Thoughts! So please, patience!

I believe that there are times when a D/s relationship is based on this theory of patterned aggressive behavior .<snip>As could be said for vanilla relationship.




Now, what is she talking about, you are asking yourselves?


Domestic Violence.

Is their domestic violence in D/s relationships? <snip>As could be said for vanilla relationships.


Isn't honesty an essential step in BDSM?<snip>As could be said for vanilla relationships.

Wouldn't that dissolve the issue of indirect aggression in a healthy relationship?<snip>Not sure of the question here

Isn't communication an essential issue in BDSM? <snip>As could be said for vanilla relationships.

Wouldn't that dissolve the issue of D aggression?
<snip>Not sure of the question here

Okay okay
I just woke from a nap and have confetti brain.

Be back later!

 

[artful]

Re: Re: Indirect & Direct Aggression in D/s

If, as you and/or the article states, "aggression is all bad," how can a correlation be made between d/s and aggression unless one believes that d/s relationships are inherently "bad?"



This only holds true if you believe that dominant = aggressive or, at least, that they are closely related
and that submissive does not equal aggressive.



Q1: No, I see no relationship between aggression and d/s.
Q2: No, I see d/s as an exchange of power; a way of relating and expressing personality differences.

I totally agree with MsWorthy's opinion!