Hi Steve, Actually, I have no interest at all in the egoic power exchange in relationships. This is off-topic for this group, but I welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you . What did fascinate me , and the reason I brought D/s into this thread was how Sally K described the guru relationship. It sounded a little scary to me. But thats me. One of the qualities i am working to develop within myself is trust. This has never come easily for me. Probably why I am such an analytical thinker. It is a block I am working on. But back to to the subject... Surrendering your being to a guru by trusting another to completely shape your inner spiritual developmen (and god knows what else) is uncomfortable for me. There is a correlation to D/s, but there are marked distinctions as well. I don't completely agree with your analysis on submissives and Dominants. Perhaps in some cases, elements of this can be true. But let me give you some background. I learned about D/s, and BDSM 10 + years ago, when I worked with a group of female submissives who had been seriously abused physically and psychologically. Let me be clear, as I do not judge those who choose this lifestyle. What works for others is fine with me, provided it does no lasting harm. I could write a book on this, but fortunately, there are plenty already. You may know some like, "Screw the Roses-- Send Me the Thorns", and the like. It was, and is-- a common perception that submissive females were abused in childhood, often with dysfunctional backgrounds including addictions. They may have a history of abusive relationships, and have very low self-esteem. Dominants were perceived as inwardly insecure with volitile emotions about females, that may have begun with their own mothers. The sexual dance they play has been perceived as a means of "eroticized" therapy, wherein they acts out their own neurotic and narcissitic needs. But its a lot more complex than that. One element I found interesting is that you can't really stereotype the Dominants, and to a degree the subs /slaves. I have known Doms from the inner-city back streets. I also know a CEO of a global insurance compamy that is one. I know a plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills that is. A pediatrician in NC , who is. So, its a complex dynamic, and there are some sexy ideas involved. I can't deny that. D/s never troubled me the way S/m did. I understand intellectually, the S/m dynamic and the endorphin play. Frankly, what goes on in someone's bedroom is none of my business, provided it is consentual, does not involve minors, and does not create a public safety hazard. Not that you are asking, but I certainly have experimented a bit myself in alternative sexual roles. I enjoyed the role of being an "odalisque" in relationships. This is a sexually submissive female, but involves no S/m at all. There is a very distinct difference between being an odalisque in consentual sexual slavery, and being a sub in BDSM. The odalisque is actuallya luxury item for her partner. She is valued for her sexual beauty and talents, and is always treated with great respect. I'd be lying if I told you that I no longer engage in such play. We do. But I am also older and despite trying to divorce the traditional , loving, and "vanilla" part of me-- i can't. Those qualities are still part of what makes Kristy--Kristy. So, I engage in both traditional and not-so-traditional sex play. I will offer this.. I find this kind of role-play to be very helpful in gaining a deeper understanding of myself and my partner. Yes-- it is intensely erotic, but also psychologicaly broadening. (So-to-speak;) It helps me to be psychologically naked, which is a lot harder than being physically so. The intimacy that is created is unparalled. But to sum-- I have no interest in the ego part of sex. I believe we should be all that we are. Not one bit more. and not one bit less. Offer all that we are to each other and the world. Never be afraid to make mistakes or appear foolish. Those are actually the times that draw others in, I think. Back to the original topic. Should a Teacher sleep with a discipline? I can only tell you what is right for me. I could never do this. It would compromise my ability to discern more clearly who I am. It would cloud my perception, and very likely-- because sex is something I value highly. I don't cling to it, or obsess about it. Its simply a healthy, normal, happy part of a balanced life. Thanks for your great comments!! Kristy
--- On Tue, 2/15/11, SteveW <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Kristy. I have meditated on your post, and here are my thoughts. I can see that what really fascinates you is the egoic "exchange of power" in sexual relationships. IMO, the ego is simply a collection of boundary-lines that don't really exist except in the mind. These boundary-lines are all about esteem, control, conflict, security. To the ego everything is a transactional exchange. In sexuality, the most stark example would be the D/s thing. A Jungian would just see it as being compensation. Typically, extreme sexual submissives are people who feel themselves to be rigidly, perfectionistically self-restrained. They feel this to be oppressively wearysome, and long to be released from it by relinquishing all control to the dominant partner. Extreme dominants, on the other hand, secretly feel themselves to be subjugated, manipulated and controlled by people and/or external circumstances, and seek relief from this by exerting absolute control over their partners. Now there is really nothing unethical about all this as long as the relationship is consensual. However, it does nothing to actually resolve the real causes of the underlying egoic discomfort that generates the compensationary behavior. As such, it doesn't increase insight into the real problems: the rigidly self-controlling perfectionism on the one hand, and the feeling of being subjugated, manipulated and controlled on the other hand. Of course, this is just the most extreme form of what the delusionary ego does all the time in countless different contexts. This is, of course, diametrically opposed to the Buddhist ideal of equanimity, in which there is no transactionalism at all. IMO. Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
