Manipulation and mind games

[LaPetitePapillion]

What sexual/non-sexual manipulations and mind games (fucks) do Dom/mes use?

Is it abusive or is it a part of D/s or D/d(l) roleplay? How would either of you know the difference? Even if it doesn’t seem wrong?

 

[IrisAlthea]

I knew a woman years ago, online in a video chatroom who surprised me with the amount of dominance she could express simply by controlling the tempo of the conversation.

Yes, it is like they ration themselves. I always wonder if is just a tool or if they actually enjoy doing it. I mean, when it is not just doing their thing the way they feel like, but actually rationing the interaction as a reward system.
It is interesting to watch someone who plays the game well, in any case .

Is it abusive or is it a part of D/s or D/d(l) roleplay? How would either of you know the difference? Even if it doesn’t seem wrong?

It’s a great question but hard to answer.

I think it is something you will get to some extent in any relationship and the line where it becomes actual abuse is not always easy to draw, I think.

In BDSM, there can be an awareness or even ageement that it is part of the package and that can make it less likely to become abusive but on the other hand people are still people and a lot of abusive behaviour can hide behind the BDSM.

For me, there have been times when I can see the game that is played, the timing of the interaction, the running hot and cold, the extra or galantry etc and enjoy the game and willingly let myself be part of it.
How do I know that there aren’t layers that I don’t see and that I’m falling for? I don’t think I can.
While I can’t quite put words to where I draw the line when it becomes abusive, I can say that intent is a big part of it. How well communication works at large, is a big factor too.

Sorry, I can’t make more sense of the topic.

 

[roshnikhanna]

manipulation because literally anybody can fall for it without knowing the true intentions.

 

[LaPetitePapillion]

I knew a woman years ago, online in a video chatroom who surprised me with the amount of dominance she could express simply by controlling the tempo of the conversation. I tend to think fast, type fast, and respond fast. But she took her time, making me wait... sometimes only for a one word response. When she opened up and gave me a few sentences it seemed like paradise, but she never let me have that for long.

My wife does the same thing when we text when I'm on the road. Lately she has decided to impose a "schedule" of sorts. She will text when she wakes up and is having coffee. When that conversation ends, she will not text or respond until early evening. The middle of the day is for her to get things done around the house and spend time with friends. Sometime around dinner, she will text me, either to talk for a while... or just to say she's going out.

Both of these women were/are frustrating at times because they do things their way regardless of how I feel about it. But when they give their attention it feels like the morning sun shining on my face.

That is interesting but I see how you feel so I can understand the frustration and how they have your attention until they are ready to reply. It would drive me crazy! I’m like you with thinking, saying, responding.

 

[LaPetitePapillion]

Sub here
There’s the Press. Which is more just coercing what the sub already wants but may be reluctant to do.

Your Dom/me coerces you to do something you may feel hesitant about? Or you mean in general they might do that?

I wouldn’t use the term Abuse necessarily. As a sub, I employ teasing and bratting. I’m sure some could say that’s abuse but for me it’s just part of play.

Teasing and bratting (if you are a SAM or a brat) can be abusive to the Dom/me? I didn’t know that, I thought brats act up a little. (Speaking as a brat, vanilla and sexually,lol).

 

[LaPetitePapillion]

Yes, it is like they ration themselves. I always wonder if is just a tool or if they actually enjoy doing it. I mean, when it is not just doing their thing the way they feel like, but actually rationing the interaction as a reward system.
It is interesting to watch someone who plays the game well, in any case .



It’s a great question but hard to answer.

I think it is something you will get to some extent in any relationship and the line where it becomes actual abuse is not always easy to draw, I think.

In BDSM, there can be an awareness or even ageement that it is part of the package and that can make it less likely to become abusive but on the other hand people are still people and a lot of abusive behaviour can hide behind the BDSM.

For me, there have been times when I can see the game that is played, the timing of the interaction, the running hot and cold, the extra or galantry etc and enjoy the game and willingly let myself be part of it.
How do I know that there aren’t layers that I don’t see and that I’m falling for? I don’t think I can.
While I can’t quite put words to where I draw the line when it becomes abusive, I can say that intent is a big part of it. How well communication works at large, is a big factor too.

Sorry, I can’t make more sense of the topic.

That’s what I’m having a hard time figuring out too. Especially when he is hot and cold then makes me wait. I feel like a puppy who is waiting for the stick but maybe there isn’t one. Then he throws it and I’m so relieved that I forget about the stick.

 

[IrisAlthea]

That’s what I’m having a hard time figuring out too. Especially when he is hot and cold then makes me wait. I feel like a puppy who is waiting for the stick but maybe there isn’t one. Then he throws it and I’m so relieved that I forget about the stick.

That’s a game I have a rather low tolerance for, personally.

I think duration is an important factor and whether there is some overarching trust that they would tell you if they are done trowing sticks for good.

In the end I don’t think it matters so much if it could be called abuse or not. The question is perhaps rather if the rush of relief is worth it for you.

The reason I say that my tolerance for that particular game is low, is that I know that I tend to pull back to prevent resentment. I might not necessarily call it quits, but I can feel how I start relying less on them and I stop counting on them.
In a relationship where the intention is imtimacy and closeness, I think it’s more fair to tell them how I react, how I feel about it and how it works for me, so they can make an informed decison about where they want to go with things.

For some, it’s not a game though, but rather who they are.
I have a few people of that kind in my life, who are good fun when they turn up but I don’t count on them and I don’t change my plans for them.

 

[twister947]

I know the feeling. You think you're in the middle of a conversation, and suddenly you're there by yourself. I think it's as simple as the other person being busy and just taking care of business.

 

[Zenith77]

Is it abusive or is it a part of D/s or D/d(l) roleplay?

The subject of abuse and BDSM is one that's close to my heart. Over the years, I've picked up many a submissive that has been exposed to, or trapped in, abusive relationships, and seen the damage it causes.

So please forgive me while I soapbox up.

The outsider-view of abuse in BDSM is that BDSM incorporates consensual play, and therefore anything non-consensual is abuse.

Sorry, bullshit. Wrong on both counts.

The line between consensuality and non-consensuality is not the line of 'abuse', but the line beyond which we push limits. Unless and until a safeword is used - or some other, equally clear form of communicating that something has to stop occurs - there's a wide gamut of very important aspects of dominance and submission that can be enjoyed within this remit. CNC, edgy play, humiliation, pushing boundaries, experimentation, exploration, and a whole bunch of other stuff can fall - quite harmlessly (ultimately...) and enjoyably - in this section. Some extremely positive defining experiences, both sexual and spiritual, can be found in this section. Although start with a basis of familiarity and trust before you go jumping in here, right?

So what is abuse?

Over the years I've come to realise that abuse is anything that actively causes harm - be it intended or accidental, mental or physical. The mental form of abuse is a helluva lot harder to spot - especially the unintentional variety - even and particularly when you're on the receiving end of it, both within and without of BDSM relationships.

And this is another area where the outsider or inexperienced view gets it wrong.

Physical abuse is abuse, yes. That's easy. That's ignoring limits, ignoring safewords, going too far, doing lasting damage. Such things need to be dealt with by the relevant people as quickly as possible, and outside help (from trusted sources) sought - also as quickly as possible. I'm going to gloss over it, not because it's not important (it's obviously crucially important) but because we all know about it. We can, at least, recognise it. See the signs. Yes, dealing with it, in some circumstances, can be extremely challenging - but at least we can see it for what it is.

Not so with mental abuse.

It's the mental abuse that is so much harder to spot.

Mental abuse can take many forms, but at its core it is constant belittlement, the tearing down of a person's personality, a tiny bit at a time. Mental abuse is the damage to self-esteem, to identity, to the sense of self-worth.

Negative things are, psychologically speaking, approximately three-to-four times more impactful than positive things - which I'll call the '4:1 ratio' - in other words, they are three-to-four times* more likely to be believed. That's massive.

Tap, tap, tap, drip, drip, drip - and, quite often, the victim can become dependent on their abuser, because they are so used to believing exclusively what their abuser says, that their abuser becomes the centre of their life.

This isn't merely objectification, or derogatory name calling, or other verbal aspects of (some styles of) play - although, confusingly, it could be - it's anything that hurts, and is allowed to stay as a hurt. If it's not addressed with after-care, if it's not carefully managed, if it's not corrected, or dispelled (on that extremely vital 4:1 ratio - in other words, it needs to be corrected or dispelled four times for every once that it is used, if the goal is to leave no lasting effect), then it's abuse.

And here's a further complication: very few people know this. Most people think it's ok to call someone a 'worthless slut' during play, and then afterwards go 'That was hot, wasn't it? Oh, and by the way, of course you're not really a worthless slut. Here, have a cuddle'. Do that often enough, and that person is absolutely convinced they're a worthless slut. Despite how strong their mind was a few weeks prior, before this all started.

In the preceding example, we saw a 1:1 ratio of negative : positive. This, simply speaking, leaves a strongly negative lingering effect, because the negative stuff is four times more easily believed. It must be addressed, corrected, and positively reaffirmed at least four times for the effect to be dispelled. 4:1 is neutrality - by which I mean, the negative is negated. If you want to leave a lasting positive effect, you need 5:1.

And no one buys that. Everyone thinks, 'Yeah I know negative shit is easier to believe, but 4:1? Dude, you're exaggerating'. But there's been psychological studies done in all walks of life - from feedback in highly competitive professional environments, to Olympic athletes, to long-term successful relationships. Trust me. It's 4:1. Go research it.

So it happens by accident, too, and that's one for all of us to look out for.

It's the (vanilla) house wife that tells her husband he's 'useless' - either in thought, word or deed - on one minor thing after another, day in, day out. It's the boss at work that never has anything positive to say about a long-term employee. It's the friend, who has to put you down to make them feel big.

The counter for abuse is affirmation - building someone up. Do that, regularly, anyway. With everyone. Always. Please.

How would either of you know the difference? Even if it doesn’t seem wrong?

And that's how. If the effect lingers, it's abuse. If it hasn't been consciously mitigated on a 4:1 ratio, it's abuse. If you still feel the sting of the words when the after care has finished, it's abuse.

Gonna get off my soap box now, but I hope this has given at least someone something to think about.

Z.



* (it's actually 3.7:1 on average, according to the most widely esteemed studies, but that doesn't allow for the particular sensitivity and vulnerability of BDSM-related play. I'd call it 4:1, personally).

 

[Primalex]

What sexual/non-sexual manipulations and mind games (fucks) do Dom/mes use?

Domination.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Domination.

Hm, I’ve turned this over in my head a lot and poked at it.
Would you say that domination is manipulation/a mind game (as in domination⊆manipulation/mind game) or just that it can be at times?

 

[PaxNurgle]

To me, what kinked_a_Bit describes, sounds like a lot of the silly games women (and probably a lot of guys too) play in the early stages of the vanilla dating game. I have always preferred honest communication, even in a D/S type power exchange situation, and games like this, its like, you never know where you stand. Is she into it or not, is she serious or just stringing you along, and so on.

I suppose once you have a deep understanding and a long lasting committed relationship, it's different but when it's just the early stages of hanging out, casual dating, and people pull this kind of stuff I find this kind of thing to be a turn-off. It's like that girl that gives you her number and seems to want you to call her, but whenever you do, she never answers her phone. But then she calls you either when you at work or otherwise not available, but when you call her back after you get home, suddenly she won't answer. I suspect every guy who has played the dating game has dealt with this "phone tease" kind of thing at some point, and after a while, it gets to be enough of a turn-off that you end up moving on.

 

[IrisAlthea]

To me, what kinked_a_Bit describes, sounds like a lot of the silly games women (and probably a lot of guys too) play in the early stages of the vanilla dating game. I have always preferred honest communication, even in a D/S type power exchange situation, and games like this, its like, you never know where you stand. Is she into it or not, is she serious or just stringing you along, and so on.

I can’t speak for @kinked_a_bit but this is not the kind of behaviour that I talked about in my reply.
I’m not sure I can make much sense of the difference but to me, what you talk about is usually coming from a position of weakness by someone who is playing games to win the upper hand, by making the other person feel small or insecure.
It is rarely interesting to watch and it is usually annoying to deal with
I may have to deal with that in office or family politics but otherwise I’ll pass.
The running hot and cold to actually make you insecure is an example of that in my opinion.

There are people though, who just do things their way at their speed, because that is how it works for them.
They are in power over themselves and they like to be in control over the situations they are in but in my experience they don’t have the need to tear the other person down.
You might have to play by their rules if you want to play, but they are generally decent and understanding about others preferring to do things their way because they aren’t threatened by it.

I don’t know if that makes any sense?

 

[Primalex]

Hm, I’ve turned this over in my head a lot and poked at it.
Would you say that domination is manipulation/a mind game (as in domination⊆manipulation/mind game) or just that it can be at times?

Domination is manipulation. Free will is an illusion.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Domination is manipulation. Free will is an illusion.

I’ve thought about it some more and I think what made it stick in my craw, is that I tend to associate manipulation with underhanded, treacherous. (The swedish word that comes up for me is very much like the german hinterhältig and those are the words that came up that seemed to fit best when I searched for english words to explain.)

To me, domination isn’t inherently negative, so it grated.
Looking at english definitions of the word manipulation though, they have less of a negative connotation than the swedish.

The part about free will is very interesting.
I’m not quite sure about how you link it in this context?
And less on topic, but not totally I think: I’m curious how you look on moral responsibility in relation in relation to the lack of free will?
My educational background makes me see us as interdependent parts of a system which makes the concept of free will difficult but I was also raised with a lot of emphasis on personal responsibility. I haven’t really found a good way to fully reconcile the two, hence the question.

 

[Primalex]

To me, domination isn’t inherently negative, so it grated.

But it is, isn't it? If the silverback drives away the competition and happily fucks his sluts, you might argue that it's not bad because the best genes are the best for the pack yada yada, but it would be a kinda lame excuse, wouldn't it be? Domination is selfish, if it wouldn't be, it would be called "coworking".

The part about free will is very interesting.
I’m not quite sure about how you link it in this context?

If I deliberately cause your body to release hormones to make you horny, how much free will do you really have left to keep your legs closed?

I’m curious how you look on moral responsibility in relation in relation to the lack of free will?

In the end, does it really matter? We don't kill the mosquito because sucking blood is immoral - but because we can and because it's better for us. Locking up people because it's better for our society is a good (or least okayish) reason even if the people didn't act immoral.

Look at the combo catholic church+suicide+mental illness. The idea that killing yourself while under a mental illness is not an unforgivable act against God himself is pretty new.

Or the scorpion and the frog. Who is acting immoral? The scorpion who stings the frog? Or the frog if he denies the ride? If neither would act immoral, then everything is still fine. Don't let scorpions ride you and you are good.

Am I acting immoral if I do my best to make you spread your legs for me within the constraints of the law?

 

[IrisAlthea]

But it is, isn't it? If the silverback drives away the competition and happily fucks his sluts, you might argue that it's not bad because the best genes are the best for the pack yada yada, but it would be a kinda lame excuse, wouldn't it be? Domination is selfish, if it wouldn't be, it would be called "coworking".

My ecology professor would violently flunk anyone who even hinted at altruism as a driving force of anything.
I wouldn’t argue that noone ever does anything unselfish necessarily, but it would take more than lack of selflessness, for me to call their behaviour inherently negative.

While the silverback is selfish, he is also open and unappologetical about it and not trying to present it as anything else.

And (general) you might very well cowork with a selfish end in mind too.
Or so I’ve heard.

If I deliberately cause your body to release hormones to make you horny, how much free will do you really have left to keep your legs closed?

But do I have more or less free will if you use another method than domination?

We don't kill the mosquito because sucking blood is immoral - but because we can and because it's better for us. Locking up people because it's better for our society is a good (or least okayish) reason even if the people didn't act immoral.

Totally agree. That has always seemed as the most rational reason to lock people away.
And on a purely practical level I guess it doesn’t matter much if we incarcerate the one who does the bad thing or the one who inspires it as long as we stop it.
Both perhaps?
There are some interesting cases with couples murdering together, where the reasoning i court seems rather sexust to me, so I would say that it is a good thing if we discuss and think about these things.

Look at the combo catholic church+suicide+mental illness. The idea that killing yourself while under a mental illness is not an unforgivable act against God himself is pretty new.

Yes, the idea that mental illness is something outside your control and different from a charachter flaw, is new and still not accepted by everyone.

Or the scorpion and the frog. Who is acting immoral? The scorpion who stings the frog? Or the frog if he denies the ride? If neither would act immoral, then everything is still fine. Don't let scorpions ride you and you are good.

”It’s in my nature” - yes, I think that’s where I get stuck.

Keeping someone from hurting others by locking them up is one thing, but if we want to talk about punishment or even just responsibility or blame, it rubs me the wrong way to say that we punish someone (or ourselves) for something or make them responsible for something they have no control over.
We are then punishing people for what they are rather than for what they do and land ourselves in Minority Report and thoughtcrime territory.

Am I acting immoral if I do my best to make you spread your legs for me within the constraints of the law?

In my opinion?
It would depend on what you do and not on the law. There are things that are within the law that I find immoral and there are places with laws that want to decide when I should be spreading my legs and not, which I find immoral.

My personal line is drawn at deception, I think. I don’t think wanting to get someone to spread their legs is inherently wrong.
I find the ”You knew I was a scorpion”-thing to be in the troublesome gray area. Se above.

In the end, does it really matter?

Jein.

I think the world where people think about these things, might be a better place. Or, well, I really hope so. (See Catholic Church and suicide)

I don’t think it’s super important that I manage to forge a fully coherent philosophy on this topic, though.
But it is one of those things I like to kick around in my mind when the mood strikes me and getting input from people whose opinions I value is great, so thank you for answering!

 

[Primalex]

A gun has an inherently negative side to it, as it's a tool of destruction. Even if you use a gun to protect a group of children from harm, the gun stays a tool of destruction. It's never going to be inherently good as a cupcake.

But do I have more or less free will if you use another method than domination?

I think the question is applied to the wrong context. You have the same lack of free will if you are dominated or not. The domination forces you down one particular path that would otherwise be determined by other factors. In one case your lack of free will makes you leave the apartment and in the other case the lack of free will makes you follow the path of sexual bliss.

Look at Newton's cradle. The last sphere has no choice over movement. If it gets dominated by the sphere next to it, it moves. If it doesn't get dominated, then it stays in the position; but neither moving nor staying place are chosen by the sphere.

Of course, we can debate much less philosophical:
If there is free will, do overweight people choose to be overweight? What do we actually measure when we talk about "willpower"? And how comes I have the willpower to eat nothing but oatmeal three days in a row out of my own free volition, but still be overweight?

 

[IrisAlthea]

A gun has an inherently negative side to it, as it's a tool of destruction. Even if you use a gun to protect a group of children from harm, the gun stays a tool of destruction. It's never going to be inherently good as a cupcake.

Ok, that’s true. But having a negative side to it isn’t quite the same as being inherently negative.
I still wouldn’t say the same about domination vs cooperation, because I have a hard time finding anything as harmless and unproblematic as cupcakes.

Look at some rather sad examples where an opressive regime has been ousted to let loose powers that have had some pretty dire consequences for the inhabitants. The ousting may be well intended and for the sake of democracy.

I think the question is applied to the wrong context. You have the same lack of free will if you are dominated or not. The domination forces you down one particular path that would otherwise be determined by other factors. In one case your lack of free will makes you leave the apartment and in the other case the lack of free will makes you follow the path of sexual bliss.

A great example to explain why lack of free will doesn’t have to mean determinism.

Would it be different if you offered to pay though? Or do you see paying as a form of domination?

Look at Newton's cradle. The last sphere has no choice over movement. If it gets dominated by the sphere next to it, it moves. If it doesn't get dominated, then it stays in the position; but neither moving nor staying place are chosen by the sphere.

That is a great example again.

Of course, we can debate much less philosophical:
If there is free will, do overweight people choose to be overweight?

I’ve never argued that there is free will. I just find it hard to get the lack thereof in a nice row with some other things I have opinions about.

And how comes I have the willpower to eat nothing but oatmeal three days in a row out of my own free volition, but still be overweight?

Because it is finite.

I didn’t smoke today and haven’t for any day the last..uhm..almost 20 years, but I haven’t quit because then it wouldn’t be finite anymore.
Or well, not any more finite then I at least.

What do we actually measure when we talk about "willpower"?

That is a great question.

 

[Zenith77]

It's not good enough to tell us to "go research it." I did some digging and found "The Losada Ratio," which I think is what you are referring to? Apparently this ratio and the original study this idea is founded on is now in question as this ratio has been retracted [source]:

I wasn't writing a peer-reviewed psychological extract. The 'go research it' comment is to say 'if you don't want to accept what I'm saying, you could try google'. If you do try google, you'll find numerous references to the 'positivity ratio' citing various psychologists, behavioural analysts, and 'experts' [citation needed] across a wide array of resources. The critique of the Losada paper was largely around their mathematical model, while the concept that some ratio exists was widely accepted in the critiques and rebuttals surrounding that particular publication. At the end of the day, it's psychology, not physics: it's a subjective, opinion-driven area of science. So you're free to make your own mind up.

Also, it appears the original study wasn't even intended to describe the effects of abuse. It is talking about criticism or comments from a "team," like the psychology of the workplace for example. It does not talk about abuse.

Well, no, but I never said I was basing it on that study (and I wasn't) or that the study, or related psychology, is talking about abuse. It's the psychology of negativity, and that has applications across a wide array (as I said) from:

...feedback in highly competitive professional environments, to Olympic athletes, to long-term successful relationships.

It makes sense to me that this includes any scenario that erodes an individual's self-esteem, especially repeatedly and over time, and that is the abuse that is the thrust of my original post.

Anyway, I'm not sure that this is a surefire way to describe how psychological abuse would work regarding dirty talk (let's call it that from here on). Dirty talk stimulates the hypothalamus (produces GnRH & dopamine & oxytocin & endorphins, regulates libido & sexual arousal AKA part of autonomic nervous system, etc.) and the amygdala.

Let's be clear: I'm not saying calling someone a 'dirty girl' is abuse. What I'm saying is that deliberately or ignorantly repeatedly eroding someone's self-esteem is abuse. Incidentally, whether or not they 'get off on it' (to simplify your science) does not negate the potential for lasting psychological damage. Note I said 'potential': I reiterate that I am not saying that name calling is abuse. I'm saying it could be, if it was repeated and over a duration, and served to erode self-esteem.

I think it can be abuse if, for example, someone expresses discomfort during sex or a scene but the partner who notices does not stop and check in on them, and then continues this dynamic. This is a huge concern because the partner noticed something was wrong but violated their [play] partner's right to revoke consent, which may be difficult for them to exercise verbally if they are ashamed, embarrassed, frozen, or fawning, perhaps due to prior trauma.

Sure.

It may not be a red flag if the partner wasn't entirely sure, but checks in after-- in any case, many people aren't trained to be trauma-informed, but knowing to check after and being in-tune is important.

Right...... but that's kinda what I was saying, isn't it? The 'check in after', or the after-care, needs to mitigate the possibility of lasting damage - whatever that damage is, or may be.

It is undeniably a pattern of abuse if this is picked up on and that partner continues with what triggered that person in future scenes / future sexual activity. I mean, purposely doing what you want to do when it hurts someone else... that is obviously abuse.

Again, sure - but I will reiterate that there is also the danger of ignorance, and the fact that the prolonged degradation of self-esteem can be difficult to detect. It's a post for awareness, not for a psychological journal.

While I appreciate the effort behind your rebuttal, I don't think it's necessary. I'm not trying to score points for accuracy, I simply want people to think about situations they're in, and be aware of this possibility. I hope you're not trying to suggest that derogatory language can not cause issues for self-esteem, and erode someone over time? I'd have an issue if you are, because that's blatantly not true and dangerous to assert. Assuming, therefore, that you are not saying that, then the actual mathematics/mechanics/psychology is rather moot.

The point, the critical point, is that it can happen, and if we're interested in the well-being of the people in our relationships, we should watch for it. The end.

Z.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Haha, and I would flunk your ecology professor!

Well, not professor as in my teacher.

There is evidence of altruistic behaviors in nonhuman animals. Altruism is just "behavior of an animal that benefits another at its own expense." And if it mutually benefits the survival of the species, then that counts. Mostly primates and other mammals but there's a fish in the Antarctic as well as numerous species of birds.

Oh absolutely. In insects too.
They also tend to be rather closely related.

I’d guess that what he was after, was not having people anthropomophizing and do the Lorenz type ”good of the species” reasoning (which is 20th century but still outdated) but rather reasoning about kin selection and multi level selection.
That was still last millenium though and those things aren’t what I do now, so my statement was more joking based on the group selection argument that @Primalex dismissed in his post and my former mention of educational background.
Sorry if I stepped on a toe or turf or something.

 

[Lady2020]

What sexual/non-sexual manipulations and mind games (fucks) do Dom/mes use?

Is it abusive or is it a part of D/s or D/d(l) roleplay? How would either of you know the difference? Even if it doesn’t seem wrong?

Depends on the person, their experience or lack of, what they want. Personally, I'm not into abuse of any kind. My experience is that men who present themselves as doms are dishonest and manipulative, that they're unable to be upfront from beginning. Maybe others have had better experiences. Role-playing can be good. But it takes mutual respect.

 

[Primalex]

Would it be different if you offered to pay though? Or do you see paying as a form of domination?

It depends on the context.

If you use money to make someone do something that the person usually would not do, then it's domination.
If you use money to make someone do something that the person usually does for money, then it's either just plain transactional or you are being dominated, because you are performing an act of service to be granted something.

 

[IrisAlthea]

It depends on the context.

If you use money to make someone do something that the person usually would not do, then it's domination.
If you use money to make someone do something that the person usually does for money, then it's either just plain transactional or you are being dominated, because you are performing an act of service to be granted something.

Defining dominance that way, I get what you mean.
If it is any influence making the other act differently than they would have otherwise, then it is manipulation for sure.