The Angel/Devil complex

[Marquis]

It is a pretty well acknowledged fact that I am fascinated with the personality types that are attracted to relationships with high power differentials.

Who are subs and who are doms, at their core? What are we made of? How are we different from the vanilla populace?

I don't think mere awareness of intelligently regulated forms of BDSM is the defining difference. Most of us sought out BDSM because of our pre-existing desires, not the other way around.

I've attempted to explore this phenomenon in threads about the relationships between pimps and their prostitutes, and batterers and their abused partners. This is somewhat a continuation of ideas I've proposed in those threads, which can be found here:

Pimps

Abuse

I am introducing this as a new thread because I want to explore this independently of some of the tangential arguments that came up in the earlier threads. I also think both of those threads have a lot of life left in them, and want to give them their own opportunity to grow in their own directions.

I now want to propose for your consideration a pet theory that I've been ruminating for sometime, that I have come to call the Angel/Devil complex. I think it helps tie in a lot of the behaviors we see in high power differential relationships (HPDRs) in an empirically logical manner, and may serve as heuristically valuable for a greater understanding of the individuals that are compelled towards HPDRs.

An earlier attempt to understand this phenomenon showed Dominance as an essentially masculine characteristic, while submissiveness as essentially feminine. People attracted to HPDRs were then, often people with an unusually high adherence to the impulses of their gender. They were essentially, extremely sexist, from a biological/psychological standpoint, not a social or political one.

While I think there is often a correlation there, I don't think it's quite "tight" enough to show causation. Even trying to discount the existence of female dominants and male submissives as aberrant or reactive/rebellious does not truly present a cogent understanding of this phenomenon.

I now propose the theory that submissives are attracted to the "Angel" archetype, while dominants are attracted to the "Devil' archetype.

Immediate proof of this is present at a first glance observation of BDSM art, which often depicts demonic characters in positions of sexual dominance over angelic characters. Further proof of this aesthetic attraction can be found in the costumes often seen at fetish parties or costume parties, with tops dressed as demonic figures and bottoms dressed as angelic figures. Further evidence can often be seen in the avatars and handles chosen by members of this forum.

I think the correlation goes much deeper than this however.

I think the relationship between these two characters largely parallels its religious representation. Both being necessary and even symbiotic to the maintenace of order within a diverse universe.

The Angel represents purity and serenity. Angels (both the cultural archetype and the personality type I'm describing) are healers, nurturers and caregivers. They represent selflessness and sacrifice. Some positive characteristics of Angels can be found in their tolerance, their humility and their ability to remain loving and innocent in the face of adversity.

Angels are quintessentially masochistic in that their strength lies in what they can endure.

The Devil represents egoism, independence and a will to power. Devils are warriors and dictators, accepting (sometimes reluctantly, often enthusiastically) the responsibility for "distasteful" but necessary action. They represent human desires like lust, greed and territoriality.

Devils are quintessentially sadistic in that their strength lies in what they can force others to endure.


It is thus my proposition that people attracted to HPDRs (which, if you haven't figured it out, is just a way of saying BDSM without having to put up with the ethical stigma that has become intrinsic to the simple acronym) are often found to have a personality complex that causes them to identify with one of the aforementioned archetypes.

Here are a few examples of mysterious phenomenon that this theory may help explain:

1. The paradox of submissives wanting to be "forced" to do things they enjoy, and enjoying things they are "forced" to do
2. The paradox of dominants wanting to earn the affection of their partners by torturing them
3. The achievement of intimacy through objectification

If this theory can hold water, and perhaps gain some strength, maybe it can be used to begin answering the ubiquitous questions of how we got this way, and is it healthy.

 

[jadefirefly]

Curious.

This requires sleeping on. Reserving the right to comment at a later, more rested date.

 

[incubus'_sub]

Interesting, well thought out & I happen to agree. This describes our conventional male Dom / female sub relationship quite well.

 

[Marquis]

Interesting, well thought out & I happen to agree. This describes our conventional male Dom / female sub relationship quite well.

My goal was to create an identity set that would correlate doms and subs across gender barriers.

Do you think this doesn't work with female doms and male subs for any reason?

 

[incubus'_sub]

To be perfectly honest, & not wishing to offend anyone here, we just don't "get" female Dommes or male subs, in fact the idea & personas turn us off. With the exception of Netz, of course, who is very wise.

OK, now I'm being honest here, there isn't a male sub here on the board or known in person who we respect as a 'real" male in a sexual sense. I say sexual sense because we are into sexual BDSM rather than lifestyle, service type stuff which doesn't appeal to us in any way.

For better or for worse, we are into the common variety angel / Devil scenario as you described. We are aware that everyone is different, but that's how our kink works. Why ??? we've thought about it a lot, but these days prefer not to wonder why, just accept & enjoy the results.

Damn, but we'd like to meet you in person. You "get" us.

 

[Aeroil]

*deletes nasty parahraph*
*ignores incubus' sub*

Hmm, see, Marquis, when I think of Angels, I think of Avenging Seraphim, warriors whose silhouette is only partially visible through the light they emit, six ghostly visages of wings behind them, and a terrifying glowing sword, and of course, when I hear demons I immediately think of Succubi, because I have a total succubi fetish. Then again, I play too many video games

any-way, may I assume you mean most of these angelic and demonic traits as effective *inside* the D/s relationship? Because obviously if you try to apply it outside it seems to start falling apart.

You mean Devils and Angels' strengths are Sadism and Masochism in the sense that they are Dominants and Submissive right? As opposed to the mythological beings? I would also argue that masochism does not make a submissive good or bad, same for dominants, if its the former.

So, this theory... where does it lead? What point are you attempting to use it to lead up to? Or even just what are you looking at for it next. Or did you post it and I just entirely missed it.

Okay, and granted, I did have a Grim Angel in my avatar for a while, but he was awesome, cmon! he was carrying that crazy spear and looked all badass

My current avatar, Lackhand, actually used to be good, but got twisted, and turned wicked and cruel, very sad, hardly an angel. Unless, a fallen angel or something... Drat...

 

[Aeroil]

My goal was to create an identity set that would correlate doms and subs across gender barriers.

Do you think this doesn't work with female doms and male subs for any reason?

Works fine dude, follow my example, lets not get this thread hijacked into a fighting over whether or not male subs/Dommes are valid or some silliness.

 

[crazybbwgirl]

I think you think too much...

 

[Kajira Callista]

Oh gosh...I need a lot more coffee and at least two more readings to reply to this one.

 

[RJMasters]

This may or may not be on point.

If one truly believes that angles and demons exist...then they also believe that they are really from the same race. Angles remain "in service" to God where as the demons, lucifer being the leader, rebelled against God. Thus angels are infact submissive to God's will, where as Demons are seeking to excise their own will and dominate over others.

If one doesn't truly believe in the existience of angles or demons, but does understand the symbolism attached to them, it is probably not a far reach that many can identify with some of the symbolic themes attached to them.

I however am a maverick in my thinking, in that the man with 1000's of demons was curled up like a little bitch on his knees before Christ, whom commands the angels(again if you believe in the realness of their existence).

I mention this because I do see that you are looking for an analogy that transends gender. To some extent I can go with it, however I would like to point out that it is not a 100% clear model...especially when you consider that Dominance can be born of both good and bad. I say good and bad because it is infered by the example and symbolism of angels and devils.

Some cliches which would support your theroy is...."good guys always finish last". Of course my response to that is....its always good to be last if the race ends by going over a cliff.

To me there is a thing called power. Power itself is neutral but it represents control. There is power of good and there is power of evil, hence there is dominantion which stems from both. I know consent is a touchy subject and really do not wish to rehash it all, but I would point out that Good Domination stems from consent and has its strength in loyalty. Bad dominantion takes what it wants via brute strength.

One last point I will make about the devil angle thing...people tend to associate fear when they think of demons (think movies such as the exorsist and damien and a whole bunch more portraying demons) and assoicate them with evil and 'Fear".

What people tend to forget are the accounts that when angels did appear, those that saw them fell to their knees trembling.

 

[Chicklet]

I think that your analogy fits, and, well, you wouldn't have posted it if it didn't

I'm not a believer in any religion, but definitely in the symbolism. I highly agree that the people I have known in my slim experience seem to group themselves in one of your two categories. I even find myself feeling a little angelic from time to time () = ) My PYL definitely enjoys the idea of himself as a sinister sadist with little horns hidden away in his hair, when he has it.

Basically, I agree with you, and I think that it works no matter what sex the PYL/pyl are. But I'm not sure how to continue with a discussion from there. It certainly didn't seem like an open ended "let's bash the male subs" discussion like some people seem to have taken it.

Incubus', I happen to agree with some things you said, but Aeroil, my personal feelings are not disrespect, i just don't personally understand it. I can't understand, but I can accept. Is that okay?

Edited because I misread Incubus'_sub earlier and I wanted to clarify what I meant, instead of what I said

= )

 

[catalina_francisco]

I don't believe I read it as not understanding but do seem to remember lack of respect being mentioned as this quote from I_S shows;

'To be perfectly honest, & not wishing to offend anyone here, we just don't "get" female Dommes or male subs, in fact the idea & personas turn us off.....

OK, now I'm being honest here, there isn't a male sub here on the board or known in person who we respect as a 'real" male in a sexual sense.'

I can't understand why people can't understand or get it just because there is a gender difference...it isn't rocket science, particularly if you are a submissive or Dominant yourself and an imagination.

Catalina

 

[Marquis]

To be perfectly honest, & not wishing to offend anyone here, we just don't "get" female Dommes or male subs, in fact the idea & personas turn us off. With the exception of Netz, of course, who is very wise.

OK, now I'm being honest here, there isn't a male sub here on the board or known in person who we respect as a 'real" male in a sexual sense. I say sexual sense because we are into sexual BDSM rather than lifestyle, service type stuff which doesn't appeal to us in any way.

I think that depends heavily on what your qualifications for a "real" male are.

To some degree, I can sympathize. For example, I think I have more in common with gay tops than straight bottoms. But that doesn't have anything to do with what I consider a "real" male. A "real" male, to me, is someone with a penis.

For better or for worse, we are into the common variety angel / Devil scenario as you described. We are aware that everyone is different, but that's how our kink works. Why ??? we've thought about it a lot, but these days prefer not to wonder why, just accept & enjoy the results.

Damn, but we'd like to meet you in person. You "get" us.

Always happy to meet other Litsters.

 

[Marquis]

Hmm, see, Marquis, when I think of Angels, I think of Avenging Seraphim, warriors whose silhouette is only partially visible through the light they emit, six ghostly visages of wings behind them, and a terrifying glowing sword, and of course, when I hear demons I immediately think of Succubi, because I have a total succubi fetish. Then again, I play too many video games

Granted, there are many ways to view Devils and Angels as seen by many different cultures, belief systems and aesthetics. I've proposed a system that based on a very general religious mythology, but you do have to stay within the framework I've expressed above for it to make sense. I'm not talking about ALL perceptions of Devils and Angels, just the ones I've delineated above.

any-way, may I assume you mean most of these angelic and demonic traits as effective *inside* the D/s relationship? Because obviously if you try to apply it outside it seems to start falling apart.

Could you clarify this?

You mean Devils and Angels' strengths are Sadism and Masochism in the sense that they are Dominants and Submissive right? As opposed to the mythological beings? I would also argue that masochism does not make a submissive good or bad, same for dominants, if its the former.

I'm choosing not to view Devils and Angels as representatives of "good and evil" but rather as co-existing, Yin/Yang type entities.

So, this theory... where does it lead? What point are you attempting to use it to lead up to? Or even just what are you looking at for it next. Or did you post it and I just entirely missed it.

I'm not entirely sure yet. But I think the mere identification of a framework that at least mostly fits the impulses tied to domination and submission is meritworthy in and of itself.

Okay, and granted, I did have a Grim Angel in my avatar for a while, but he was awesome, cmon! he was carrying that crazy spear and looked all badass

My current avatar, Lackhand, actually used to be good, but got twisted, and turned wicked and cruel, very sad, hardly an angel. Unless, a fallen angel or something... Drat...

I think that the concept of "fallen Angels" may have their place in this metaphor. I'm not sure what to call their opposite, but Devils struggling to denounce their nature and struggling to emulate the nature of Angels would have their place as well.

In any case Aeroil, you are definitely a little Angel.

 

[Marquis]

This may or may not be on point.

If one truly believes that angles and demons exist...then they also believe that they are really from the same race. Angles remain "in service" to God where as the demons, lucifer being the leader, rebelled against God. Thus angels are infact submissive to God's will, where as Demons are seeking to excise their own will and dominate over others.

Angles most definitely exist. Trust me, I used to teach Geometry.

All kidding aside, I think you're taking the metaphor a little too literally. For what it's worth, I do not believe in Devils or Angels except as metaphorical tools.

If one doesn't truly believe in the existience of angles or demons, but does understand the symbolism attached to them, it is probably not a far reach that many can identify with some of the symbolic themes attached to them.

I however am a maverick in my thinking, in that the man with 1000's of demons was curled up like a little bitch on his knees before Christ, whom commands the angels(again if you believe in the realness of their existence).

Again, too literal.

I mention this because I do see that you are looking for an analogy that transends gender. To some extent I can go with it, however I would like to point out that it is not a 100% clear model...especially when you consider that Dominance can be born of both good and bad. I say good and bad because it is infered by the example and symbolism of angels and devils.

As I said to Aeroil earlier and alluded to in my original post, I am not analyzing this from the perspective of good and evil. I'm not placing value judgments on the roles, merely looking at them as different methods of achieving personal satisfaction.

Some cliches which would support your theroy is...."good guys always finish last". Of course my response to that is....its always good to be last if the race ends by going over a cliff.

Actually, I think the quote is "nice guys finish last," which is significantly different.

However, I don't see the relevance to this discussion.

To me there is a thing called power. Power itself is neutral but it represents control. There is power of good and there is power of evil, hence there is dominantion which stems from both. I know consent is a touchy subject and really do not wish to rehash it all, but I would point out that Good Domination stems from consent and has its strength in loyalty. Bad dominantion takes what it wants via brute strength.

I think I've already addressed this.

One last point I will make about the devil angle thing...people tend to associate fear when they think of demons (think movies such as the exorsist and damien and a whole bunch more portraying demons) and assoicate them with evil and 'Fear".

What people tend to forget are the accounts that when angels did appear, those that saw them fell to their knees trembling.

I think you make two good observations here, perhaps inadvertantly. One is that the metaphorical framework I've set up here is a generalization. As I've previously mentioned, there are plenty of examples of mythological Angels and Devils assuming the characteristics of their opposites. There are just as many examples of people who, in a general way embody the characteristics of a Devil or Angel, who at times display characteristics of their opposties.

The second point is that fear in and of itself is not relegated as a tool of either good or evil. Christians are encouraged to fear God, not because He is evil, but because He is powerful.

I am now going to make an addition to this theory and say that Devils thrive on a love inspired by fear, while Angels thrive on a love inspired by pity.

Doubtlessly I have to qualify this explanation to prevent myself from being misunderstood. Pity has a terrible connotation, but it's denotation is not negative. My usage of the word pity is congruent to Nietzsche's usage of the same word in The Anti-Christ. He explains that pity is the technic of Christianity, because it proposes compassion as the most powerful human force. This coincides with the oft held belief that you make a greater affect on your enemy by turning the other cheek, than by striking him back.

You've made posts in the past that address this rather eloquently, RJ.

 

[RJMasters]

I can't understand why people can't understand or get it just because there is a gender difference...

Catalina

Perhaps its similar to people just not getting it because of a different skin color...I find that equally hard to understand.

I heard once it was rooted in fear as something so different than themselves they could not concieve there would be similarities without diminishing themselves. They look at something they find intolerant to their way of thinking and cannot be asked to face the fact they might share something in common with something that they find so foreign. Instead of embracing it as something unique and interesting, they prefer to attack it in order to distance themselves from it.

For me I am personally glad to see more submissive men here of late. I think they bring a unique dynamic which is both refreshing and has caused me to challenge many of my own thoughts and reactions.

I know a few Domme types in real life, can only say I have enjoyed the company of one, but here at Lit I have enjoyed the contributions of Netzach, Eb, ShadowsDream, Vix, Lady A., Luna, Sweetdommes, and Lady K. Most with a devlish sexual prowess temperered by an angelic wisdom.

Apologies to Marquis for the hijack, I did work in a sincere comment though based on your theory to make of it what you will.

 

[incubus'_sub]

Please don't read lack of respect for people into my previous post because that wasn't the case.

The discussion was about Devil / Angel in respect to gender and I gave an honest opinion about how that fits with our personal sexuality. For us the Dom is male & submissive males are a turn off. So what ! It may not be politically correct but to again be honest, I don't care. Personal tastes are just that, personal tastes. We all have them & they are all different, nor are we responsible for our gut feelings about turn ons & turn offs.

Each to their own & we certainly respect everyone's own sexuality. Does that mean that we can't mention our own particular views because it doesn't encompass the entire spectrum?

 

[satindesire]

To be honest with you, I think that this thread will be too inbibed in what people think of when they hear (read) "Angel" and "Devil"

Personally, I think of Angels as asexual figures submissive only to God's will, and Devils as gender-bound human-like figures submissive to God's will AND Lucifer's will.

So, I think you might want to figure out some OTHER images for Dom/sub than that, because there's just too much mind-interference when people will read your chosen avatars for your examples, and they'll talk about THAT instead of what you really want to discuss.

 

[Ebonyfire]

To be perfectly honest, & not wishing to offend anyone here, we just don't "get" female Dommes or male subs, in fact the idea & personas turn us off. With the exception of Netz, of course, who is very wise.

What a loaded statement. And insulting. But you are entitled to your opinion. I think I will stay out of this thread, all I see is an opportunity for Me to lose my temper.

Eb

 

[Aeroil]

Please don't read lack of respect for people into my previous post because that wasn't the case.

The discussion was about Devil / Angel in respect to gender and I gave an honest opinion about how that fits with our personal sexuality. For us the Dom is male & submissive males are a turn off. So what ! It may not be politically correct but to again be honest, I don't care. Personal tastes are just that, personal tastes. We all have them & they are all different, nor are we responsible for our gut feelings about turn ons & turn offs.

Each to their own & we certainly respect everyone's own sexuality. Does that mean that we can't mention our own particular views because it doesn't encompass the entire spectrum?

If you don't *understand* male subs and Dommes, fine, don't start forming opinions on us and posting them around until you do, please.

Okay, enough with this completely unrelated sidetrack.

Granted, there are many ways to view Devils and Angels as seen by many different cultures, belief systems and aesthetics. I've proposed a system that based on a very general religious mythology, but you do have to stay within the framework I've expressed above for it to make sense. I'm not talking about ALL perceptions of Devils and Angels, just the ones I've delineated above.

Like I said, I play too many video games, ignore my internal visions of angels and demons, I know what you meant Heh.

Could you clarify this?

Gracie, for an example, may be a submissive angel /w K, but to me she's evil and steals my cookies, like a cruel demon.
lol, not all submissives act submissive outside a D/s relationship, is what I meant.

I'm choosing not to view Devils and Angels as representatives of "good and evil" but rather as co-existing, Yin/Yang type entities.

I didn't really mean to use 'good' in terms of good and evil either, you said an Angel is quintessentially Masochistic because their strength comes from what they can endure, but there are dominant masochists, there are submissives who aren't masochists (although maybe I'm getting too much into the painplay connotation that we use), but I mention this due to my lightweight-ness in regards to painplay, despite Netzach's prediction, I doubt I'm gonna be much into it. I meant 'good' in terms of a good or bad submissive, because you used the term "Strength"

I think that the concept of "fallen Angels" may have their place in this metaphor. I'm not sure what to call their opposite, but Devils struggling to denounce their nature and struggling to emulate the nature of Angels would have their place as well.

Fallen Angels are quite cool, I will admit to using the sorta fallen angel 'type' in my books quite a bit, they make great characters.

In any case Aeroil, you are definitely a little Angel.

Uhm.... thanks.....
haha, I would normally totally flirt back with someone who did that but I am too caught off-guard, alas.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Each to their own & we certainly respect everyone's own sexuality. Does that mean that we can't mention our own particular views because it doesn't encompass the entire spectrum?

Mentioning your views is one thing, but you could be a tad less inflammatory in stating them. I can only surmise that you intention was not to mention your views but to insult using the "I am only stating my views defense".

Eb

 

[Aeroil]

Mentioning your views is one thing, but you could be a tad less inflammatory in stating them. I can only surmise that you intention was not to mention your views but to insult using the "I am only stating my views defense".

Eb

NUUUU! Post on-topic, don't let her hijack the damn thread!

Agh.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Here are a few examples of mysterious phenomenon that this theory may help explain:

1. The paradox of submissives wanting to be "forced" to do things they enjoy, and enjoying things they are "forced" to do
2. The paradox of dominants wanting to earn the affection of their partners by torturing them
3. The achievement of intimacy through objectification

If this theory can hold water, and perhaps gain some strength, maybe it can be used to begin answering the ubiquitous questions of how we got this way, and is it healthy.

Marquis you are always interesting, so I do have something to say:

1. I do not force my submissives. I do not find it interesting to Me.

2. I do not have to try to earn the affection of my partners by torturing them or by any other means. I do not have submissives I do not have affection for. It is part of the screening (out) process.

3. Objectiification does not interest me.

Others may take a different view.

And I might add that even though I have submissives who sometimes act as furniture, they are more amusing & intersting as human furniture not "things".

Eb

 

[Ebonyfire]

NUUUU! Post on-topic, don't let her hijack the damn thread!

Agh.

And who are you talking to? No one tells me what to do. Get that straight.

Eb

 

[Marquis]

And who are you talking to? No one tells me what to do. Get that straight.

Eb

Hey! You can't talk to my sub like that!