|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 22 guests online !
|
|
|
|
|
Theories: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added |
Posted by
pixel on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 07:52 AM PST
You can pour as much artificial vanilla flavor on it as you want to, social interactions are all about Dominance and submission. Every time that two or more human beings interact, someone takes the lead and someone is led. The roles shift back and forth under normal circumstances, but there is always a necessary amount of domination and submission going on. If it were not so, nothing would ever get done.
Either nobody would be able to get a word in, or people would stare at one another waiting for someone else to initiate a simple coversation. This is the normal dynamic of being a social animal. It should come as a surprise then that so many people have issues about these necessary and natural interactions in their most intimate moments together. Almost nobody needs to read a book or become educated in D/s etiquette when they learn to speak with one another, but when their clothes come off they suddenly feel under-equipped to deal with the same issues that they never even think about any other time.
A lot of this stems from the fact that everyday D/s is understood perfectly well as the way things have to work. There is a tacit understanding that we can't all speak at once, that whomever is speaking has the floor, that this or that anecdote is "mine" and anything that can be added to it is done so with my approval and consent. Even when we disagree, we do so with the understanding that there will be a "winner" and a "loser", and that those roles are going to switch back and forth in the future the way they always have in the past. So the question becomes: what changes when you add a sexual context to topping and bottoming? Why are we suddenly concerned about how our interactions affect our "identities" when this happens? The answer might have to do with some very irrational attitudes we maintain regarding the terms we are using.
In public, we are often told to "master our emotions" (I have always preferred to mistress mine). By "mastering", we do not mean that we discipline or train ourselves. What is generally understood by everyone, is that to master one's emotions, one has to deny having any at all. You do not display your emotions, because you have in theory stopped experiencing them. If a person is caught having any kind of public emotional display, they are regarded as "weak". In this way, we have come to view Dominants as unfeeling but strong, and submissives as needy and weak. This is nonsense. An emotional cripple is poorly equipped to Dom(me) anyone, and some of the strongest and most noble people I know are lifestyle submissives. The problem is that it is one thing to acknowledge these misperceptions when we are fully dressed and Masters and Mistresses of our emotions, and as long as we are speaking hypothetically and about a third party, but it is quite another to confront our own natural and necessary natures when we are on our knees or administering the stern kisses of discipline to another.
We do not become different people in our sexual lives than we are in our social lives; it is merely that our perceptions of ourselves are that much more explicit in the former case. If you use the terms "Dominant" or "submissive" pejoratively in a social setting, it is clear that you do not yet grasp what it means to be a social animal. In practice, we are all switches regardless of how we prefer to identify ourselves. It does not diminish us in any way to acknowledge our submissive sides any more than it empowers us to face the fact that we are often called upon to Dominate. It is simply the way we are.
|
|
| |
|
|
Average Rating : 4.3
Total ratings : 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added | Login/Create an account | 18 Comments |
| Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added
by Britva (britva1066@yahoo.com)
on Mar 23, 2004 - 11:20 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Maybe it's just me, but I find the assertion that "social interactions are all about Dominance and submission" to be a little over-reaching. Your point that few people recognize the social power plays going on around them is well taken, and I'm not going to deny that many social interactions have a D/s flavor, but I think it's a stretch to extend this to situations like initiating a conversation or listening quietly while someone else is speaking. It seems like most of these social interactions are more about maintaining a power balance than exploring a power imbalance. Even if you did want to see these interacions in the context of D/s, though, it would be such a mild form as to be completely unrelated to most people's idea of Dominance and submission. I just saw the movie Secretary recently, and it strikes me that if you really want to see what a D/s interaction would look like in a social/professional setting, that's a pretty good example.
The main reason people are uncomfortable with D/s sexual relationships isn't necessarily because they have some kind of disconnect between their social and sexual selves (alliteration?) or because certain words have negative connotations. It's because most D/s play involves taking those D/s tendencies which, even if you experience them in your daily life, are pretty benign, and pushing them to their emotional and behavioral extreme. Like any other kind of extreme behavior, this turns some people way on and it turns others way off.
|
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added by pixel (-) on Mar 23, 2004 - 08:33 PM (User info | Send a Message) | I did deliberately oversimplify the situation in order to make a point, and I agree with most of your criticisms of my post. The only thing that I would disagree with is that the difference between social D/s and sexual D/s is not that social D/s is "benign". This would imply that sexual D/s is the opposite of benign, which would make it malignant or harmful. I still think that the primary difference is that social D/s is implicit and largely unavoidable which is easier to rationalise. Sexual D/s is explicit and (mostly) voluntary. I also do not view D/s in any context as being the exploration of power imbalances as long as the participant's needs are met. I would view an imbalance as being more a Dom(me)/Dom(me) or sub/sub situation.
I appreciate your comments and insights. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added by Britva (britva1066@yahoo.com) on Mar 23, 2004 - 11:30 PM (User info | Send a Message) | I was using benign as a synonym for mild, but I can see in retrospect how it may have been poor word choice.
However, I would also like to say that I think drawing a line between "social" D/s and "sexual" D/s is a bit arbitrary. If you think a conversation can be an expression of D/s dynamics, then certainly what you might call "plain vanilla" sex is also an expression of D/s. I mean, who initiates? Who decides when to switch positions? Who is giving and who is receiving?
Again, I think the main difference between traditional D/s sex play and the social interactions you describe is not that one is sexual and one is not, but rather the degree of power imbalance maintained in each. Think of it as a continuum, and on one end you have everyday conversation and "plain vanilla" sex, and on the other end you have D/s interaction and D/s sex.
Also, I'm curious to know how you would describe the difference between Dom(me) and sub if not in terms of power imbalance. Maybe I should have used a more neutral term like disparity? Any way you cut it, though, the D has power and the s does not. That power imbalance can be fictional ("we were just playing, right?") and it can be temporary ("safe word! safe word!") but it's still the central thing in a D/s scene, or a D/s relationship. This is not to imply that the s has no say or is not getting his/her needs met. Rather s/he agrees to, and gets off on, letting someone else have power over her/him. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added by Anonymous-Coward on Mar 24, 2004 - 04:27 AM | I had to think for a few minutes about the questions you raised before I felt prepared to respond to them. I think that I understand your position and I do not think we are very far apart about most of the points. Viewed distributively, there is an "imbalance" of power in a D/s relationship (as you very aptly put it, the D has more power than the s). However if the relationship is viewed from a situational perspective (which I have done), there is no imbalance. The D has no more power than the s has surrendered, so there is no net gain or loss of power in the relationship. This is why I have come to think of social dynamics as tacit power exchanges stripped of a sexual context. "Power" might teeter in one direction or another, but as long as the exchange is voluntary and satisfies the needs of the participants as well as facilitating the interactions between them, the situation itself remains in balance.
My distinctions might very well be arbitrary, but I was trying to call attention to the fact that these distinctions generally are. I think that you put your finger on precisely what I was driving at when you mentioned the centrality of placement of this exchange in a D/s relationship. I would say that there really is no "plain vanilla sex" any more than there is plain vanilla conversation for exactly that reason (and this is why I used the word "artificial" in the title of the post); it simply becomes a focal point when the motivation for engaging in these activities involves being sexually stimulated by them. I would not suggest that people should develop issues about their social dynamics; rather I am suggesting that they conflate issues unnecessarily about their sexual dynamics.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added
by feralucce (Iwouldliketokillyou@gofuckyourself.com)
on Mar 23, 2004 - 12:31 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://feralucce.webhostingpal.com/
|
I agree to a certain extent... but I beleive that you are missing out onf the fact, that while we are animals, we have ego...
animals, being completely id, are all about dominance and submission. And we are primates, as such everything we do is Flavored with Dominance and submission... but you cannot genearalise that all of them are... some interactions are about comfort, joy, sorrow, or pleasure...
most people, being either dominant or submissive in nature do fall into those catagories, but know of at least 3 people that are niether...
Also... There are some people who do not submit, in any situation... there may be compliance, but that is not a form of submission...
You have outlined a purely instinctual form of interaction... but we are human... we have intellect that tempers all things...
Feral
|
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added by pixel (-) on Mar 23, 2004 - 08:40 PM (User info | Send a Message) | I am not entirely sure that I am following what you are saying. The purpose of an ego and a superego are that they perform both a repressive and a creative function upon the instinctive id, but they do not negate instinctive drives. I do agree that in many cases we have the ability to decide which of our impulses to act upon and which to sublimate, but this does not run contrary to anything that I stated originally. If you would care to elaborate, I would very much like to understand your argument a bit better. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added by feralucce (Iwouldliketokillyou@gofuckyourself.com) on Mar 24, 2004 - 09:20 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://feralucce.webhostingpal.com/ | ok... new terms...instinct and intellect... rarely do humans act on an instictual level... hence the reason that the average person is out of touch with the land...
Were the basic instncts of mankind as ingrained as you suppose... then there would be no a)infirm, b) handicapped, and c) malformed children... Humans... ignore their instincts... Most will rebell against their natural proclivities, and will then make a complete 180 to their instinctual behavior.
Proof... go to an office somewhere... in many cases, the most submissive of the group will be in charge of the assemblage... while it is not the rule, it does disprove, to a laarge extent, you hypothesis.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added by pixel (-) on Mar 24, 2004 - 09:45 PM (User info | Send a Message) | This might be another difficulty with the perspective one takes. It would seem to me that a person's "instincts" cause them to nurture and care for their infirm and handicapped children and it is their "intellect" that gives them pause. If we, as a species, subdued our maternal and paternal instincts, we would toss the malformed children off of cliffs the way the Spartans did. That there are infirm in our society doesn't establish anything until we are able to conclude whether our "instinctive" repugnance towards those who are different outweighs our "instinctive" parenting behaviours.
Also, I would say that an office dictator is exercising his social "switching" behaviours and is not entirely submissive at all. As a matter of fact, my thesis is that almost all of us switch by necessity. To this I will add that office dictators, ones who do not get the opportunity to switch socially because of their status as authority figures, do tend to make delicious submissives in private to compensate for this imbalance in their lives.
It is definitely food for thought and I thank you for your insights. I wish you the best of luck with your new occupation. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added
by Squire-of-Gothos (Brian0049@hotmail.com)
on Mar 23, 2004 - 01:07 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://
|
I'm going to have to agree. It seems that a power balance would be a more logical way of looking at social interaction. This coming from a self proclaimed dom, I really believe the best way to study a socialy mainstream use of sub and dom relations would be to look at religion and politcs, the oldest form of domination and submission.
It is this indirect form of domination that most people have come to be comfortable with, as a more direct form leads to uncomfortability. Most people are unwilling to acept an individual as these dominant, as they feel this is a violation of there social liberties, and that it is too intrusive and emotional.
But a domination in the form of a political party or stance, or a major polito/theocratic theme, or a deity, is far more indirect, and apeals to the broad nature most people prefer to govern their lives by.
Domination and submission on a smaller scale, in my opinion, only makes itself known in two situaions: Sex, i.e. BDSM relationships, and rare situations in which a two or more people, a clich one might say, has a central domiant person.
The former is a pure and emotioanlly (in a good situation) expression of the dom/sub dynamic. Whereas the former is often caused by the inherent lack of confidence, drive, or assertiveness of the sub/s in the clich, and the inhernt drive, need, or sadistic pleasure of the dom/s in said clich.
This lack of confidence, in the subs of the afromentioned clich, are often deeper and more direct, so they acept a dom that, though not sexual, will assume a leadership role of there conscious and subconscious. The insecurities of the subs is simialar, but less direct, to the inherent insecurities of those that give themselves, (in an extreme and full manner) freely to a domiannt religion or political party.
Of course being a sub to a christian god may not be bad; in fact, it may be just just what said Christian needs his or her life. But I am merely demonstrating on the Dom/Sub dynamic, as I see, in the nonsexual aspect of the term, as it aplies to our social structure.
|
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added by pixel (-) on Mar 23, 2004 - 08:47 PM (User info | Send a Message) | You raise many valid points that are secondary to what I had outlined originally. In many cases, the religious impulse and party loyalties are expressions of the need to submit. I suspect that you have read Erich Fromm's "Escape From Freedom" as your position seems very nearly identical. Thank you for bringing those elements into the discussion. I had originally meant to do that myself, but was not sure how long a post would have been acceptable. Most of the simplifications I used to present my argument were based upon space considerations.
By the way, dear, I think that all Dom(mes) are self-proclaimed. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added by Devin (devin-at-vibechild-dot-com) on Mar 23, 2004 - 11:30 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://devin.vibechild.com/ | You could have gone as much as two to four times the length of this and it would have been acceptable - as long as you didn't rambe or repeat yourself.
My favorite part of this article is that people are both agreeing and disagreeing with it evenly and for valid reasons. We don't see that very much. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added by pixel (-) on Mar 24, 2004 - 09:35 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Thank you for the length guidelines. I am also very gratified that people seem to be responding to my article in a productive way. I hesitated to post anything after reading some of the older articles because I thought people here might be a little difficult to please, but I am happy to discover that this doesn't seem to be the case. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added by Squire-of-Gothos (Brian0049@hotmail.com) on Mar 24, 2004 - 07:55 AM (User info | Send a Message) http:// | Well, I just 'came out', so I'm a little jazzed about it all. Thought I was a freak all my life, but no, I've never had the chance to read that book. I'll have to take a look though. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added by pixel (-) on Mar 24, 2004 - 09:31 PM (User info | Send a Message) | *smile* You have nothing to worry about, dear. Most "freaks" are self-proclaimed as well. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added
by Geist (tattooedslacker@yahoo.com)
on Mar 23, 2004 - 02:34 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://
|
I think the problem here is you're trying to take something much more complicated and boil it down to a nice little tidbit and it doesn't quite work that way. Humans, human emotions, and human behavior is a much more complicated subject.
|
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added by pixel (-) on Mar 23, 2004 - 08:50 PM (User info | Send a Message) | I am aware that I was generalizing and simplifying things to make a point (please see my responses above), but if I wish to say anything at all about about humans, human emotions and human behavior I had to begin somewhere. Thank you for pointing out that inherent difficulty. I think it is always a good thing to keep in mind. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added
by Abbadon on Mar 30, 2004 - 06:17 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://
|
How many times do people have to tell you life isn't black and white before theories like this die out? It would be nice if life we're this simple, but it ain't. Fascists.
|
Re: Artificial Vanilla Flavor Added by pixel (-) on Mar 31, 2004 - 09:32 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Are you trying to dominate this discussion, dear? The points you raise have already been addressed, which leads me to believe that you didn't actually read anything anyone has said or that the gentleman doth protest a bit too much. Would you care to elaborate further about why I am so grossly off the mark, or shall I presume that your response is the result of a struck nerve? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
|
|