This page sponsored by JT's Stockroom    [other banners]

	SD! : Web boards : IE Theory : "Issues Owning Equals?" 1 2 3 Issues Owning Equals? (30) Fri 10 Oct 08, 2:54 PM 691-475-658 UK, 5 mths  I had an unexpected response to a post I started on another site (a nice one and only because SD was down ) and it's left me thinking and wondering how others see this. The person who responded had a huge problem finding a submissive/slave because all the people they met who they liked... and were into the things they liked too (Warcraft, Star Wars... that kind of thing) ... they considered their equal - and by default they felt they couldn't own/dom/top them because they couldn't 'hurt their equal' or treat them in a way they felt demeaned them. Conversely... the people they felt they could have a D/s relationship with didn't interest them... because they weren't into the same things and therefore not considered equal enough for a long term relationship. It was the scenario that raised the question... I'm not asking if you're too geeky to top And this really isn't one of those "a friend has a problem' questions... it's just got me thinking. So... does anyone feel the same way - that they find it hard to top/own/dom an equal? Perhaps in reverse... being owned by someone you consider not on your level? And to expand... how do you consider someone to be of an equal stature to you... or not? Hope all that makes sense Lorii 10 Oct 08, 3:59 PM property_of_MacCain US(PA), 9 mths  Funny, two nights ago MacCain and i had sort of the same question. i never dreamed of topping anyone, but i saw a profile of someone who liked all the sorts of things i despise... won't get into details there, wouldn't want to point anyone out. Anyway, i laughed and said that if i were to know that person i would want to be the top and force that person to not do any of the offending hobbies. So, the gist of where this conversation went- MacCain informed me that has nothing to do with Dominance. That might be sadistic but that Dominance and sadism are separate things. Not to say they can't work together, but the could also be autonomous. As for equals... in most happy functional D/s relationships there is respect for both parties. It might be shown in less obvious ways...For instance if a s-type who is really good at cooking could be utilized as as a cook because the M-type has respect for that talent. Or an s-type might also be a landscaper, or lawyer or anything the M-type could possibly have use for but does not have as much knowledge. In that aspect of the relationship the s-type is used for her/his authority in that specialty. i don't think i've ever met two equals. Everyone excels in some area. Now to have the same hobbies... i don't think that makes you equals. i bet for every smart Star wars fan there are as many stupid ones. For every fan who likes to bike as well, there are as many who don't.... ect. ect. MacCain and i have gobs in common...but for everything W/we both enjoy there are as many things W/we do not share the same enthusiasm. Maybe it is all in perception...if someone thinks they don't have the upperhand they'd be threatened by the s-types abilities rather than embrace them. A Dom. would not be threatened but utilize said attributes. i hope i made sence. p ~edited to add: i could not submit to someone whom i felt was intellectually inferior. i think it would be unwise to ever let someone whom you didn't totally trust Dominate any aspect of your life. I breathe because He allows me to, indulging Him indulges me. Edited 10 Oct 08, 4:57 PM by property_of_MacCain 10 Oct 08, 4:33 PM Andrin DE, 3 mths  Dear 691-475-658 Equality in human beings certainly isn't as easy to define as in a mathematical equation. People might be equal in many aspects, but most likely will differ in more (not speaking of identical twins). lorii wrote: So... does anyone feel the same way - that they find it hard to top/own/dom an equal? It is just the other way round, I don't want a slave/sub that is less than I am. I am a physically fairly strong guy, but I want a slave that is stronger than I am, so that he poses a challenge to subdue. I consider myself not being the universal idiot, and I do want a slave/sub that is just as intelligent, so that again it is an intellectual challenge to beat him. And if he is the better chess player - great: I can learn from him. And I will work hard until I regularly beat him. If I take him to the theatre, a film, an exhibition and he delivers the better analysis of the seen, wonderful, I will be proud of the brilliant slave I have found. And if he knows how to maintain my motorbike in half the time I can do it, he will get an extra hard fuck for reward. But I certainly would be stiff bored with someone who by himself falls to his knees and worships me as his godlike master. Conquering, capturing, assaulting someone (all verbs taken from the dic and not sensing which one would be appropriate), proofing that though he can beat me in some aspects, but as an entity I can outwit him, is an essential part of the game for me. Regards Sir Andrin Edited 10 Oct 08, 4:54 PM by Andrin 10 Oct 08, 7:36 PM little_linnet US, 3 yrs  691-475-658 wrote: they considered their equal - and by default they felt they couldn't own/dom/top them because they couldn't 'hurt their equal' or treat them in a way they felt demeaned them. Conversely... the people they felt they could have a D/s relationship with didn't interest them... because they weren't into the same things and therefore not considered equal enough for a long term relationship. Wow, that would be a dead giveaway for me that the person saying it is someone I would NOT want to be owned by. If someone thinks that the only way they can dominate another person is if that person is someone they can't relate to (as an individual with interests and a personality just like they have), that's a very worrying misconception of what power exchange is. Krista Also, there's the Batman guide to retribution. Batman would have hung this guy from a building and dropped him repeatedly, catching him each time before he hit, just to drive the point home. So when it comes to vigilante justice, let the Batman be your guide. 10 Oct 08, 8:26 PM 691-475-658 UK, 5 mths  property_of_MacCain wrote: snipped Now to have the same hobbies... i don't think that makes you equals. i bet for every smart Star wars fan there are as many stupid ones. For every fan who likes to bike as well, there are as many who don't.... ect. ect. MacCain and i have gobs in common...but for everything W/we both enjoy there are as many things W/we do not share the same enthusiasm. Maybe it is all in perception...if someone thinks they don't have the upperhand they'd be threatened by the s-types abilities rather than embrace them. A Dom. would not be threatened but utilize said attributes. i hope i made sence. p ~edited to add: i could not submit to someone whom i felt was intellectually inferior. i think it would be unwise to ever let someone whom you didn't totally trust Dominate any aspect of your life. Hi p... it's so good to be back on here isn't it That's mostly like us... in life he loves some things I just don't really enjoy... and vice versa, But we do consider ourselves equals - in intellect, aspirations, outlooks... that kind of thing. To be honest I simply expected everyone else to be essentially the same... which is probably why their comments have stuck with me for a few days. I did ask said poster if they meant how it was coming across... and this is when they explained in detail the points in the opening post . Initially the thing that stuck in my mind was how they perceived being a dominant - as demeaning the submissive. Harsher words were used it has to be said and I've gilded the lily a bit... but the exact essence is there. I didn't take their answer to be them threatened of the subs abilities... it was more a case of 'if you walk in my shoes and understand/get me then I can't be dominant towards you" Not sure if that's any clearer though... Lorii 10 Oct 08, 8:35 PM 691-475-658 UK, 5 mths  Andrin wrote: I consider myself not being the universal idiot, and I do want a slave/sub that is just as intelligent, so that again it is an intellectual challenge to beat him. And if he is the better chess player - great: I can learn from him. And I will work hard until I regularly beat him. If I take him to the theatre, a film, an exhibition and he delivers the better analysis of the seen, wonderful, I will be proud of the brilliant slave I have found. And if he knows how to maintain my motorbike in half the time I can do it, he will get an extra hard fuck for reward. But I certainly would be stiff bored with someone who by himself falls to his knees and worships me as his godlike master. Conquering, capturing, assaulting someone (all verbs taken from the dic and not sensing which one would be appropriate), proofing that though he can beat me in some aspects, but as an entity I can outwit him, is an essential part of the game for me. Regards Sir Andrin Hi Sir Andrin That's pretty much how M and I feel too as a couple - to put it simply may be to call it sparring partners? Challenging in ways that make life fun. M is still trying to consistently beat me at backgammon though But as you say there's the challenge. To use your motorbike analogy they were saying that should they be very immersed in bike culture they would find it impossible to dominate a peer mechanic... because it would demean that person who they have respect for. The crux of it seems to be if they have respect for a person to dom/top them wold be demeaning to the s-type... even if they were out as a submissive type anyway. So... does this come across to anyone else that this person has no respect for submissive types, despite being a dominant one... or am I missing something ? Lorii 10 Oct 08, 8:42 PM 691-475-658 UK, 5 mths  little_linnet wrote: 691-475-658 wrote: they considered their equal - and by default they felt they couldn't own/dom/top them because they couldn't 'hurt their equal' or treat them in a way they felt demeaned them. Conversely... the people they felt they could have a D/s relationship with didn't interest them... because they weren't into the same things and therefore not considered equal enough for a long term relationship. Wow, that would be a dead giveaway for me that the person saying it is someone I would NOT want to be owned by. If someone thinks that the only way they can dominate another person is if that person is someone they can't relate to (as an individual with interests and a personality just like they have), that's a very worrying misconception of what power exchange is. Krista Hi Krista It does make you stop and think doesn't it. It's really been going around my mind a bit the last few days... there's so many levels to their comments it's like peeling away layers I think that's the train of thought I'm heading in.... is it a misconception of power exchange? And totally agree with you about the not being my type Lorii 11 Oct 08, 12:00 AM little_linnet US, 3 yrs  I mean, even on a cold, considered "picking out property" level: I chose my dog because she fit in with my lifestyle. She likes to go on walks and meet people, she likes to run (but not too much because I don't want to be having to run marathons to keep her happy), she likes to snuggle and cuddle and have "conversations". She's smart, because I want to teach her to do things, and she loves learning stuff. Why would I pick out a dog that doesn't want to be social or snuggle, or hates walks? I want a dog whose likes mesh with my own so we can enjoy doing things together, you know? I would think it would come up for at *least* the same amount of consideration in picking out a slave. Unless this person's idea of enslavement doesn't include "enjoy doing things together", which would just be a boggler to me. Krista Also, there's the Batman guide to retribution. Batman would have hung this guy from a building and dropped him repeatedly, catching him each time before he hit, just to drive the point home. So when it comes to vigilante justice, let the Batman be your guide. 11 Oct 08, 12:35 AM Andrin DE, 3 mths  691-475-658 wrote: To use your motorbike analogy they were saying that should they be very immersed in bike culture they would find it impossible to dominate a peer mechanic... because it would demean that person who they have respect for. Hi Lorii Half drunk after my birthday dinner, way past midnight, I am fighting with the English language.... Nevertheless ..... respect for my slave is an essential ingredient for me. I don't want a slave that enjoys being demeaned for the purpose of humiliation. I want one, that I can convince of my inner strenght, that I can demonstrate that I know the better dao to walk. I want a slave that I can proof that I am right, without making him look like an idiot that is wrong. But whom I give an example to follow. And if he does, I owe him my respect for that. If he honours my ways of doing things, I owe him my respect. I want a slave that honestly formulates his own opinion, even if mine differs and I take a different decision. I want a slave that yells out a warning if he sees something endanger me/us, but I will take the responsibility of the bend we take. I owe him my respect for his talents, his virtues, his service. And because of all his abilities, I certainly would regard him as EQUAL despite all differences. Have a great weekend Sir Andrin 11 Oct 08, 4:50 AM 662-935-655 US, 2 yrs  i don't know if this applies to the OP or not, but what the question made me think of was our US declaration of Independence from the U.K. penned by Thomas Jefferson O/our 3d president - so it is definitely geeky. (Grin) But Jefferson penned - and i think i still have this memorized from Catholic High School word for word - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights - among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Yet 1. Jefferson owned slaves, non-consensual-like ones and 2. i have read that some think that Jefferson was a member of a club that Benjamin Franklin was in - called "Hellraiser's club" i think. (Now i studied this like 4 decades ago so please be patient) and the Hellraisers club was for "womanizing" as the text so quaintly put it. Now i'm not sure how much proof there is on this, but enough to get it into a college history text. And it was said by the author of said text - which is also some 4 decades ago, so i don't have the reference - that what was meant by "pursuit of happiness" by the founding fathes was, he theorized, at the very least, free love believe it or not. Now i'm not a historian, but that's what i read from S/someone who seemed to be one having written a college text on the subject. True or not, i find it fascinating to think about. So although i don't precisely have any thoughts on how i would answer that subject personally as yet, it would seem that it may in fact be a rather old question. just some thoughts. j/L Papa's owned always: still proudly wearing His Collar and Ring, rest in peace Beloved Master/Husband! "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose" Janis Joplin 11 Oct 08, 8:46 AM 688-764-833 US, 2 yrs  691-475-658 wrote: ... and by default they felt they couldn't own/dom/top them because they couldn't 'hurt their equal' or treat them in a way they felt demeaned them. Conversely... the people they felt they could have a D/s relationship with didn't interest them... because they weren't into the same things and therefore not considered equal enough for a long term relationship.... Hi, sis It appears to me this person has yet to come to terms with their desires. It seems that there's some shame on their part which leads to loathing for anyone who would accept the things they want to do to someone; as if they see anyone who would want to be submissive to them as a defective person as opposed to a worthwhile human who is fulfilled by things they themselves would not find fulfilling (on the receiving end). Quite a conundrum they've made for themselves. Cheers, Leesie Next page