| 25 Jan 07, 11:26 AM maihri UK, 8 yrs   |
I'm not sure about that. Wouldn't a meeting of equals tend more to PE? How could you feel that you were giving up something to your Master if there was already an advantage on His side? However I would say that a certain degree of low cunning, sneakiness and that sure and certain knowledge of how your submissive 'ticks'
is a prerequisite. Personally, there is no way I would ever agree that Himself is cleverer than I am. But He's bigger than me, (I *like* to be physically over-powered) can argue black is white and I'd believe Him, can keep a straight face when necessary (you should see His hardest stare- enough to make anyone quail!) and I'm *most* impressed with His new-found whip-cracking skills. Horses for courses, I think. Maihri | ||
| 25 Jan 07, 12:39 PM fawn4n UK, 8 yrs |
I am so with alexandraa on this. I have had a marriage of equals and though I loved him, I also knew I could jump over his head in some areas. He is the one with the qualifications and a responsible job and yet I could outsmart him verbally again and again and ultimately that meant that I couldnt submit to him. Love simply wasnt enough. My Dom on the other hand, has incredible intelligence, a superior intellect and we are able to debate, argue, inform and amuse each other verbally. I hate to admit it but I know he is intellectually superior to me but he doesnt use it in a way that makes me feel small, he actually encourages me, pushes me to make more of myself, thereby increasing my self confidence. I guess I admire him, respect him and that is fundamental to my submission to him. fawn xx | ||
| 25 Jan 07, 1:11 PM colbeh 8 yrs |
This has always been a hugely controversial subject on IC. Lots of heat in the debate and not an awful lot of light. Part of the problem stems with the word "intelligence". I am sure that you aren't necessarily talking about intellectual ability here. Some of the brightest people I know are emotional retards. Its more a question of being able to think swiftly, clearly and in an emotionally mature manner. In order for any person to want to acquiesce(let alone"obey") another there needs to be utter respect. Respect emerges over time and with a history of both Dominant and submissive sharing joint experiences and recognising that they have both given each other something important and meaningful which encourages them to trust the other in the decision making process. Its often a necessarily slow but vital part of making the relationship work. Excellent blog as ever
| ||
| 25 Jan 07, 5:17 PM alexandraa UK(NW), 8 yrs |
I seriously disagree. You don't force someone to submit to you, you dont make them let go, they choose to let go and submit because they want your dominance, desire and need it. Otherwise how is it not simply a case of absuse and bullying? And how is it sustainable? I submit to someone's control because I feel they can provide me with leadership, guidance, mentoring, positive beneficial control and great sex and SM. Not for the sake of simply having any passing fool control me. I most definitely have very high standards and why on earth would I lower those standards and submit blindly and foolishly to someone less capable than me? I'd say blind submission without reference to standards is shallow and not what I'd call informed consent. Your view of Ds is clearly a very different picture to the version of Ds that works for me. Each to their own though. Be careful what you wish for | ||
| 25 Jan 07, 5:19 PM alexandraa UK(NW), 8 yrs |
Exactly xx Be careful what you wish for | ||
| 25 Jan 07, 9:56 PM Insistor UK(PL), 7 yrs |
I don't even think it is necessary for dominant people to be "bright". For example, nobody could deny that ex-Mafia-boss, John Gotti was both cunning and "persuasive" but his personality type was described as semi-moronic. The cops who pursued him said "forget the 'semi', he's a moron". I'm making no comparisons here, naturally. BDSM: Boring, Dim, Sad Motherfuckers. | ||
| 25 Jan 07, 10:50 PM Backdooruk UK(BA), 12 yrs |
Not everyone has the same requirements as you do. We all have our own kinks and things that attract us, that doesn't necessarily meant that everyone should have those requirements or that those requirements are essential for a functioning D/s relationship.
It may be that we have a different view of dominantion. For me domination is not simply having someone agree with what you tell them to do because they want to do it, it's having someone do something whether they agree with it or not. It's unquestioning obedience - all be it possibly within a limited framework. I'm also concerned how the mind-set of a submissive is effected by continual questioning of a dominants performance. Of course I would say then that the fault was with the dominant for allowing that questioning frame of mine to arise, or rather for not maintianing the dynamic enough so it didn't (though that's rather a symplifcation). - Chris "I have made this letter longer, because I have not had the time to make it shorter." - Blaise Pascal Edited 25 Jan 07, 10:52 PM by Backdooruk | ||
| 28 Jan 07, 10:43 PM Maugrim 6 yrs |
Leadership and domination are different, although not completely orthogonal. Obedience in a D/s sense is an emotional response above an intellectual one. Submission is about surrender, trust and release not about judgement, measurement or comparision. If these questions even arise it is at root because the domination dynamic is not right or intense enough. Chris has said it better than I can. Let go! - M. |
