tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post1983165759054506518..comments2023-08-09T03:21:13.354-05:00Comments on Letters from Gehenna: The World on a Slant: A Cat May Look: Fealty and SlaveryDw3t-Hthrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11584245136407694660noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-10953164773088321432007-01-26T11:51:00.000-05:002007-01-26T11:51:00.000-05:00"I don't see the examples you give as supporting t..."I don't see the examples you give as supporting that claim at all, though. What I see is that there are good and bad ways to use power-over, which is a rather different sort of thing."<br /><br />Part of me wants to say you're right, and part of me wants to say you're not.<br /><br />On the one hand, yeah, I agree that any sort of power-over can be misused. Which means that "power-over" as a large category is value-neutral.<br /><br />On the other, I'm sympathetic to people like Thomas Wartenberg who think that the power that parents or teachers have needs its own name -- he calls it "transformative power" -- because it's used in particular ways and with particular aims that, say, just having influence is not.<br /><br />And what I was getting at is that transformative power's intended purpose is to somehow enrich other people. Good parents and mentors are trying, for example, to help kids develop in ways that enable them to become autonomous agents. Good teachers are trying to educate kids both because knowledge is a good thing in itself and because having that knowledge and ways to use it opens up options that otherwise don't exist for a person.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-617079911562164492007-01-26T01:24:00.000-05:002007-01-26T01:24:00.000-05:00Yeah, that's sort of what I was driving at with th...Yeah, that's sort of what I was driving at with that.<br /><br />Power is power; it's what one <i>uses</i> it for that matters.<br /><br />And the concept of "power-over" and vilification thereof is sort of ideologically tied, at least in my experience, to the sort of group that does consensus decision-making in a way that I happen to find coercive -- which means that "power-over" is in the eye of the beholder <i>anyway</i> ...Dw3t-Hthrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11584245136407694660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-13976957228169959102007-01-25T20:34:00.000-05:002007-01-25T20:34:00.000-05:00Going back upthread a bit, to this quote from trin...Going back upthread a bit, to this quote from trin's first comment: "But there is good and bad power-over!"<br /><br />I don't see the examples you give as supporting that claim at all, though. What I see is that there are good and bad ways to <i>use</i> power-over, which is a rather different sort of thing.<br /><br />For a sort of cliche example -- I own a hammer. This gives me a considerable amount of power over the ordinary domestic nail. Is this power good, or is it bad? I can use it to hang pictures and assemble walls. I can use it to disassemble walls, too, and make the building fall down. Some of those are good, some of them are bad (and all of them depend on context). The power itself is not inherently good or bad; it is merely a tool, and the goodness or badness lies in the application of the tool to the situation.<br /><br />I think that other forms of power fit that pattern fairly well, too. For example, the power that a parent has is not inherently good; there are certainly uses of it for ill. And most forms of power can be used to enrich people or to damage them; it's not inherent in the power that they're good or bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-49831289856241985802007-01-25T19:44:00.000-05:002007-01-25T19:44:00.000-05:00Oh, that really wasn't the kink community. That wa...Oh, that really wasn't the kink community. That was the online enclave of a washed-up but famous "dominant" who hadn't had a slave in five years, and her little cohort of people who felt exactly the same as she did.<br /><br />There are maybe two of them that I feel were really following their hearts. The rest were chronically not partnered and chronically whiny.<br /><br />They were all people who wanted to do D/s like a managerial job. I think they would have been better off coupling being supervisors at work with an illicit office romance, honestly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-55756524410790926822007-01-25T14:51:00.000-05:002007-01-25T14:51:00.000-05:00I've never gotten into the kinked community much, ...I've never gotten into the kinked community much, because I spent a long time doing the "I don't think I belong here because people are talking about this other stuff that makes no sense to me" thing, and once I sort of embraced my subbiness despite not seeing anyone doing the same sort of model, I didn't care anymore. (Back to LL's monstering.) Though I read soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm and a couple of kink communities on LJ, but the LJ ones are only the cranky ones. ;)<br /><br />A lot of the behaviours that get put forth as Twoo Dominance read to me as <i>insecure</i>, which doesn't incline me towards minioning. ;)<br /><br />(Y'know, I should maybe fish out my review of <i>Dark Moon Rising</i> and rework it for here. Hmmm.)Dw3t-Hthrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11584245136407694660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-15800543469891162372007-01-25T14:45:00.000-05:002007-01-25T14:45:00.000-05:00Oh, yeah, definitely. The thing was I was hugely n...Oh, yeah, definitely. The thing was I was hugely new to D/s (and several years younger; 24 or so) and very concerned about doing it "wrong" -- he and I met online, part of a small enclave on the Gloria Brame boards.<br /><br />The people there have what I feel is a rather rigid idea of what dominance should be, and it's one I don't agree with much at all. But at the time I knew GB was famous, and I wanted to "do things right," and my head was full of one-true-wayers who'd constantly say things like "submissive people are very fragile and you have awesome power.<br /><br />"If you don't give them exactly THIS kind of relationship structure, which necessarily includes punishment dynamics, they will never be healthy and happy. They NEED STRUCTURE, and that's what makes them submissive."<br /><br />That's why I never really stood up for myself. I didn't know enough people to know that I disagree that submissive people come to D/s because of a need for external structure. It sounded frivolous and overly sex-focused to say, in the face of all that "structure" stuff, that what I really wanted was someone who'd get off on being mine, who'd have fun rather than just "need" authoritarian rule.<br /><br />That's why for a LONG time both before and after that relationship, I ID'ed as "a top" instead of "a Master" or "dominant." I still had strong sexual fantasies of ownership and possession, and I still thought they were a part of who I am and what I wanted, but I didn't think I could do the "authority" thing, if that's what it meant. So i basically thought "I'm a wannabe Master who could never cut it." and left it at that.<br /><br />Now I'm much more interested in finding people who feel fulfilled by service rather than who "need rules," and totally over the "this can't be really hot because steamy sex is not SERIOUS" thing. Now I'd have dumped him at the moment he said "I need punishment dynamics."<br /><br />Back then, I didn't think I could knock it 'till I'd "tried it", and thought "trying it" meant going ahead even when I was really unhappy because of what people were telling me "submissives need" (another reason I like those words better as adjectives than nouns.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-81046662893817457842007-01-25T14:30:00.000-05:002007-01-25T14:30:00.000-05:00So he'd go out of his way to piss me off. And inst...<i>So he'd go out of his way to piss me off. And instead of punishing, I'd tell him I didn't LIKE punishment. He'd counter I wasn't dominant. It was a mess. A MEEEEEESS.</i><br /><br />I would *so* reply to that guy with, "You're being punished right now. You want a whipping *so badly*, and I'm going to sit here and not give it to you. You can sit there and writhe and try to manipulate me into giving you what you want, but *you're* not the one who gets to apply coercion here, bub."Dw3t-Hthrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11584245136407694660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-62974360850261017282007-01-25T14:19:00.000-05:002007-01-25T14:19:00.000-05:00"What weirds me out even more are the sub-types wh..."What weirds me out even more are the sub-types who I see occasionally going, "And I misbehave and master has to punish me tee-hee". Er, okay. I can see the game, I guess, but the vocabulary use just blows my mind."<br /><br />Yep. That's what my first sub wanted. His fantasies were all "domestic discipline" centered. He wanted a strict rule-setter who'd make sure he Got Shit Done (tm), and made sure of it with a crop.<br /><br />That ain't me. I care about someone's devotion much more than small-time obedience. (And really, he didn't usually even give me that. I think he was just wanting the punishment, but wanting it to "feel" like it wasn't "play." So he'd go out of his way to piss me off. And instead of punishing, I'd tell him I didn't LIKE punishment. He'd counter I wasn't dominant. It was a mess. A MEEEEEESS.)<br /><br />"'Cause I'm sitting here in my fealty mindset going, "Okay, my liege wants me to do something; I can not do it (at least some of the time, so long as I'm not deep in altered-state), but I have to evaluate whether or not that's something that's worth challenging his judgement on""<br /><br />Yes. EXACTLY. I don't give many orders that I think a person wouldn't want to obey anyhow, and that's exactly why. I don't WANT to be frivolous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-29527618871542050372007-01-25T14:02:00.000-05:002007-01-25T14:02:00.000-05:00What weirds me out even more are the sub-types who...What weirds me out even more are the sub-types who I see occasionally going, "And I misbehave and master has to punish me tee-hee". Er, okay. I can see the game, I guess, but the vocabulary use just blows my mind.<br /><br />'Cause I'm sitting here in my fealty mindset going, "Okay, my liege wants me to do something; I can not do it (at least some of the time, so long as I'm not deep in altered-state), but I have to evaluate whether or not that's something that's worth challenging his judgement on", and really, most of the time it's not. There's no tee-hee involved here.<br /><br />(Last time I ran that evaluation, the directive was, "Put on your clothes so we can leave." :} )Dw3t-Hthrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11584245136407694660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-81518649542261656972007-01-25T13:38:00.000-05:002007-01-25T13:38:00.000-05:00"My husband (also a dominant top, though not my li..."My husband (also a dominant top, though not my liege) tried to explain the concepts of punishment once in a d/s context, and couldn't get past my really intense gut response"<br /><br />Same. I've been spending a lot of time lately with some local M/s folks and I really like them -- at least from first and second impressions, they seem more normal and less extreme than M/s is often portrayed on the internet. Also they talk a lot about leather, and about spiritual connections and service rather than yak endlessly about rules and how to set them. So I feel I fit well with them, despite the usual idea that M/s is insanely uber-serious and kinda kooky.<br /><br />But explaining how I can understand 99.9% of what they say and yet cringe at punishment they don't understand. So. Frustrating.<br /><br />I agree exactly with you. I want to be someone's Master, not someone's parent. I am childfree (though without all the "I hate kids and mommas" baggage, thankyouverymuch) for a reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-63975157721614249762007-01-25T13:26:00.000-05:002007-01-25T13:26:00.000-05:00My husband (also a dominant top, though not my lie...My husband (also a dominant top, though not my liege) tried to explain the concepts of punishment once in a d/s context, and couldn't get past my really intense gut response that someone handing out punishment was in loco parentis, was acting like a parent, and a) I don't want to be treated like a child and b) someone who wants to be treated like a parent is under no circumstances getting into a sexual relationship with me, ew.Dw3t-Hthrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11584245136407694660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-41768070141087959002007-01-25T13:08:00.000-05:002007-01-25T13:08:00.000-05:00*clapping wildly*
"the division into "power-over"...*clapping wildly*<br /><br />"the division into "power-over" and other things, as if there is some different taste to good power that distinguishes it from bad power."<br /><br />But there is good and bad power-over! If you have children and are a loving parent, your power over them helps them to grow. If you are a good teacher, you often impose on your students: Homework. Readings. Grades. Exams. Yet it's a system designed to enrich the STUDENT, not you.<br /><br />This is why as a dominant top (I hate using "dominant" as a noun; make of that what you will) I often get really frustrated by discussions of punishment dynamics. Because if I have preferences as to how I like things to be set up or arranged, great. If part of D/s is about getting more of those things than I otherwise would because someone else enjoys, and quite possibly finds somewhat arousing, even, giving them to me: SUPER AWESOME SPIFF.<br /><br />But if I set up punishments based on such little things, as if someone in service to me, someone who has sworn fealty to me, is a small child... who does that enrich?<br /><br />Personally I think nobody really. Thus, I'm not big on that. I don't mind at all "Sir, I disappointed you and I feel bad, can we have some ritual closure?" because to me that is enriching. But "this isn't like I want it! GRRRRR!" isn't the same, to me. So for me... atonement, yes, punishment, no.<br /><br />Other people may see these things as the same (I've heard other people describe their punishment dynamics that way almost exactly), or find other things work for them, and that's all fine. But I think it's a big deal to use power-over in an enriching way. I find the idea less scary than a lot of people who deem it always corruptive; I think it's used positively ALL THE TIME. But I also think it's a really serious thing, so obedience means much less to me than fealty and than honoring it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-46749279800135673162007-01-25T08:34:00.000-05:002007-01-25T08:34:00.000-05:00I'm still reading and processing it, but just to s...I'm still reading and processing it, but just to say: this is great stuff.belledame222https://www.blogger.com/profile/13947289856453172848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-52582277563370479642007-01-19T01:33:00.000-05:002007-01-19T01:33:00.000-05:00My liege points out to me that a lot of this is ab...My liege points out to me that a lot of this is about people wanting the trappings of power, not the actuality of it. He described it as "whim-power" and "hedonist-power" -- the ability to blow everything off and have it covered by Someone Else -- rather than the ability to effect change.<br /><br />He went on to point out that ducking behind the ideology or the group feeds into that. Collective responsibility isn't individual responsibility; no consequences. If the system is set up to back ya, everything's free.<br /><br />Which of course plays back into power and privilege and vulnerability.Dw3t-Hthrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11584245136407694660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-7699790632616183132007-01-18T17:48:00.000-05:002007-01-18T17:48:00.000-05:00anything which gets rid of the person drives me bu...anything which gets rid of the person drives me bugfuck.<br /><br />communities are groups of people. Countries are groups of people. Families are groups of people.<br /><br />It is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE to do something that is good for the group and bad for the individuals within it. Whenever something is bad for the individuals, it's bad for the group. (it's one of the reasons why "I'm doing it for the family" makes me want to froth at the mouth. or "the country" or whatever. be SPECIFIC!)<br /><br />Refusing to acknowledge the power structure only guarantees that you can't challenge the power structure. (not that I have to tell YOU that).Vievahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15156288385744214737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-9442993240566591172007-01-18T13:23:00.000-05:002007-01-18T13:23:00.000-05:00(Fancy me coming at something from a very differen...(Fancy me coming at something from a very different angle. ;) )<br /><br />Yeah, that's the bit I forgot to put in there -- power and responsibility twined together.<br /><br />One of the reasons that I get touchy around ideology-as-authority is that it's an excellent way of ducking responsibility. No, no, it's not that any <i>person</i> wants someone to be contorted painfully, it's just what the ideology requires -- *poke* *poke* there's a nice underbelly, now ....<br /><br />At least in the ideal case, feudalism had responsibilities both ways; lord with protection and patronage, vassal typically with military service and agricultural administration.<br /><br />These days? "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" is the watchword. No other <i>individual</i> should have it, just some faceless mass that makes the power deniable and the corruption invisible ....Dw3t-Hthrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11584245136407694660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4427538608110635294.post-25641109258254197602007-01-18T09:17:00.000-05:002007-01-18T09:17:00.000-05:00I know I've written about submission and dominance...I know I've written about submission and dominance a bit, but you're coming at it from a very different angle.<br /><br />I see nothing wrong (And find the idea that there IS something wrong weird, though common) with not being *in charge*. I hate the idea that we're supposed to WANT to be managers. (and that management is the uppermost level).<br /><br />Then again, one of the threads of power you didn't mention? That the people at the top are there to serve those beneath. Power used properly is power in service, not power as control.<br /><br />I think one of the biggest problems with the entire power relationship concept is that our Rules about power are all messed up. When power is ASSUMED to be used incorrectly in the hands of other people, we must have it ourselves so no one else can use it for us.<br /><br />A lot of the assumption that we must be IN power is an assumption that no one else can be TRUSTED with power. Which is an odd statement, because it presupposes we can trust ourselves. Or, perhaps, that we can't trust ourselves, but as long as we're in power, who cares about the people who aren't?Vievahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15156288385744214737noreply@blogger.com