Does Everything Have Hierarchy?

[viking8x6]

@Lucienblack88 wrote:

Quote

  3 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

Quote

Others (myself among them) would argue that any kind of "supremacy" or submission to a supposedly superior creature is antithetical to true Satanism.

You have a version on Satanic truth that works for you. I would say nature itself is contradictory to this as everything has hierarchy. I have very different life experiences to your beliefs even through the simple lens of some are alphas some are betas and beta fags submit to alphas. Some in the gay Satanic realm (and Christianity) do include race in this hierarchy was my point. 

This is a new topic continuing the above discussion of Alpha/Beta dynamics in another thread where it was tangential to the subject. You can find the full conversation here:

 

[viking8x6]

  

I completely agree that the exchange of ideas is what makes it fun. Definitely am enjoying this discussion.

48 minutes ago, Lucienblack88 said:

Moreover, most people are followers and meant to be lead, and throughout history, there has always been by a supreme one, king, emperor, elder of the tribe, etc because we are a tribal species as is the animal kingdom at large. I respectfully disagree, there is a hierarchy of men, in talent, intelligence, social class, education, etc.

I agree that humans are a tribal/social species, and that a key part of that is the power dynamic (not really true of other animals as far as I understand - some are, some aren't). It's the idea that the power dynamic and specifically a dominant/submissive or leader/follower interaction is necessarily central to this that rings false to me. I completely agree that the social structures of civilization are largely focused on those specific interactions.

But individuals interact with those in a great many ways, and some of those are in direct contrast to that dom/sub paradigm. Consider all of the people (not coincidentally, many of whom are POC) who are trapped in the role of the subjugated, but whose individual nature is either dominant or merely independent. Or consider people like myself, who from society's viewpoint would fall into the "leader" role (intelligent, highly educated, middle class, does things like earning advanced degrees and starting businesses), but by natural inclination don't give a rat's ass about leading anyone, because that seems like a chore.

Hence my statement that my personal experience doesn't match your assertion. When I engage in (recreational) sex, my goal is to make it a cooperative endeavor that pleasures both parties, and my actions reflect that. This requires being sensitive to the other people's responses and assessing (and addressing) their enjoyment (so they're clearly not "beta", unless they get off on that). On the other hand, it's entirely my choice and decision, so I'm clearly not "beta" either. Q.E.D.

[Lucienblack88]

2 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

  

I completely agree that the exchange of ideas is what makes it fun. Definitely am enjoying this discussion.

I agree that humans are a tribal/social species, and that a key part of that is the power dynamic (not really true of other animals as far as I understand - some are, some aren't). It's the idea that the power dynamic and specifically a dominant/submissive or leader/follower interaction is necessarily central to this that rings false to me. I completely agree that the social structures of civilization are largely focused on those specific interactions.

But individuals interact with those in a great many ways, and some of those are in direct contrast to that dom/sub paradigm. Consider all of the people (not coincidentally, many of whom are POC) who are trapped in the role of the subjugated, but whose individual nature is either dominant or merely independent. Or consider people like myself, who from society's viewpoint would fall into the "leader" role (intelligent, highly educated, middle class, does things like earning advanced degrees and starting businesses), but by natural inclination don't give a rat's ass about leading anyone, because that seems like a chore.

Hence my statement that my personal experience doesn't match your assertion. When I engage in (recreational) sex, my goal is to make it a cooperative endeavor that pleasures both parties, and my actions reflect that. This requires being sensitive to the other people's responses and assessing (and addressing) their enjoyment (so they're clearly not "beta", unless they get off on that). On the other hand, it's entirely my choice and decision, so I'm clearly not "beta" either. Q.E.D.

My old philosophy teacher taught the QED, ha. So, you make valid points and I’m not going to minimize them with a “but”. I’m going to simply add one thing that hinges on all of this - choice. You are - by your description and what I can tell a more dominant and aggressive (definition can vary, but I don’t mean bar fights prone aggressive type) male. You are choosing to be more sensitive to the experience and the extremes. If you walk into your local coffee shop and contrast yourself to the gay 20 something twink taking your order, in a sexual setting in all likelihood he will naturally feel submissive to you. I have found twinks are generally very submissive, for whatever reason. Are their dominant twinks? Yes, but i find them rather rare. 

You are, I’m my opinion choosing not fully envy in using your natural power as the dominant and engaging in true power dynamics…not that there’s anything wrong with that. I do think you probably attract submissives and you could easily dominate to levels you want. 
 

[ErosWired]

I suspect you would need to define what you mean by ‘hierarchy’ in order to arrive at any solid answer to this question. Does it simply, for these purposes, refer to social roles or structures? Does it attempt to encompass elements of natural order? Does it touch on the deeper dynamics of power, and if so, does it attempt to distinguish those from the fundamental rules that govern the movement of energy in the material universe? (I would submit that that would be folly.)

Is there an inherent hierarchy? If we look at the question from the view of power states, everything in nature exhibits a differential in energy states, a disequilibrium that nature is constantly trying to balance. One thing will always be at a ‘higher’ level than another in terms of energy, and given those handy (or pesky, depending on your viewpoint) Laws of Thermodynamics, one can reliably say that material reality is full of hierarchies in the sense that it is full of stratifications of various kinds.

These base-level states of being manifest themselves in material human circumstances of all sorts, which we observe and describe in physical, behavioral and social terms. Clearly, demonstrably, there are hierarchies. Every human society is built on them, because power is not uniformly distributed among all individuals. In many cases the hierarchies are strongly defined and exercised, and accepted by individuals at every level. Even something as seemingly egalitarian as a queue that one stands in to wait one’s turn for something is in fact a form of imposed hierarchy, because a hierarchy must be imposed - because the thing cannot be accessed by everyone at once, some must be placed in a higher position to access it, if only by virtue of timing or chance.

But this question asks whether there is a hierarchy in everything - bearing the implication that there ought not be. Why is this? The question strikes me as one arising not out of an objective sense, but rather from a place within the ego of the psyche that rebels at the notion of finding itself at a hierarchical position not of its choosing. From a strictly positional sense, this would seem pointless - in any given order, the individual must occupy some position somewhere. The relative value of that position is an entirely perceptual matter.

Is there a natural hierarchy among races of humanity? Any such claim is highly dubious, as ‘race’ is itself an ambiguous concept untethered to science, and no such stratification can demonstrate any solid grounding. Where such hierarchies arise, they are entirely the result of power inequities, and, were the flow of power reversed, the hierarchy could be inverted; the hierarchy itself, therefore, is not an inherent construct.

Is there a natural hierarchy among individual males? Again, in many cases, those factors that lead to stratification may rely on power inequities that if changed would alter the stratification, but there are also factors inherent to the individual that predispose an individual to a lower power(energy) state, and thus it can be argued that that individual does in fact occupy a fixed place in a natural hierarchy.

Taking myself as an example, I am a person whose mental faculties are more developed than my physical ones. From a purely competitive standpoint, I am far more likely to dominate other individuals in a mental comparison than a physical one. Therefore, I do not recognize the hierarchical superiority of very many men over me at an intellectual level.

On a physical level, however, I recognize that there are many men whose physical nature is more robust, more powerful, more agile, more virile than mine. Because I have a share of my own masculinity, I am able to compare it to that which I observe in others, and note that others’ drives may be stronger, their abilities and appetites greater, their reproductive potential higher than mine. By simple observation I can discern that I occupy a position with respect to them by comparison.

That positioning, however, does not automatically imply hierarchy. It gives rise to questions of opportunity, and need, which then must be evaluated. If a more aggressive, stronger man driven by vigorous sexual appetite finds that he needs an outlet for that lust, and I occupy a position that would make me a suitable receptive object, does that automatically put me in a hierarchy with respect to him? In other words, simply because nature arranges him as an Alpha, does its arrangement of me make me a faggot? I may not choose to participate in the hierarchy, but does that mean I am not what I am?

 I believe it may be most accurate to say that we occupy some position in just about every order, but there are some orders that are natural while others are superimposed, or extrapolated from more basic states. No single hierarchy categorizes the whole of who we are.

The question does arise regarding hierarchies imposed by others, as to whether we are actually embedded in them by virtue of the perception of others, or we are fully self-determining. Am I a faggot if other men say I am? If other men choose to define my sexuality (an unalterable aspect if my self) as ‘faggot’, then I cannot tell them that they cannot perceive the world in a given way; I can only tell them I do not share or accept their perception. If they then say to one another, ‘The faggot doesn’t know it’s a faggot’, I am still firmly embedded in their hierarchy whether I accept it or not.

 I cannot speak with any authority to the degree to which the fundamental tenets of s-atanism are offended by the notion of hierarchies, but the limited familiarity I have with the writings suggests that there is a core sense of hierarchy that is indispensable to them - the self is elevated to the highest consideration, which is an inherent hierarchy, and judgments are made regarding the value of others, which necessarily imposes hierarchies. To suggest that the philosophy is somehow more immune to hierarchy than any other architecture dealing with social, moral or ethical valuations is, I fear, self-deceiving.

[viking8x6]

15 hours ago, Lucienblack88 said:

You are - by your description and what I can tell a more dominant and aggressive (definition can vary, but I don’t mean bar fights prone aggressive type) male. You are choosing to be more sensitive to the experience and the extremes. If you walk into your local coffee shop and contrast yourself to the gay 20 something twink taking your order, in a sexual setting in all likelihood he will naturally feel submissive to you. I have found twinks are generally very submissive, for whatever reason. Are their dominant twinks? Yes, but i find them rather rare. 

You are, I’m my opinion choosing not fully envy in using your natural power as the dominant and engaging in true power dynamics…not that there’s anything wrong with that. I do think you probably attract submissives and you could easily dominate to levels you want. 

Thanks more for excellent and nuanced discussion! Upon some reflection, I have to concede that I agree with a good portion of what you say here. The devil (and the quibble) may be in the details.

I would certainly not characterize myself as "aggressive" (though my very insistence on arguing the point may undermine me here LOL), but definitely "self-possessed" (to an extreme), "competitive", and "a leader" - it's not clear to me whether that constitutes "dominant". Yes, I'm choosing nuance and sensitivity, but importantly that is by inclination - I find "dominance" in the sense of "domineering" or "bossy" to be actively distasteful to me.

Pity I don't find twinks more attractive, as I agree, they (and other naturally submissive people) probably do feel submissive to me (submissive bear cubs I could probably enjoy a bit). But in the bedroom, I find a "doormat" level of submission to be incredibly boring - I really don't want to do all the work. Plus, I really like getting fucked, and between the endowment and the, er, natural dominance, that can be hard to come by.

 

[tallslenderguy]

On 8/6/2023 at 5:46 AM, viking8x6 said:

in the bedroom, I find a "doormat" level of submission to be incredibly boring - I really don't want to do all the work. Plus, I really like getting fucked, and between the endowment and the, er, natural dominance, that can be hard to come by.

 

i'm writing this  before work today and hope to join this conversation when i am off and can give it more time, but wanted to start a response.

i learned about my own submissive side later in life, and i think it's because how, what to me is crude definitions of D/s, just didn't fit. Then i was picked up and Dommed by a Man on a vacation to Palm Springs one year and i knew by experience how profound the connection can be when it's real and 'right' (for both involved). 

Speaking of "nuance" though, i'd make a distinction between submissive and passive. To me, the "doormat level" is passivity. A profound part of a D/s dynamic to me is the dance of a Dom eliciting the submission of a sub.  As i see is, submission is not a given, it is given.  Most of my sub nature is locked in a room inside of me and it's not a simple or automatic process for a Man to access, occupy and possess that space. 

[ErosWired]

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

As i see is, submission is not a given, it is given.

Precisely. The reality of Power Exchange is that it is exactly that, an exchange, and the one in control of the exchange is the submissive, not the Dominant. The thing that is a given is that every individual has agency by virtue of the fact that no other person can occupy and operate his body; another may coerce or compel the individual to make the body perform, or may act upon the individual’s body, but only the individual can perform an act of will. And without the will to submit, there is no submission, and Dominance has no meaningful power.

[hntnhole]

Very interesting thread (I almost skipped it when I saw the satanic reference), but an excellent discussion.  This is why I enjoy BZ so much.  

[ErosWired]

On 8/6/2023 at 7:46 AM, viking8x6 said:

I would certainly not characterize myself as "aggressive" […] Yes, I'm choosing nuance and sensitivity, but importantly that is by inclination - I find "dominance" in the sense of "domineering" or "bossy" to be actively distasteful to me.

Let’s get nuanced then. Instead of aggressive, might you describe yourself rather as assertive? I believe much discussion gets bogged down in a lack of distinction between dominant and Dominant. (We shall omit discussion of the use of ‘dominate’ as a noun, which causes my teeth to delaminate.)

The meaning of dominant as an adjective is simply “most important, powerful or influential”. That doesn’t have to imply “of them all” - it may simply mean “of the two present”, “at the moment”, “in this circumstance”, or “in terms of that factor”. In terms of energy states, it’s practically impossible for one entity not to dominate another at any given time from the simple standpoint of physics. One is going to consume more of the room’s air than the other. One is going to radiate more heat than the other. Therefore, there should be no reason for distaste at the notion of dominance per se, or even behavior that reflects or expresses natural dominance.

But what you express seems to stem from a value judgment about certain types of toxic behavior that you would not wish associated with you if you accepted a description of dominant. Many synonyms of dominant do indeed signify a sense of negatively aggressive behavior and attitude. I might submit, however, that many such terms are subjective - one man’s bossy is another man’s confident leadership.

One can find the difference starkly illustrated in two men who both style themselves as Dominants in the sense of the role, but whereas the first treats his submissive with care, respects his humanity, appreciates the nature of his submission, and exercises his prerogatives as the Dominant with an admirable alchemy of excess blended with restraint, the other is a self-centered abuser with little regard for the physical or mental safety of the submissive, and indulges his base desires at will and whim under a mistaken sense of entitlement. As a trained service submissive, I do not view the latter man as a Dominant worthy of the name, merely as a pretender, and a dangerous amateur at that.

But more than that, the second man’s behavior actually derives in all likelihood from a deep-seated recognition that he is not dominant, and he is desperate to become so even though his methods are utterly futile and ultimately self-defeating. The second man might get me in a position where he is able to exercise physical control of my body and in the end sodomize, inseminate and otherwise despoil me until he runs out of ideas, but after he’s finished, he will still see nothing but contempt in my eyes. The first man will touch me in a certain way, speak in a certain way, and unlock a place within me that contains a thing of exquisite vulnerability and sensitivity, and he will imprint it with his Dominance. When he is finished, in my eyes he will see acceptance beyond acceptance.

Do not be ashamed to recognize dominance traits in yourself. You are under no obligation to act on them (though we live in hope) nor must you label yourself. But be true to what you are.

[viking8x6]

Thanks, @ErosWired, for such a thoughtful and insightful response. 💓

1 hour ago, ErosWired said:

Let’s get nuanced then. Instead of aggressive, might you describe yourself rather as assertive?

-- On the nose. Though I frequently choose to be non-confrontational, I am most definitely self-possessed and can be extremely assertive (nay, stubborn!)

(We shall omit discussion of the use of ‘dominate’ as a noun, which causes my teeth to delaminate.)

-- (And mine to gnash rabidly.)

But what you express seems to stem from a value judgment about certain types of toxic behavior that you would not wish associated with you if you accepted a description of dominant. Many synonyms of dominant do indeed signify a sense of negatively aggressive behavior and attitude. I might submit, however, that many such terms are subjective - one man’s bossy is another man’s confident leadership.

-- and most women's confident leadership appears to be every man's bossy (le sigh)

One can find the difference starkly illustrated ...

But more than that, the second man’s behavior actually derives in all likelihood from a deep-seated recognition that he is not dominant, and he is desperate to become so even though his methods are utterly futile and ultimately self-defeating. The second man might get me in a position where he is able to exercise physical control of my body and in the end sodomize, inseminate and otherwise despoil me until he runs out of ideas, but after he’s finished, he will still see nothing but contempt in my eyes. The first man will touch me in a certain way, speak in a certain way, and unlock a place within me that contains a thing of exquisite vulnerability and sensitivity, and he will imprint it with his Dominance. When he is finished, in my eyes he will see acceptance beyond acceptance.

-- This is brilliant. Thank you!

Do not be ashamed to recognize dominance traits in yourself. You are under no obligation to act on them (though we live in hope) nor must you label yourself. But be true to what you are.

-- And thank you for this, as well. I have habitually erred on the side of gentleness, and it well behooves me to learn that it is not always the optimal, or even appropriate, strategy. As for being true to what I am, whenever I have strayed from that path, I have paid - and at least once, very heavily. I hope that at my age I can largely avoid such straying in the years left to me.

 

[ErosWired]

1 hour ago, viking8x6 said:

I have habitually erred on the side of gentleness, and it well behooves me to learn that it is not always the optimal, or even appropriate, strategy.

My former Master once skewered each of my testicles straight through with a 0.18 gauge needle. On another occasion he required me to masturbate using copious amounts of IcyHot as lube. He subjected me to many sessions of high-level electric current through my genitals. He directed me to use my crafting abilities to create the diabolical tools for my own CBT. Obviously, he was a Sadist.

But he was never - ever - cruel. He was not mean. He never acted from a place of malice. I cannot say that he did not coerce - I was continually fascinated to observe, almost as though looking from the outside in, the way he psychologically led me to acceptance of each act, to become an active, willing participant in my own torture. His confidence that he could get me to accept what he desired to do was absolute; he dominated me, and we both knew it.

In the end, the full measure of his dominance was his ability to command my orgasm by speaking a single word - “Cum”. Believe me, there are very, very few ways one man can express his dominance, control, supremacy over another than by being able to reach inside him and drag out his most intimate center. He used this ability mercilessly to achieve his goal of my transformation, but merciless does not mean cruel. What he did he did rationally, for purpose, with no intent to harm.

To be entirely candid with you, I have very little patience for a gentle Dominant, or a gentle Top, for that matter. Men are not gentle animals. Men are powerful in the way bulls are powerful. One expects them to break the china. And I am not a china doll. If a man treats me gently, it signals that he understands neither the nature of my submission, nor the importance of his role as a dominant. He need not be cruel or demeaning, but he can still be aggressive - even brutal - in the service of something greater than us both.

[JeffSLmmPigDadd]

Hope my interpreting this question aptly applies here: My house, my rules, on everything within my castle. When I host, I’m top, more ways than one. 😂 Seriously, respect the host. What Scares me most is someone invited over who starts trying to be Mr. alpha. If you don’t like it, well, daddy’s baby, Spike, will politely and firmly show you the exit.  😂 Flip side: When I go to others to host, there’s this one couple where older daddy rules. Without warning he/they might suddenly ask you to leave, despite your best performance. And you know what? I leave! And you know what? Because I respect the rules, I still get invited back for another time. 😂 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by JeffPigDadd

[Guest]

Yes heirarchy plays a major role in our lives.

As men we tend to gravitate to the biggest cocks whether conscious or subconscious...gay or straight..so do straight women..the symbolism of men being the phallus embraces the hierarchy scheme. We see it in nature with the most dominant male animal being able to procreate with the female species. Dominance and dominant male species  helps keep the species strong and enduring.

With humans, we do the same ..whether it's by the strongest man..or the smartest or the richest...or one with the biggest penis.  We can't even watch porn without putting ourselves into who's the most handsome... biggest belly..most fur... biggest booty .etc....of course we have a hierarchy and as gay men we perpetuate it to the point where it becomes tough for guys not at the top end of some category to get sexually recognized, UNLESS gay men are attractive in a submissive way.  

[ErosWired]

1 hour ago, JeffPigDadd said:

Hope my interpreting this question aptly applies here: My house, my rules, on everything within my castle. When I host, I’m top, more ways than one. 😂 Seriously, respect the host.

This concept is found across cultures and is absolutely necessary because hierarchies - and territories - overlap. Were there no commonly agreed convention that the Master is respected in his Keep, dominant types would have knives out every time they crossed boundaries and civilization as we know it would be impossible.

(Vladimir Vladimirovich apparently didn’t get the memo.)

[tallslenderguy]

10 hours ago, ErosWired said:

My former Master once skewered each of my testicles straight through with a 0.18 gauge needle. On another occasion he required me to masturbate using copious amounts of IcyHot as lube. He subjected me to many sessions of high-level electric current through my genitals. He directed me to use my crafting abilities to create the diabolical tools for my own CBT. Obviously, he was a Sadist.

But he was never - ever - cruel. He was not mean. He never acted from a place of malice. I cannot say that he did not coerce - I was continually fascinated to observe, almost as though looking from the outside in, the way he psychologically led me to acceptance of each act, to become an active, willing participant in my own torture. His confidence that he could get me to accept what he desired to do was absolute; he dominated me, and we both knew it.

In the end, the full measure of his dominance was his ability to command my orgasm by speaking a single word - “Cum”. Believe me, there are very, very few ways one man can express his dominance, control, supremacy over another than by being able to reach inside him and drag out his most intimate center. He used this ability mercilessly to achieve his goal of my transformation, but merciless does not mean cruel. What he did he did rationally, for purpose, with no intent to harm.

To be entirely candid with you, I have very little patience for a gentle Dominant, or a gentle Top, for that matter. Men are not gentle animals. Men are powerful in the way bulls are powerful. One expects them to break the china. And I am not a china doll. If a man treats me gently, it signals that he understands neither the nature of my submission, nor the importance of his role as a dominant. He need not be cruel or demeaning, but he can still be aggressive - even brutal - in the service of something greater than us both.

Do you perceive your self as masochist along with/as well as submissive?  To me that seems part of the mix that makes you who and how you are?  Or do you see what you describe as solely an expression of your submissive need/desire/tendency/_________?  While you say your "former Master required" of you, at the same time, you were in control.  It seems that the dynamic you experienced with Him was an alignment of desire/need?  In other places i recall you writing of being hypnotized, was that with this same Master?  my sense and recall of your hypnotism experience is that person crossed a boundary with you and thus did you harm? 

As i  see it, this  thread (not just  this post) is about a driving energy, tendency (force?), ____________ in 'life',  'nature' towards balance.  This is foundational in my profession of healthcare, expressed in what seems a constant tendency towards homeostasis.  As a holistic thinker, when it comes to humans, i connect the psychological with the physiological in that dynamic.  Off the cuff,  to me, the "stasis" part of that word seems contradictory. i wonder if "stasis" is even achieved in 'death,'  or if there is such a thing as "death" given it's dual meaning of balance and inactivity?  That what we call death is a change in existence, not a cessation.  Sorry, this kind of discussion has rabbit hole for me.  

While i think hierarchy exists, i wonder if it serves the bigger picture, that hierarchy is within the tendency of homeostasis or if it is an evolutionary force that works against balance, or maybe it can be either?