D'jaevle recently posted a piece discussing how the Dominant feels in a scene, contrasting the not-very-well analyzed phenomenon of what I refer to as "Topspace" with the (excessively?) discussed phenomenon of subspace.
For whatever reason, the difference between what the Dominant is thinking/feeling as opposed to what the submissive is thinking/feeling brought to mind a recent article I saw in some magazine or other about problem-solving approaches (I can't for the life of Me remember what magazine; if I did I'd hunt down the article an credit the author).
I just skimmed the article but the part that came to mind in reading D'jaevle's post had to do with the author's definition of three types of thinking in problem-solving situations. The author defined a hierarchy of increasing complexity and usefulness, starting with "event thinking" at the bottom, moving up to "pattern thinking" and finally "structure thinking" at the top.
Event thinking is essentially, reacting. X happens -- what do I do?
Pattern thinking takes into account that X happens a lot and looks for a consistent approach that can be applied in a non-reactive way. High-gloss, highly-touted "improvement" programs like Six Sigma are essentially pattern thinking dressed up to look complex (and expensive).
Structure thinking seeks to take the entire system into account and to thus be truly proactive. Carried to its fullest extent, theoretically at least, structure thinking transcends problem solving because it seeks to prevent problems from occurring. Obviously that is an ideal -- there will never be 100% success.
So how does this relate to the varying ways in which submissives and Dominants think and feel during a scene?
Much of what a sub does in a scene is, perforce, event thinking. he or she is at the mercy of the Other, and assuming the parties are not simply acting out a rehearsed scene, the submissive has to be in "reacting" mode most of the time.
And really that is the way it should be. The beauty and power of subspace is precisely that it is not a thinking state. It is not fostered by complex analysis and is more or less immune to being rationally analyzed.
For the Dominant, I'm going to draw a distinction: A good Top need only concern Him- or Herself with pattern thinking, whereas the relationship Dom/me must incorporate structure thinking in His or Her approach.
More on that in Part 2.
3 comments:
I wonder if a Dominant's space is not somewhat more colored by emotion than a top's?
Especially if the Dominant is interacting intensely with a relationship partner submissive.
I have sensed in my own Domina partners situations in which they have been affected by my reactions, and, while still rational, become a bit emotional.
The ragged breathing, or a quick move to exhibit a hot slickness between her thighs, signals that she, too, is emotionally reacting.
-saratoga
For me the most satisfying state is when my brain shuts up and my behavior becomes "involuntary" - in the sense of the involuntary parts of the body.
When I hit that state the afterglow lasts for days.
Post a Comment