Under Protection (95)

If its part of a dynamic, then its a form of relationship like any other and YKIOK - I'd guess this is somewhat related to the father-daughter/daddy dom type dynamic for some people (?). That's not a manipulation situation at all as its something the sub wants.

Thee evil manipulation scenario is when the dom casts himself as being of benefit to the sub as mentor/protector/shoe shiner whilst claiming they are not in, or interested in, a relationship, whilst collecting some of the benefits, or as Admin put it 'getting their shoes under the door' (and possibly fending off other legitimate potential partners on the subs behalf in the meantime).

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

But does this happen often, do we know, or is it just an assumption, that where we see this whole "under protection" thing it is a combination of a manipulative dom and a too-stupid-to-realise sub?

I guess I'd like to believe that the vast majority of these arrangements are gone into with eyes wide open on both sides, where both sides are in it for whatever mutual benefit they wish to gain.

I never was very good at seeing the bad in people. And I guess until a host of people arrive and say, yes, I was made a fool of by a bad man, or indeed, I am a bad man and take advantage of subs, I'll never know. And that's not likely to happen because, well, either it's not happening, or people don't want to fess up. So I'll probably just continue wandering along in my sweet rosy-tinted view that this works for some people on an open and consenting level.

Mostly because the alternative view, which assumes there are a lot of bad men and stupid women out there, isn't very pleasant.

I take your point - both of you. It's easy to be sucked down the line making generalisations that are effectively slamming other people's kinks, and that's not cool. However, I still think there's some substance behind people's cynicism, even if some people might have put that across in a particularly disrespectful way.

The last few posts have made me think about what exactly it is about this dynamic that *sometimes* makes people feel uneasy about it, and I think Vareox hit on an important point.

The 'protector' dynamic (as opposed to merely 'friends looking out for each other') is just another kink - no more, and no less. Most of the kinks that we indulge in, we expect that both parties are entering into them from a position of empowerment, and although one party may well choose to relinquish their power very early on, that should ideally be their fully-informed, free choice.

What concerns me about the 'protection' dynamic is that the 'protectee' is more than likely starting off in a comparatively vulnerable position - a position of need, if you like. (Otherwise, why would they need protection in the first place?) They may also be new to the scene, so they may not actually know exactly what it is that they really do need. Maybe what they really need is a circle of friends and peers, but all they know at this stage is that they feel vulnerable. For someone in that position, therefore, it must seem like a godsend when some 'noble' Dom (and one with a capital 'D', no less!) offers his protection, out of the sheer kindness of his heart.

So the sticking point for me is that, although the 'protector' may convince even himself that his motivations are entirely noble, the fact remains that, at least in some way, he is almost certainly getting some jollies out of the situation; meanwhile, the 'protectee' is probably blissfully unaware that she is even involved in a 'dynamic' at all.

Now I'm not slamming the whole idea, and I'm not accusing anybody in particular; I'm just pointing out the flaw in the plan that means that the 'protection' dynamic inherently lends itself to some people *possibly* sneaking some, dare I say, no-consensual jollies out of an arrangement with a vulnerable person.

And that's the really the whole point isn't it?

If you say you're someones friend, and act like it, which obviously includes looking out for them, then that sounds and is nice.

It's the whole "I am a protector." - "She is under my protection." - "For I oh Domly Dom will protect thee." That just sounds so wanky and pretentious.

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.

Ooof. Is this not as condescending and patronising a position as the "under protection" thing might be seen to be? Again, it's this assumption that people entering into this sort of arrangement might not realise what they're getting themselves into. Perhaps they don't *need* protection, they just want it? They like how it makes them feel, or like what it does for them?

Instead, maybe, turn it on its head - assume that although they're new, and female, and submissive, they may still (good god!) have a brain cell or two to rub together and aren't actually being manipulated by a big bad dom, but have entered an arrangement fully aware of what it means and what it doesn't.

Because like I said earlier, although this sort of thing *could* be open for exploitation - do we have any proof that it ever *is*? Or are we all just assuming there's a horde of ickle subbies out there being taken advantage of, without any proof at all of their existence?

Some subs will be savvy, and others won't be. Some doms will be perfectly honorable, but others won't be. It stands to reason that every possible combination will exist somewhere, even if we don't find out about them. All I'm doing is pointing out that this 'dynamic' creates a perfect opportunity for dishonorable doms to take advantage of vulnerable subs. I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself whether you think it's more plausible that that *sometimes* happens, or that it *never* happens.

Have you ever actually seen a bear shitting in the woods?