The Top 100 BDSM / Fetish Books    [other banners]

	SD! : Web boards : Dominance : "Empathetic Dominance" 1 2 3 Empathetic Dominance (26) 15 Jun 08, 10:27 AM lili UK, 8 yrs  Platinum wrote: lili wrote: 1. Given the differences between behaviours of systemizers and empathizers, is it possible to have 2 very different types of dominance (and if so, is one more desirable than the other?) There are 2 types of relationship, successful and failing. What charecterises a successful relationship seems to me to be a balance betwwen the psycholocgical needs of the participants.. Logically any relationship that features matched personality types should prosper whilst those based on opposites should fail. The style of dominance would therefore seem to be unimportant to a relationships success. Why would a relationship of matched personalities logically prosper whilst one of opposites would logically fail? I don't really see the logic there, and it's certainly a theory not based in the practicality of facts. After all aren't the majority of human relationships in the world fundamentally those between men and women? (If you just think of that statistically, I don't think you can get much more "opposite" than that really!) Platinum wrote: lili wrote: 2. If so, what do each of these look like by comparison (i.e. what are the pros and cons of having a dominant who is a strong systemizer v one who is a strong empathizer?) S-S would be formal, high protocol, based on all pervading rules and procedures, possibly a Gorean style relationship. a purely E-E relationship would probably be percieved as a old fashioned marriage, Him as breadwinner, master of the household while she is homemaker and companion. There seems to be a massive assumption (not just made by you of course) that a systemiser would be high protocol whilst an empathiser would be "touchy feely". I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with this. I certainly am a rules based person, I like structure and formality (verging on OCD at times) and feel quite unstable in an unstructured environment. The fact that I use empathy to work out what people are feeling, how I'm feeling and how that relates or impacts on the relationship doesn't necessarily mean I'm not going to impose rules. And as for ritual, wow - ritual is a big part of my life! You also seem to have assumed that the male personality would be dominant and the female submissive, that's certainly not always the case (and is definitely not the case for me in my relationship with Charlie.) Platinum wrote: lili wrote: 5. Does being an extreme empathizer disadvantage me as a dominant or do I, instead, need a systemizer under me in order for me to develop a D/s relationship? Possibly in the sense that an extremely E dominant will find it difficult to provide the rules and framework anything other than a purely E submissive will seek to base their submission upon. An E submissive will love the care and empathy of the E dominant but may find increasing the depth of submission frustratingly difficult So you seem to be saying an empathiser dominant would have difficulty with both a systemiser submissive and an empathiser submissive? I'm presuming you are basing that on your hypothesis that empathisers are unable or unwilling to impose rules and protocol on the relationship? Again, I'm not sure where or how this assumption has come about, do you know what you are basing it on? Lili xx "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." (Abraham Lincoln) 15 Jun 08, 11:35 AM anjuli UK, 16 mths  Good questions Lili, I fail to see what is logical about... well pretty much all of the assumptions implicit in this one. What on earth is to stop an E dominant from seeing what is needed and making an effort to provide it? Or for that matter a submissive of either leaning striving to love, please and serve their Master the way they want to be loved, pleased and served? Is that not what empathy is about... being able to put yourself in the other's shoes? And what good is that if you can't apply it in some way? I think we're again getting hung up on the E and S labels rather than realising that the vast mjority of people have some of each and some fluid ability. It's all making interesting reading tho. anjuli (me = EQ60, SQ76 and J = EQ50, SQ68) Fascinating. ~~~ “I, with a deeper instinct, choose a man who compels my strength, who makes enormous demands on me, who does not doubt my courage or my toughness, who does not believe me naive or innocent, who has the courage to treat me like a woman.” - Anais Nin ~~~ 18 Jun 08, 11:06 AM Greebomc UK, 24 mths  Fascinating stuff. I'd have to agree with Ravenkeldra, that it really depends on the needs of both the D and s as to which traits would work best for them. When I went through the book I did, unfairly of me, assume that the s-type brain would be the one that would be most likely to be a dominant/master. But I have since backtracked on that train of thought, I don't think it really makes a difference what brain type you are, it doesn't determine whether in a relationship you'll be dominant or submissive. It's the inate need to fulfil desire that does that. I would agree that an e-brain would fill the role of parental dominant, also it would fit the therapist role, carer, and pet owner. But I don't see why a s-type brain wouldn't be able fill those roles too. I think the only difference would be method. I have the 2004 edition of the book and I'm a little confused, have the tests changed in different editions? As the EQ and SQ test in mine both have a maximum score of 80. My score was EQ=57 and SQ=61, so a little high on both but only 4 points between them. regards, G Nobody's perfect. Well, there was this one guy...but we killed him. 19 Jun 08, 3:03 PM lili UK, 8 yrs  Greebomc wrote: Fascinating stuff. I'd have to agree with Ravenkeldra, that it really depends on the needs of both the D and s as to which traits would work best for them. When I went through the book I did, unfairly of me, assume that the s-type brain would be the one that would be most likely to be a dominant/master. But I have since backtracked on that train of thought, I don't think it really makes a difference what brain type you are, it doesn't determine whether in a relationship you'll be dominant or submissive. It's the inate need to fulfil desire that does that. <snip> Hi, I have to agree with you too, the assumption that a systemiser would automatically make a "better*" dominant than an empathiser is an assumption that I'd lived with unchallenged until relatively recently (when I've had to re-think many of the things I believe because of the way things have changed for me.) (*By "better" I think I actually mean more likely to fit the traditional idea of "dominance".) It's difficult because I'm now trying to find theoretical answers to what I'm actually experiencing and that's thrown up a lot of real challenges for me. On a similar subject, one thing I would really like to challenge is the idea that a systemiser would be rules based (verging on micromanagement) and an empathiser would be far less so (based in roles such as parent/counsellor.) My every day experience of that is very different. Personally I am very rules driven. I like clear boundaries, and I have to write most things down for clarity, so things like household manuals, Standard operating systems, rituals etc are very appealing to me as someone's dominant. (However, rules, rituals and boundaries have always been extremely appealing to me as a submissive too!) Tanos is also quite rules based (he likes things done his way certainly) but he's never controlled me in that SOP kind of way (perhaps because he can lay down his systems in his brain and remember them clearly.) He also spends (and has spent) a lot of his time in a parental or counsellor role, albeit that he has worked out a system of things he needs to do to fulfill them. Nontheless they are effective in his desire for every day smooth running of his household, but I don't believe his goals are fundamentally any different from mine in the long run, we just have very different methods of achieving them. Lili x "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." (Abraham Lincoln) 19 Jun 08, 9:02 PM Red_Spark UK, 22 mths  I would have assumed, if I *had* to choose one way or the other (which I don't believe is possible, but that's another issue) that an E-type would actually make a better Dominant, because they would be more able to control their sub/slave in more subtle ways than simply drawing up a set of rules or a framework for protocol. An E-type might be expected to 'second-guess' their sub more often, and to be more sensitive in dealing with problems of an emotional nature. They have the potential to be more 'manipulative', although I don't mean that in a negative way. As it happens, I don't believe there *is* a 'better' type for Dominant or submissive; rather it is just what works best between two people. I do think that a sub that is more of a systematizer might crave rules and structure that an E-type Dominant finds it less in their nature to provide, but as someone else pointed out, the Dominant is then potentially more likely to respond in their own way to that need in their sub. 24 Jun 08, 11:18 PM little_linnet US, 3 yrs  Red_Spark wrote: I would have assumed, if I *had* to choose one way or the other (which I don't believe is possible, but that's another issue) that an E-type would actually make a better Dominant, because they would be more able to control their sub/slave in more subtle ways Makes sense to me. I came out "Extreme Systemizer" (Mr Linnet hasn't taken the tests, but I would be shocked if he came out anything besides a fairly strong E). I think it's a perfectly workable pairing: I crave boundaries and rules to make me comfortable and tell me how things should be, and his empathy aids him in perceiving how to instrument those boundaries. Krista No feminist thinks men and women are exactly the same. But what we reject is the notion that the difference between men and women is that men are human and women are objects.