Dom/sub is not hierarchy, it’s a consensual relationship between people.
Hierarchy is an institutional set of involuntary command/control relationships
Dom/sub is not hierarchy
Yes daddy. Explain sexual psychology to me harder.
Every human “vice” that can be expressed as evil can have a place in society where its consensual with guardrails.
Even the dynamics of facism can have its in roleplay, video games or the bedroom. I always considered it a kind of fetish… just look at the nazi uniforms and tell me its not partly about suppressed sexual desires.
This part of a conclusion of mine that there is no structure or dynamic that is inherently evil, only living being who use them to create evil (aware or not aware)
The dynamics of hate are those of fear expressed in ways where consent is no longer considered leading to assault. There is a good natural reason to feel afraid of beings that are similar yet different as different cultures can be open to things you are not ready for, and in the past (think medieval) groups of immigrants where a sign of war and war caused poverty a precursor to disease no one knew how to treat.
We can educate ourselves to be beyond these, learn from the past and find new ways to incorporate vices in the world in healthy consensual ways.
That is how i believe we evolve to free ourselves from evil. It starts with knowing there is nothing wrong with how we feel, only with the way we express it that harms others.
If I want to learn to bake bread I voluntarily accept the bakery te4acher as my superior in this matter for the duration of the lessons. If the first person had said voluntary hierarchies are the only valid ones they might have had a point!
here’s my reply to another comment like yours:
that wouldn’t really be a hierarchy because there’s no authority involved. if you’re deferring to someone’s skill, that’s not authority, because you have the freedom to do that and it is voluntary. you or the other people can leave that association at any time.
a hierarchy is, as CrocodilloBombardino@piefed.social so sufficiently just put it, “an institutional set of involuntary command/control relationships”.
No True Scotsman would ever have a hierarchy!
I know it’s semantics (er…is it diction?) and at the end of the day pretty pedantic, but this is the first time I’ve seen the suggestion that hierarchy necessitates authority, and that authority necessitates compulsion (or an institution, or a command/control relationship). I mean yeah, they definitely have those connotations, for sure. And maybe in the context of anarchist theory, this is their functional definition.
But in a general sense, we still have hierarchies that are completely outside of the realm of social organization, like top down hierarchical categorization of…things…right? Like, stuff? And similarly, we have authorities that aren’t necessarily relevant to compulsion, like an authority on a particular niche subject. I guess we’re compelled to believe them, but, I dunno…
I’m kinda thinking out loud here. But I guess if I met, say, a master woodworker, and she was guiding me through building a bookshelf, I’d still say she is the authority over my actions, even if I decided to do something contrary to her commands. For sure, she has the right to tell me how to build the bookshelf – she is the expert, I recognize the authority over me in this matter – and she retains the authority even if I defy her. Idk maybe I’m talking about a different definition of authority.
I unironically, have no idea if this post is a satire or not.
Expertise merely refers to one’s knowledge or skill in a particular field, but my understanding of CPR or ability to bake shortbread cookies does not make me an authority over you. Other than the conflation of force and authority, this is one of the most common confusions people have about anarchism, made worse by the fact that there are some anarchists who still use authority to refer to both command and expertise just because Bakunin did. Personally, I find that creates needless confusion. If you’re using the word authority to describe everything from slavery to knowing how to build a bridge, then why use the word at all? Just use the word expertise when you’re talking about expertise. Listening to medical advice isn’t a hierarchy. Having expertise doesn’t give me the right to command you unless I hold a position in a hierarchical power structure that grants me that authority. As Bakunin himself said:
…we ask nothing better than to see men endowed with great knowledge, great experience, great minds, and, above all, great hearts, exert over us a natural and legitimate influence, freely accepted and never imposed in the name of any official authority whatsoever, celestial or terrestrial.
— Andrewism, How Anarchy Works » Dissecting Authority (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrTzjaXskUU)
I was about to say “what about therapy” and then I remembered how almost every therapist besides me does therapy (and how they react when they learn how I do things…). I know I can’t eliminate all the spooks, but I do try my best
That’s so vague tell me more.
It’s all so second nature to me at this point that I had to spend a good bit of time thinking about all the ways I incorporate my anarchist values in my practice. I’m sure there are more, but these are the most significant ones I could think of
-
No insurance, so I’m not forced to pathologize my clients and I’m not beholden to a third-party constraining what we’re allowed to work on, etc
-
Extremely low cost, with no means testing, and I even accept bartering
-
Full therapeutic self-disclosure to help dissolve the power dynamic
-
Conduct sessions in neutral or client-centered environments (I have no public office- I meet clients virtually, outdoors, or in their home)
-
Peer accountability with a fellow anarchist in the medical field
-
Consent and boundaries are iterative and explicit
-
Session structure, modalities, etc, are collaboratively negotiated
Edit: I realize this list probably sounds normal and benign to leftists, but libs react very strongly to these things
That stuff does seem like table stakes to me. I’ve only done telehealth with people who were pretty chill. Sounds like there’s some real bad practices if this is abnormal.
I feel like bad practices are the norm, but maybe my experience is skewed due to living in Florida lol (a blue part, but still)
Most therapists I’ve encountered/been familiar with obv have new clients sign consent forms, but never actually review it with them; they create a treatment plan for them and say ‘here, sign this’; they tell me it’s inappropriate to list my own diagnoses and politics on my PsychologyToday page; they argue that bartering is less ethical than charging $150; and I’ve yet to meet someone IRL (therapist or otherwise) who wasn’t surprised (and often lowkey sketched out) when I say I do sessions at parks & in homes.
Also I forgot to add this one- other therapists are always absolutely floored when I tell them I don’t do involuntary commitals
i am happy that you exist and i envy your clients 💙
Awe, thank you ☺
I’m Aussie and I can say your practices are not the norm for sure, and I don’t think I’d engage a therapist unless they followed your guidelines.
In fact I would not be surprised if some of your practices would prevent you from getting or retaining a licensed! E.g. the involuntary commitment.
Luckily in my US state (Florida), it’s only legally required for persons under 18, and I don’t work much with minors anymore
-
Is there a nuance to usage of the word hierarchy that I’m not understanding in this context?
Like if I invite a bunch of friends over to help me move into a new apartment, is there a hierarchy because I’m telling everyone where to put the boxes? If my pal Sarah drives a truck for work, so I entrust her to load the van with two other people, is that a hierarchy?
I’m not asking this to be a smartass, I’d just like to understand if there is a meaningful difference between hierarchy and deferring to someone’s skill in a particular domain.
no, that wouldn’t really be a hierarchy because there’s no authority involved. if you’re deferring to someone’s skill, that’s not authority, because you have the freedom to do that and it is voluntary. you or the other people can leave that association at any time.
a hierarchy is, as @CrocodilloBombardino@piefed.social so succinctly just put it, “an institutional set of involuntary command/control relationships”.
because you have the freedom to do that and it is voluntary
So what’s the agreed upon definition of “having the freedom” and “voluntary” here? Because even under an authoritarian government, you can technically go against the authorities, but there will be consequences to doing so. What level of consequences do we consider to be acceptable for these purposes? Or is it not a question of level of severity of the consequences?
An example of what I’m thinking of is a situation where you defer to someone else for their expertise because maybe they’re the only doctor available who can treat your illness, so you need to do as they say to get better. If you refuse, then you die. Is that voluntary? I can choose to die, so the “freedom” is there, but the consequences are severe.
where you defer to someone else for their expertise because maybe they’re the only doctor available who can treat your illness, so you need to do as they say to get better.
you have the right word for it: expertise (see my other comment).
it becomes a hierarchy if the doctor involuntarily hospitalises you or uses the courts to force you to undergo the treatment; the power (force) to do that is authority. so long as you still have the power to challenge or otherwise discuss the prognosis, it is not a hierarchy, especially if the treatment is gratis and libre.
Illegal actions are always available. States use violent consequences to coerce legal choices. Someone might say the Kent State massacre was an acceptable consequence for violating the rules of the state.
The set of legal and moral actions are not one to one. Any moral deference of autonomy needs to be consentual. There are times I would choose death instead of the doctor. For example, unpayable debt would make death an acceptable outcome.
Autonomy is about power to take an action. Heirarchy is about power over the actions of others. Anarchy is an individual and social philosophy.
I think maybe a level of external intentional threat is necessary for it to be involuntary. Deferring to an expert because you want good results or because you feel more comfortable in a follower role seems distinct from being threatened with going to hell or losing your home.
But even then I still wonder because what if the thing you’re threatened with losing is the other person’s companionship? It’s reasonable to not want to interact with someone uncooperative, but you are technically coercing them into compliance if they’re going to be removed from a project, relationship, etc.
I also think there needs to be a word for what people mean when they say voluntary hierarchy if we’re going to assign it a strictly involuntary meaning. You can’t just subtract vocabulary and expect everyone to jump on board.
but you are technically coercing them into compliance if they’re going to be removed from a project, relationship, etc.
this is an ongoing discussion within anarchism.
ideally, removing someone who wants to remain should be the last resort of a group. ideally, someone would not get to this point unless everyone else in the group (at some point) wanted them there.
this is where relationship anarchy and restorative and transformative justice come into play:
- avoiding situations where people feel trapped in a social situation, and
- promoting confrontation, dialogue and active listening when people are uncomfortable.
for disclosure: i’m not for relationship anarchy, but i’m not against it, either.
I cannot tell you how happy I am to have been given literature.
a hierarchy (from Greek, for ‘rule of priests’) is a structure which creatures superiors and subordinates.
Like if I invite a bunch of friends over to help me move into a new apartment, is there a hierarchy because I’m telling everyone where to put the boxes?
if your friends want to help you, then they’re helping you. they of course needs to defer to you for instructions, because you’re the one who knows what you need help with. if they’re doing so without the guarantee/demand of anything in return (because they care about you), then this is mutual aid.
A lot of people here take jokes seriously.
Is that surprising at all, though? Leftists take stuff like this very seriously to begin with, but also leftist spaces are more likely to be populated by a higher number of autistic (hi!) and other ND people who don’t always know (or care) when something is a joke unless it’s literally stated in the text of the joke.
Also also, jokes shouldn’t necessarily be granted immunity from serious analysis. It was a thought provoking post, that’s a good thing too, right?
I prefer horizontally-hierarchial BDSM.
A console of kinksters decide how best to please you.
“One way or another, any government which remains in power is a representative government. If your city government is a crooked machine, then it is because you and your neighbors prefer it that way - prefer it to the effort of running your own affairs.”
“Hitler’s government was a popular government; the vast majority of Germans preferred the rule of gangsters to the effort of thinking and doing for themselves. They abdicated their franchise.”
Robert A. Heinlein, Take Back Your Government
Please femdom me involuntarily 🥺
Are you agreeing to this voluntarily?
C
- A
- B
What kind of hierarchy is this?
But the sub is the one in control? Safe words and all that.
My safe word is harder
This guy fetishes.
Fetishes and kinks are different things.
That greatly depends on who you ask. There are plenty of kinksters who make no distinction between those terms.
ioo then that makes them functionally useless to have two terms, and it means there’s no way to get specific about whether something is a need to get off, or just something you just enjoy when being kinky.
You’re not wrong, and I agree that there’s value in distinguishing between those ideas. I’ve just been around a lot of kinky people who insist there’s no difference in the words, so maybe there’s a language shift going on.
You know what, I don’t think I knew the distiction before. I was just making a drive-by “lol” type of offhand comment.
Never thought about it that specifically. I will try to be conscious of word choice now.
Thank you fellow demiromantic.
There are dozens of us.
Recently I’m thinking I may be demisexual too. Kinda like a double-demi/ace hybrid. I like the idea of sex, but it would have to be a very special person. But I don’t have much drive to try for it, it’s just not that important to me. I mean we’re already in the ace spectrum anyway, so maybe that’s redundant.
Still trying to nail down what labels I’m comfortable with. Probably will always be a little wiggle room to change as time goes by.
This was probably just a bit or whatever, but I feel like it would be pretty easy for someone who actually thought all hierarchy was involuntary to argue that acting according to biological imperatives (such as the need/desire to engage in kink dynamics like femdom) are not voluntary. We can’t choose what sexual orientation we have, either.
Those fundamental desires are imposed upon us by our brain chemistry, whether we want them to be or not. You can consent to who you engage with, but you can’t consent to experiencing those needs in the first place.
If you squint hard enough, that’s similar logic as when people claim that capitalism is fine because you can “choose” to get a different job.
I can literally just point to the republican party.
Re-education camps for nazis? 🤷♂️
