D/s paradox

Here is something I wonder about and would like to see other people's thoughts on-

I suspect that for some people, dominance and submission contains a paradox in that, if you identify as dominant, and if you play the dominant role in your sexual encounters/ relationship, could you subconsciously be submissive, and actually be experiencing your partner's submission vicariously by projecting yourself onto him or her? And likewise if you are submissive and play the submissive role, could you subconsciously be dominant, and actually be experiencing your partner's dominance vicariously by projecting yourself onto him or her? I would never assume this could be true in every case. It just might apply to some people. After all, I believe that during intimate acts, people tend to feel like a part of each other in some way.

Is there any further information such as articles, studies, etc. about this?

Both.

Tillie

Both, depending on the scenario.

I suspect that for some people, dominance and submission contains a paradox in that, if you identify as dominant, and if you play the dominant role in your sexual encounters/ relationship, could you subconsciously be submissive, and actually be experiencing your partner's submission vicariously by projecting yourself onto him or her? And likewise if you are submissive and play the submissive role, could you subconsciously be dominant, and actually be experiencing your partner's dominance vicariously by projecting yourself onto him or her? I would never assume this could be true in every case. It just might apply to some people. After all, I believe that during intimate acts, people tend to feel like a part of each other in some way.

DEFINITELY NOT AT ALL for us as a submissive or dominant.

When I am dominant, I know what he is feeling as a submissive because I became a switch who started out as a severe Domme, but I am NOT experiencing any part of his submissive feelings. I am wrapped up in my dominance.

Likewise, when I am submissive, I know exactly what it is like to be dominant and spank the crap out of someone or to restrain them for hours without a bathroom break, but I don't think about the dominant's feelings when I am tied up and flogged.

The question is in the post, not the subject of the post. I should have made the title more specific, but it won't let me edit the title. Could a moderator please change the title, if possible? Something such as "D/s paradox?"

Susie, thank you for answering the actual question in your usual enlightening way! As you can probably tell, my previous re was in response to the first two replies, and I didn't see yours until after I posted it.

I'll fix the title for you.

Thanks!

BDSM is a teamwork, one partner is the dominant the other is the submissive working together as a team to fully satisfy each other. There is no a paradox

Lots of folks who play one role have at other times played the other. The capacity (and need) to be a sub is similar to that of the dominant. Any psychology textbook that address either sexuality or abnormal psych will agree.

But this goes several layers deeper. First, there very much is a paradox of submissive vs. dominant. Except for psychopaths, in a D/s relationship it is the submissive, not the dominant, who sets the bounds for the play. The submissive defines what is allowable play, and if the dom goes outside those bounds, the submissive withdraws consent to continue to play. The dominant, who wants to continue and repeat their play honors the submissive's wishes. There may be some give and take around the edges, and the dominant is in charge within the boundaries, but the submissive is ultimately in control.

Every couple has to find ways to make this paradox work. Developing trust takes time, and if it doesn't develop, the relationship most likely breaks down. It takes a lot of communications, both verbal and non-verbal. The dom has to be reading the subbie aggressively through the play. And with two folks trust each other that much, it's often easy for them to swap roles to fulfill another set of desires.

Any ladies who want to discuss this further are welcome to contact me directly.

Not sure about the etiquette of weighing in on a thread that's been inactive this long. Please educate me.

Freud in his paper 'a child is being beaten' did describe masochism in adults as starting in sadistic fantasies.

Before age 5 or 6, a child fantasizes about watching a sibling being beaten. It's enjoyable because siblings compete for parent's affection 'he's beating you, he doesn't love you (he loves me)'.

Freud believed (straight) children have unconscious sexual attraction to their opposite sex parent. This, and feelings of guilt, lead the fantasy to change, and become masochistic. The child now fantasises that they are being beaten by the opposite sex parent.

The fantasy changes again, and the child watches an unknown child being beaten, often by a parent substitute, like a teacher. This continues into adulthood, and the person gets sexual excitement from it.

Freud in his paper 'a child is being beaten' did describe masochism in adults as starting in sadistic fantasies.

That's a neat summary of Freud's quite lengthy paper, jilly. A while ago I had to do the same myself for Zity - it was either a post or a PM, I forget which - and you have brought it back for me.

Somehow I connected it to the genesis of my mouth fetish when I had a tonsillectomy at age 4 - the time of a child's Oedipal crisis (again according to Freud). I had to submit to the operation but that also made me aware of the dominating people who subjected me to it. My subsequent fantasies and fetish could swing between either position, I think. And yet, because I grew up with the feeling of having been a submissive little boy (!), the submissive position is perhaps still the one that comes most easily to me. Everything else - my assertiveness, for instance - is in reaction or compensation!

- Ken

Freud's "theories" have pretty much been discarded by modern science. I wouldn't put much credibility in anything he put forward.

Quite simply, Freud was an idiot [heck, most shrinks are idiots] and many shrinks of e bought into his ridiculous ideas.

Hi Switchable and gwhap. I had a good friend who was a top clinical psychologist in Melbourne. He assured me that, whatever we might think of some of Freud's theories, an oedipus complex was a real phenomenon in many of his male patients, including into adulthood. (I scarcely understand the so-called electra complex in women - which again aligns with Freud who famously asked, 'What do women want?'!)

- Ken

Hi Switchable and gwhap. I had a good friend who was a top clinical psychologist in Melbourne. . . . . - Ken

There are NO "top psychologists."

There are NO "top psychologists."

They're all bottoms? Cool!

I should have been more clear.

They're all worthless.

There are quite a few articles that debunk Freud's Oedipus Complex theory. Some say it was based on his dysfunctional relationships with his parents - and not on any scientific facts or process.

Google an abstract from PsycINFO, Scientific American, Psychology today. Given this fraud didn't follow scientific process, lied, and never showed any supportable evidence. Then again, you can argue that the pyscobableists who exposed Freud are just as incompetent.....

Examination of the nature and origins of the Oedipus complex presented by psychoanalysts and critics suggests that there is little evidence to support its existence.

Freud was a nut.

Examination of the nature and origins of the Oedipus complex presented by psychoanalysts and critics suggests that there is little evidence to support its existence.

True. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 'Proving' the existence of the the Oedipus complex in a clinical trial will be much harder than, say, proving antidepressant A works better than antidepressant B.

As gwhap said, lot of Freud's theories have been discarded. But his big idea, that much of mental life is unconscious, is still considered valid.

As gwhap said, lot of Freud's theories have been discarded. But his big idea, that much of mental life is unconscious, is still considered valid.

Good point, jilly, and one not to be taken lightly - its influence on 20C artists, writers, filmmakers, and their work's content, for instance.

Still, Freud had his 19C predecessors even in that area (the subliminal mind, and the Ucs), perhaps starting with the philosopher Schopenhauer, whom Freud finally acknowledged.

- Ken

Dominance and submission are often complementary.

After submitting to a nurse dominatrix who satisfied my fetish for the painful humiliation of getting injections in my bare bottom while bending over her receptionist's lap the three of us discussed the scenario. It was agreed that I have a normally dominant personality and the "nurse" observed that such people are often turned on by the submission of reversing roles.

Freud was a nut.

Thus writes caresabouthealth, summarising a feeling here. But don't throw away the baby with the bathwater!

Last Monday the 'NYR Daily' published a long and frightening article "The Pyschopharmacology of Everyday Life" by female psychoanalyst Jamieson Webster, who practises in New York. Her editor states her argument thus: 'that modern psychiatry prescribes a pill for every mental ill without treating the underlying causes of what ails us—and that talking cures merit another look. Webster mines Freud’s original ideas for deeper insights into problems that drugs merely ameliorate on the surface.'

Jamieson, who also teaches at the New School and CUNY, thinks we should hear Freud's 'ironic tone and take him a little less seriously when necessary'. Her editor comments: 'This is actually a good description of her modus operandi in the piece—the playfulness and welcome tone of impiety (in contrast to the sacerdotal mystique that Freud often comes wrapped in).'

Reminds me of another excellent summation of the Freud debate, by A.C. Grayling. He notes: 'Freud inherited an elaborate theory of the unconscious stating that many perceptual and cognitive processes occur at subliminal levels, and that what is consciously learned can become automatic and remain non-consciously effective.' That much isn't problematic, is it?

Further: 'Of Freud's powers as a writer and advocate of ideas, and as a possessor of an extraordinary ability to weave together medical knowledge, some genuine insights into the human condition, and a powerful imagination, there can be no question.'

However, while philosophies that capture the imagination never wholly fade ('from Animism to Zoarastrianism' suggests Grayling), 'as to Freud's claims upon truth, the judgment of time seems to be running against him'. ('The Guardian', 22 June 2002)

I simply think we should attend to people like Jamieson Webster, when they apply Freud's insights in a new and salutary way!

- Ken

Last Monday the 'NYR Daily' published a long and frightening article "The Pyschopharmacology of Everyday Life" by female psychoanalyst Jamieson Webster, who practises in New York. Her editor states her argument thus: 'that modern psychiatry prescribes a pill for every mental ill without treating the underlying causes of what ails us—and that talking cures merit another look. Webster mines Freud’s original ideas for deeper insights into problems that drugs merely ameliorate on the surface.'

And I'm sure Freud had many insights into the topic of this thread - how dominance and submission are related.

Jamieson Webster finds gold in Freud's 'ills' (meaning some people's negative attitudes to him!). Here's a brief sample:

>Freud said that the Madonna-whore complex [in men] is caused by incestuous fantasies - meaning that once a woman is remotely reminiscent of a man's mother (by virtue of her becoming a mother, or because of his being intimidated by her, or simply feeling dependent on her), erectile function goes out the window. Women, he said, have their own version: they like secret relationships, and once something is sanctioned, it loses its exciting, transgressive edge; into this scenario enters frigidity. Despite scepticism regarding Freud on women (and much else), these ideas continue to be of help to feminists, showing how misogyny is structured, as well as women's symptomatic abandoning of desire in response to conventional forms of sexuality.

Hmm. Interesting that Webster's disturbing article, on our excessive acceptance of pills, should appear just now. She recommends the 'talking cure' as one alternative. Last night on TV, they showed Part One of Dr Chris van Tulleken's two-part program, "The Doctor Who Gave Up Drugs" (BBC-TV). He, too, is campaigning against undue pill-taking, including antibiotics, for their side effects and invidious long-term consequences. One of his alternative treatments is 'cold water therapy' to raise the body's natural immunity to many ailments. (Hmm!)

I can probably copy Webster's long article (from the 'NY Review Daily' - which requires a subscription) for any interested Zity-ers. (Contact me.) She covers all kinds of medical pill-taking, including painkillers, stimulants, antidepressants, sexual dysfunction drugs, anxiety meds, and sleeping pills. Like I say, it's disturbing stuff.

-Ken