True Control

[wind_dancer{W_W}]

This is something vanillas REALLLLLY need to understand or else they have one massively warped perception about BDSM

[erish]

Everyone else has expressed it so well... but i wanted to add my own thanks for a wise, insightful, and beautifully expressed post. One that resonates deeply with my submissive heart.

[DJade]

[/QUOTE]true submissives are vulnerable and loving by nature - this is my humble opinion. in their desire to submit, some may attract unworthy recipients of that submission, and place their vulnerable heart in unworthy hands.[/QUOTE]

It is true this happens all too often, for sometimes we cannot but follow our hearts instead of our heads. And it is difficult to let our spirits lead when our hearts blind us with hope. And yet to not hope is a crime of the spirit, and so we must always have hope!

[/QUOTE]i hope your excellent post inspires any selfish "Dom(me)s" to look closely at their motivations and behaviour, and value the gift they are freely given.

Thank You for sharing![/QUOTE]

That is my hope as well. Thank you for this lovely response!

[DJade]

Everyone else has expressed it so well... but i wanted to add my own thanks for a wise, insightful, and beautifully expressed post. One that resonates deeply with my submissive heart.

You are so welcome!

[~faerie~]

that was trully beautiful. you an Master have so much in common. no wonder i gravitated towards you, and shywolf too. *smiles*

Thank you.

[Mistressforyou]

very nice DJade, so truely and wise words

[bpqueen]

Once the dominant is in possession of the control, they must use it wisely, or it can be ripped away at a moment’s notice. If it IS used wisely, love develops, and it is this love that helps secure the control in the dominants hands. Not due to power or manipulation, but because it has been earned through mutual courtesy, trust and respect. It is this love that can render the submissive helpless. It is the false dominant who takes advantage of this love and uses it only for personal gain. But the real dominant shares this love and treasures it for the incredible gift that it is, never abuses it and always acts with honor and in the best interest of their submissive. The real dominant vows to hold that precious heart in their hands and keep it safe, even from themselves.

Thank you. It is scary on both levels, but as long as that communication and trust is there, it is truly beautiful and not egoistic at all.

[lily27]

Control may be an illusion, but it is real.

I am sorry, but I think I am missing something here. How can something be both an illusion, and reality? It may just be an issue of semantics, but I don't quite get it.

[DJade]

I am sorry, but I think I am missing something here. How can something be both an illusion, and reality? It may just be an issue of semantics, but I don't quite get it.

Control is an illusion (in certain situations). But it is real.

[JimmyJump]

I think you have put things in a nice way. But... I myself feel that, from the moment that you have two people that really care for each other, the symbiosys falls into place almost automatically.

I am a natural leader. In such a way, that I don't even notice it. I speak, and people listen. I do, and people do as I do. Which I don't always like, as I'm more keen on people thinking for themselves and doing as they want to do.


Anyway, from the moment you have a couple, whatever their way of life, there's almost always a leader and a follower. If you do care for each other however, there's always a considerate part that kicks in. Because, consideration is what it's all about, not control or submission.

You must never forget that in a relationship, you are dealing with a person (well, two, at least) and that this person has feelings and the need to express those feelings, whatever the degree of submissiveness.

Like I said, from the moment two people care for one another, there should be this consideration that prevents the dom to take advantage from the sub.

Of course, there's always the dimwitted kind, who seek solace in manipulating, or simply are too friggin' dumb to understand where the lines are. And maybe DJade, you can say that it is for those dimwits that you wrote your kind words, I feel that on that kind of folk, it's just a waste of time.

So, to me it is not about control, self or other, but about being human and showing consideration. Because in all our want to dominate, how harsh that domination may grow, there always has to be kindness involved


JJ

[DJade]

I think you have put things in a nice way. But... I myself feel that, from the moment that you have two people that really care for each other, the symbiosys falls into place almost automatically.

I am a natural leader. In such a way, that I don't even notice it. I speak, and people listen. I do, and people do as I do. Which I don't always like, as I'm more keen on people thinking for themselves and doing as they want to do.


Anyway, from the moment you have a couple, whatever their way of life, there's almost always a leader and a follower. If you do care for each other however, there's always a considerate part that kicks in. Because, consideration is what it's all about, not control or submission.

You must never forget that in a relationship, you are dealing with a person (well, two, at least) and that this person has feelings and the need to express those feelings, whatever the degree of submissiveness.

Like I said, from the moment two people care for one another, there should be this consideration that prevents the dom to take advantage from the sub.

Of course, there's always the dimwitted kind, who seek solace in manipulating, or simply are too friggin' dumb to understand where the lines are. And maybe DJade, you can say that it is for those dimwits that you wrote your kind words, I feel that on that kind of folk, it's just a waste of time.

So, to me it is not about control, self or other, but about being human and showing consideration. Because in all our want to dominate, how harsh that domination may grow, there always has to be kindness involved


JJ

The love and mutual courtesy, respect and trust of which I spoke most certainly encompasses consideration. Same concept, different words. But thanks for your views. Very well put.

[Miner]

very true, DJade, my respects to you and yours. And to you too JimmyJump

I think most dominants have an ego as big as all out-doors. I know I do. Control is something we do - including controlling others. In some that control is a form of bullying. I pity those submissives who end up in that sort of relationship.

Where control is applied in a loving manner it operates in both directions - as you imply, hence the 'who controls who' quandry (if it truly is a quandry).

My girl knows to the depths of her being that she is safe with me - not just in a BDSM setting. Her manager is a bully. There is nothing I can do that will alleviate the issue in her working life - but she knows she can turn to me for support - knows that when things get too difficult for her to handle, she can find shelter and comfort in my arms. That comfort and support - the safe harbour in the midst of turmoil - the rebuilding of her confidence when others try to destroy it are also part of loving control.

It isn't just a BDSM thing - but in my opinion it is part of any BDSM relationship that expects to last in the long term.

[JimmyJump]

very true, DJade, my respects to you and yours. And to you too JimmyJump

I think most dominants have an ego as big as all out-doors. I know I do. Control is something we do - including controlling others. In some that control is a form of bullying. I pity those submissives who end up in that sort of relationship.

Where control is applied in a loving manner it operates in both directions - as you imply, hence the 'who controls who' quandry (if it truly is a quandry).

My girl knows to the depths of her being that she is safe with me - not just in a BDSM setting. Her manager is a bully. There is nothing I can do that will alleviate the issue in her working life - but she knows she can turn to me for support - knows that when things get too difficult for her to handle, she can find shelter and comfort in my arms. That comfort and support - the safe harbour in the midst of turmoil - the rebuilding of her confidence when others try to destroy it are also part of loving control.

It isn't just a BDSM thing - but in my opinion it is part of any BDSM relationship that expects to last in the long term.

It's not my dominant side that provided me with a rather healthy ego, but my intelligence. The fact that I am (almost) right all the time. There's a cute little saying about that. "For a minute, I was panicking because I thought I made a mistake, but it seems I was wrong..."

And there's way too many people who still confuse lust with love.

Also, a lot of so-called dominants, especially those with a sadistic streak, are in fact frustrated wimps who need someone to vent those frustrations on.

The above is not rule of course, I don't want to generalize things, but take a look at folks who join the police force, for example. They can be devided in two general classes. The idealists who join for a good cause and the tits who were bullied at school and want to get even with the world.

A lot of those operette 'dominants' just want to get even with someone. Anyone. Those people are dangerous and will take advantage of you, because they have a complete disregard of others.

Then, there's also the environment in which you move. Let me give you a very extreem example.

In the village of Dachau during the second world war, people were recruted to perform duties as guards in the concentration camp of the same name. Those people were nice, friendly folk, who never did anybody any harm.

From one day to the other, they became vicious sadists with a complete disregard of humanity towards the prisoners. Why?

Because they had moved into a miniature society in which such things as torturing and killing were the norm.

If everybody in that environment says that the prisoners aren't human, then it's okay to treat them accordingly. And people do, because there's no moral resistance any more. Because the morals have shifted.

Like I said, an extreme example. But the same goes for our society. Why do some cops do what they do? Because they are moving inside an environment that tolerates such behaviour. They are in a position of authority and usually no-one questions that authority. Because everybody in that environment lives according to the same set of rules, values and morals.

The same could be true for some BDSM clubs. If members don't keep themselves and each other in check, things can get out of hand, because of the position of authority of the dominants. The mental position of the submissives makes them, well, submit, because that is what a submissive does, or someone who has been conditioned to act as a submissive. Again, look at concentration camps. Prisoners outnumbered guards over ten to one. But prisoners were already conditioned to act inside the rules of the environment and didn't protest.

Besides, we all know that power is intoxicating. It corrupts. So, as a result people need to watch each other and intervene when things might get out of hand. Sometimes, that is far from easy.


JJ

[DJade]

I think you have put things in a nice way. But... I myself feel that, from the moment that you have two people that really care for each other, the symbiosys falls into place almost automatically.

I am a natural leader. In such a way, that I don't even notice it. I speak, and people listen. I do, and people do as I do. Which I don't always like, as I'm more keen on people thinking for themselves and doing as they want to do.


Anyway, from the moment you have a couple, whatever their way of life, there's almost always a leader and a follower. If you do care for each other however, there's always a considerate part that kicks in. Because, consideration is what it's all about, not control or submission.

You must never forget that in a relationship, you are dealing with a person (well, two, at least) and that this person has feelings and the need to express those feelings, whatever the degree of submissiveness.

Like I said, from the moment two people care for one another, there should be this consideration that prevents the dom to take advantage from the sub.

Of course, there's always the dimwitted kind, who seek solace in manipulating, or simply are too friggin' dumb to understand where the lines are. And maybe DJade, you can say that it is for those dimwits that you wrote your kind words, I feel that on that kind of folk, it's just a waste of time.

So, to me it is not about control, self or other, but about being human and showing consideration. Because in all our want to dominate, how harsh that domination may grow, there always has to be kindness involved


JJ

And although I do not find it necessary to target a specific audience, perhaps we should everyone afford standard consideration whether we feel it is a waste of time or not.

[DJade]

very true, DJade, my respects to you and yours. And to you too JimmyJump

I think most dominants have an ego as big as all out-doors. I know I do. Control is something we do - including controlling others. In some that control is a form of bullying. I pity those submissives who end up in that sort of relationship.

Where control is applied in a loving manner it operates in both directions - as you imply, hence the 'who controls who' quandry (if it truly is a quandry).

My girl knows to the depths of her being that she is safe with me - not just in a BDSM setting. Her manager is a bully. There is nothing I can do that will alleviate the issue in her working life - but she knows she can turn to me for support - knows that when things get too difficult for her to handle, she can find shelter and comfort in my arms. That comfort and support - the safe harbour in the midst of turmoil - the rebuilding of her confidence when others try to destroy it are also part of loving control.

It isn't just a BDSM thing - but in my opinion it is part of any BDSM relationship that expects to last in the long term.

Well said, Miner. Your girl is lucky indeed to be able to rely on your support and loving control. Regards, D'Jade

[DJade]

It's not my dominant side that provided me with a rather healthy ego, but my intelligence. The fact that I am (almost) right all the time. There's a cute little saying about that. "For a minute, I was panicking because I thought I made a mistake, but it seems I was wrong..."

And there's way too many people who still confuse lust with love.

Also, a lot of so-called dominants, especially those with a sadistic streak, are in fact frustrated wimps who need someone to vent those frustrations on.

The above is not rule of course, I don't want to generalize things, but take a look at folks who join the police force, for example. They can be devided in two general classes. The idealists who join for a good cause and the tits who were bullied at school and want to get even with the world.

A lot of those operette 'dominants' just want to get even with someone. Anyone. Those people are dangerous and will take advantage of you, because they have a complete disregard of others.

Then, there's also the environment in which you move. Let me give you a very extreem example.

In the village of Dachau during the second world war, people were recruted to perform duties as guards in the concentration camp of the same name. Those people were nice, friendly folk, who never did anybody any harm.

From one day to the other, they became vicious sadists with a complete disregard of humanity towards the prisoners. Why?

Because they had moved into a miniature society in which such things as torturing and killing were the norm.

If everybody in that environment says that the prisoners aren't human, then it's okay to treat them accordingly. And people do, because there's no moral resistance any more. Because the morals have shifted.

Like I said, an extreme example. But the same goes for our society. Why do some cops do what they do? Because they are moving inside an environment that tolerates such behaviour. They are in a position of authority and usually no-one questions that authority. Because everybody in that environment lives according to the same set of rules, values and morals.

The same could be true for some BDSM clubs. If members don't keep themselves and each other in check, things can get out of hand, because of the position of authority of the dominants. The mental position of the submissives makes them, well, submit, because that is what a submissive does, or someone who has been conditioned to act as a submissive. Again, look at concentration camps. Prisoners outnumbered guards over ten to one. But prisoners were already conditioned to act inside the rules of the environment and didn't protest.

Besides, we all know that power is intoxicating. It corrupts. So, as a result people need to watch each other and intervene when things might get out of hand. Sometimes, that is far from easy.


JJ

Well said, Jimmy. I am dominant by nature and this dominance exists in conjunction with all of my other character traits. I, like you, am a realist. I agree there are indeed a lot of misguided "dominants" out there, people who are not, in my view, qualified to dominate at all. But as you imply, it does not stop them from manipulating the submissive traits of others. It is good for all of us to be aware of these people so that we can do what we are able to thwart them. An endeavor, as you said, that is not easy. But perhaps more importantly, at least for me, it is wise to realize that the forces of the power you speak of are quite capable of corrupting even the best of us. Hence the lessons I have developed for my subs pertaining to all topics that fall under the umbrella of integrity, a few of which are control, focus, discipline, respect, trust and safety. Perhaps you felt my original post was too sweet or preachy. Quite the contrary. Maybe I originally wrote it for me, for I admit I am a control freak. I have to keep myself in check somehow! Lol Again, thanks for your views. Regards, D'Jade

[thir]

“
. But one thing is certain. It is the sub who holds the control then and not the dom/me.

OMG <G>

On many lists this would cause a storm of reactions from Real Doms who rule naturally by their inborn alpha nature and dominant charisma which causes the subs to fall helplessly to their knees with their knickers all wet..

But you are right as I see it, integrity is so important - for all relationships really. And patience and trust and growth does not happen overnight.

[thir]

Anyway, from the moment you have a couple, whatever their way of life, there's almost always a leader and a follower.

I have heard this statement before, and must admit I do not quite understand it..I think in most relationships one 'leads' with some things and the other with other things - and some stuff is just decided between the parties.

I would like to hear other views on this, if any are interested.

[thir]

Also, a lot of so-called dominants, especially those with a sadistic streak, are in fact frustrated wimps who need someone to vent those frustrations on.

Could be a matter of linguistics here, but a number of people actually define themselves as sadists, meaning they give pain. And there is nothing wrong with that.

In the village of Dachau during the second world war, people were recruted to perform duties as guards in the concentration camp of the same name. Those people were nice, friendly folk, who never did anybody any harm.

From one day to the other, they became vicious sadists with a complete disregard of humanity towards the prisoners. Why?

Do you remember the old experiment in which a person tries to imprint learning on another person by giving them electric shocks? In reality the person being tested was the one giving the shocks, while the other was an actor simulating pain. But the point was that you could get normal people to keep giving these shocks - even to 'death', as long as it was an authority asking them to do it.

Like I said, an extreme example. But the same goes for our society.

Among others Joseph Conrad in 'Heart of 'Darkness' asked the question of how do we behave, if we can REALLY do what we want without anyone interfering?

The answer, as I see it, has to do with definitions of civilization..

The same could be true for some BDSM clubs. If members don't keep themselves and each other in check, things can get out of hand, because of the position of authority of the dominants. The mental position of the submissives makes them, well, submit, because that is what a submissive does, or someone who has been conditioned to act as a submissive.

I beg to defer here. Yes, in a bdsm relationship abuse is certainly possible, but I must protest against this picture. Subs are not helpless.

Again, look at concentration camps. Prisoners outnumbered guards over ten to one. But prisoners were already conditioned to act inside the rules of the environment and didn't protest.

I rather think it is the guards weapons that makes the difference! I doubt anyone would stay in a koncentration camp out of conditioning.

Besides, we all know that power is intoxicating. It corrupts. So, as a result people need to watch each other and intervene when things might get out of hand. Sometimes, that is far from easy.

True.

[fetishdj]

Could be a matter of linguistics here, but a number of people actually define themselves as sadists, meaning they give pain. And there is nothing wrong with that.

There is, however, a difference between a 'sadist' and a 'bully'. A sadist is still in control of themselves when they inflict pain, they do not do it to vent some frustration.

Do you remember the old experiment in which a person tries to imprint learning on another person by giving them electric shocks? In reality the person being tested was the one giving the shocks, while the other was an actor simulating pain. But the point was that you could get normal people to keep giving these shocks - even to 'death', as long as it was an authority asking them to do it.

Milgram... of course the same experiment would probably be illegal now, just like the one that fed psychotropics to prison inmates to 'test what they did'. Migram's work is interesting in that it does cast doubt on the attitude to the 'standard Nurenberg defence' which is 'only following orders is no defence'.

Among others Joseph Conrad in 'Heart of 'Darkness' asked the question of how do we behave, if we can REALLY do what we want without anyone interfering?

The answer, as I see it, has to do with definitions of civilization..

Three meals away from barbarism?

I beg to defer here. Yes, in a bdsm relationship abuse is certainly possible, but I must protest against this picture. Subs are not helpless.

Maybe not helpless (protected in law if not by their own doing) but some are vulnerable. Most, however, are strong individuals who choose submission fully aware of what it means.

[mikkey sub]

very interesting reading. thank you Miss DJade

[JimmyJump]

Could be a matter of linguistics here, but a number of people actually define themselves as sadists, meaning they give pain. And there is nothing wrong with that.

The true meaning of the word sadist, is indeed getting a kick out of giving pain, but with complete disregard of the 'victim'.

People calling themselves sadists because they like to inflict pain to a masochist need further scrutinizing (the act, not the folks) as there's a strong possibility that their sadism is instigated by the masochism of their partner.

Torquemada, Mengele, François Alphonse Donatien De Sade, they are true sadists and thus dispicable as, indeed, there was something wrong with them.

Also, it is not because people define themselves as being something that they are.

I have been a passenger on an airplane. As a result, I could define myself as an aviator. But the fact that I would do so doesn't make me one...

very interesting reading. thank you Miss DJade

Dunno if you noticed, but there's more than one person who contributed here

JJ

[Ozme52]

I guess I just have to put in a dissenting opinion.

The submissive cedes power and control to the dominant, (and the dominant takes it,) because it is mutually beneficial to do so.

Just because the sub can take it back, in no way changes the fact that for that period of time, the dominant is the wielder of the power.

My control is not an illusion. If you insist that it is, then the submission that goes with it is even more illusory. In which case, there is no gift at all because it has no value.

[JimmyJump]

I guess I just have to put in a dissenting opinion.

The submissive cedes power and control to the dominant, (and the dominant takes it,) because it is mutually beneficial to do so.

Just because the sub can take it back, in no way changes the fact that for that period of time, the dominant is the wielder of the power.

My control is not an illusion. If you insist that it is, then the submission that goes with it is even more illusory. In which case, there is no gift at all because it has no value.

Absolutely, Oz. But it's a symbiosys. Ying and Yang. There has to be a balance and that balance is provided by, on the one hand the dominant, and on the other the submissive.

When there's dominance without voluntary submission (unless the submissive wants to be forced, but then again there's consent), you have tyranny.

Should the submissive take away it's will to submit, there's no more dominance, because there's no-one left to dominate.


JJ

[jeanne]

Should the submissive take away it's will to submit, there's no more dominance, because there's no-one left to dominate.

This is true, but once I've made the choice to submit, my will becomes His. In other words, I 'align' my will to His will and in that moment my power becomes His to control. My control of the situation is ceded to Him - in effect I surrender.

If I believed that I held the 'upper hand' in submission, that I was the final say-so about what we do together, I wouldn't be submitting, imo. I'd be bottoming. That isn't who I am in my relationship with Him.

That being said - this level of trust and faith in a Dominant takes time to develop. It isn't something that can be commanded in an instant. My Owner and I have been together for a year and a half, and our mutual trust grows each day. Where we'll be in another year - who knows? I expect the depth of my surrender to Him will continue to grow, His power over me will continue to grow...and I'm enjoying every step along the way.

[Ozme52]

Absolutely, Oz. But it's a symbiosys. Ying and Yang. There has to be a balance and that balance is provided by, on the one hand the dominant, and on the other the submissive.

I never said otherwise. In fact, that's my point. It's not "just" the submissive who gives a gift, not "just" the submissive who says yes or no.

When there's dominance without voluntary submission (unless the submissive wants to be forced, but then again there's consent), you have tyranny.

Again, nothing I said would imply dominance without consent was my position.

Should the submissive take away it's will to submit, there's no more dominance, because there's no-one left to dominate.

JJ

Its will to submit? My my...

By the same token, if the dominant doesn't choose to accept the submissive's submission, where is your D/s relationship then. No where! That's why I dissent when I hear a sub-centric perspective of D/s.

[lily27]

My line of thinking is a lot closer to Oz's. I wanted to offer the voice of dissent earlier, but couldn't get my thoughts clear enough, so I just let it go.

In my version of D/s, the submissive is not in control, and submission is not a "gift". If it were, then the sub would really be the top, and that just doesn't work for me.

As always, your mileage may vary.

[thir]

There is, however, a difference between a 'sadist' and a 'bully'. A sadist is still in control of themselves when they inflict pain, they do not do it to vent some frustration.

True, of course. But the expression here used was 'sadist'. Now that word can either mean something like a mentally deranged person, or, within a bdsm context, a person who gives pain to a partner who wants it or accepts it to please the Master/Mistress. I think most people in the life style understands this.

Milgram... of course the same experiment would probably be illegal now, just like the one that fed psychotropics to prison inmates to 'test what they did'. Migram's work is interesting in that it does cast doubt on the attitude to the 'standard Nurenberg defence' which is 'only following orders is no defence'.

It is interesting, isn't? It may explain some things, without excusing them. It does put questions to how far we should follow authorities, and how much we dare disobey them. And of course, to what extent we can recognize bad stuff, and to what extent we simply do not see it, either out of habit, or because others do not react either.

Three meals away from barbarism?

Quite :-). But I meant more than that: Do we see how civilized (or to what extent we know good from evil and react on it) if we get put in a situation where we can really do what we like? Either because no one would ever know, or because no one would have the power to interfere?
What would we do then?
Further, if the going got tough somehow, what would we do?


(About subs in general)

Maybe not helpless (protected in law if not by their own doing) but some are vulnerable. Most, however, are strong individuals who choose submission fully aware of what it means.

I agree. I just wanted to oppose the picture of the helpless subs who cannot but do what they are ordered, no matter the consequences. It was a rather general statement, or so I read it.

[thir]

The true meaning of the word sadist, is indeed getting a kick out of giving pain, but with complete disregard of the 'victim'.

So it is. But I am using it a bdsm context, as in giving pain to some who gets something out of it - the way as quite a number of dominants do.

People calling themselves sadists because they like to inflict pain to a masochist need further scrutinizing (the act, not the folks) as there's a strong possibility that their sadism is instigated by the masochism of their partner.

Scrutinizing? Why? We do what we like with people who like it. That is enough.

Torquemada, Mengele, François Alphonse Donatien De Sade, they are true sadists and thus dispicable as, indeed, there was something wrong with them.

True, but although the word is the same, I think we can all tell the difference between Mengele and a Mistress whipping a willing slave.

Also, it is not because people define themselves as being something that they are.

I have been a passenger on an airplane. As a result, I could define myself as an aviator. But the fact that I would do so doesn't make me one...

Pople in the lifestyle get to know themselves, and then they put a name on it. That is what I meant. What else can/should you do??




Dunno if you noticed, but there's more than one person who contributed here

JJ[/QUOTE]

[JimmyJump]

So it is. But I am using it a bdsm context, as in giving pain to some who gets something out of it - the way as quite a number of dominants do.

I like inflicting pain. Not out of sadism, but because I get a kick out of the knowledge that the person I inflict pain to, is accepting that pain willingly.

You or anybody else, can call that Sadism. I don't.

Scrutinizing? Why? We do what we like with people who like it. That is enough.

Because Sadism in it's true form is dangerous. A sadist doesn't care about safe-words.

True, but although the word is the same, I think we can all tell the difference between Mengele and a Mistress whipping a willing slave.

Absolutely, that's why I'll never call a Mistress whipping a slave a sadist.

Pople in the lifestyle get to know themselves, and then they put a name on it. That is what I meant. What else can/should you do??

I'm not in the lifestyle. I'm in life.


JJ