5 ms·

Lots of men and women prefer to be submissive in some or many contexts, whether personal or professional. Our overculture highly values the drive to dominate,

Lots of men and women prefer to be submissive in some or many contexts, whether personal or professional. Our overculture highly values the drive to dominate, win, take control, but make no mistake - this is not the inherent imperative of all human beings. In fact, surveys indicate that at least in the sexual arena, about 75% of women prefer to be submissive. Many men do as well. This is the basis for consensual BDSM. And lots of people do, as adults, more or less consciously prefer to be submissive in their life to bosses or spouses. There are many wise reasons to choose this path. It may be true that parents don't want their child disempowered. However, it may also true that, at least as much as a child can want anything, the child wants to be disempowered. I find it really interesting that you and others don't even realize this is a possiblity - that's how much submission has been denigrated in our culture. That means that the parents are pushing their child to do something against her own preferences and away from her own happiness, just because they don't like it. A rather foolish and selfish thing to do. But it's understandable given how little our culture can even acknowledge the value of honorable and confident submission.

danans 6y ago
> But it's understandable given how little our culture can even acknowledge the value of honorable and confident submission. That's because outside of very specific contexts, "honorable and confident submission" doesn't exist. Yes, respectful power differences in otherwise mutually beneficial relationships naturally exist, whether those relationships are platonic, professional, romantic, or very concretely in the context of activities like BDSM. These are, however, characterized by clear limits and boundaries, and a mutual agreement about the benefit of the relationship, including the power difference. But social subjugation is not the same thing. It's about being disempowered in situations where there is no trust relationship that puts boundaries on the exercise of that power against the disempowered. For example, it's a job interview where someone's abilities are cast in doubt because their interviewer perceives their "princess" appearance or mannerisms. That people conflate the two very distinct scenarios is baffling. The difference between them is quite simply a huge gulf of trust.
- FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
  Moreover, by conflating the two, we delegitimize relationships that do involve respectful power differences, and destroy the mutual benefits that they can create. I also agree that the destruction of trust is central to this process.
FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
I think you have something here, but I also think you have accepted the wrong dichotomy. I would abandon the vocabulary of "domination" and "submission". And I disagree with the association with BDSM, because it is full of coercive symbolism: whips, striking, restraints. A much better pair of words, in my opinion, is "to lead" and "to follow". The connotations are better. Leading is understood to take effort, to be a service to the community, even the community of two. The follower chooses to follow, not because they are compelled by force, but because the leader knows the path. The leader is not giving directions merely to extract pleasure for themselves, but as a service; they are organizing the community for its mutual benefit. Then, when you follow, it is not because you are being whipped, or choked, or physically restrained, but because you want to go where the leader is directing; they don't have to make you do anything. You are happy to let them make the decisions, because you trust their decisions to be good for you -- and they are. And when you lead, you do not need to worry about maintaining coercive power, because you know that you can trust your followers to work together with you. Their eyes (and yours) are on your shared objective, not on who gets to be in charge. I think the key difference between these two dichotomies is this: One is held together by coercion, and the focus is on who is in charge; the other is held together by trust, and yes, someone naturally takes charge, but this is for the purpose of achieving a shared objective, which is where the focus is. I am saying that legitimate consensual authority exists, and that our society should allow it to exist, rather than tearing it down always by viewing it as violent. It does not need to be violent, or attached to violent symbolism. Instead of "master and slave", think "mother and daughter" or "father and son". Both sides of these relations have obligations, and both have dignity.

danans 6y ago

> But it's understandable given how little our culture can even acknowledge the value of honorable and confident submission. That's because outside of very specific contexts, "honorable and confident submission" doesn't exist. Yes, respectful power differences in otherwise mutually beneficial relationships naturally exist, whether those relationships are platonic, professional, romantic, or very concretely in the context of activities like BDSM. These are, however, characterized by clear limits and boundaries, and a mutual agreement about the benefit of the relationship, including the power difference. But social subjugation is not the same thing. It's about being disempowered in situations where there is no trust relationship that puts boundaries on the exercise of that power against the disempowered. For example, it's a job interview where someone's abilities are cast in doubt because their interviewer perceives their "princess" appearance or mannerisms. That people conflate the two very distinct scenarios is baffling. The difference between them is quite simply a huge gulf of trust.

FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
Moreover, by conflating the two, we delegitimize relationships that do involve respectful power differences, and destroy the mutual benefits that they can create. I also agree that the destruction of trust is central to this process.

FooBarBizBazz 6y ago

I think you have something here, but I also think you have accepted the wrong dichotomy. I would abandon the vocabulary of "domination" and "submission". And I disagree with the association with BDSM, because it is full of coercive symbolism: whips, striking, restraints. A much better pair of words, in my opinion, is "to lead" and "to follow". The connotations are better. Leading is understood to take effort, to be a service to the community, even the community of two. The follower chooses to follow, not because they are compelled by force, but because the leader knows the path. The leader is not giving directions merely to extract pleasure for themselves, but as a service; they are organizing the community for its mutual benefit. Then, when you follow, it is not because you are being whipped, or choked, or physically restrained, but because you want to go where the leader is directing; they don't have to make you do anything. You are happy to let them make the decisions, because you trust their decisions to be good for you -- and they are. And when you lead, you do not need to worry about maintaining coercive power, because you know that you can trust your followers to work together with you. Their eyes (and yours) are on your shared objective, not on who gets to be in charge. I think the key difference between these two dichotomies is this: One is held together by coercion, and the focus is on who is in charge; the other is held together by trust, and yes, someone naturally takes charge, but this is for the purpose of achieving a shared objective, which is where the focus is. I am saying that legitimate consensual authority exists, and that our society should allow it to exist, rather than tearing it down always by viewing it as violent. It does not need to be violent, or attached to violent symbolism. Instead of "master and slave", think "mother and daughter" or "father and son". Both sides of these relations have obligations, and both have dignity.