Duality of Perception in CG/l relationships

[Righan]

One of the things I've noticed over the years is there is a duality of perception or double standard with regards to what is "dominant" or "submissive" in D/s or CG/l relationships. For instance, if I, as the daddy, wash my little then that is an act of dominance and care-giving ... alternately, if she washes me then that is an act of service ... the same is true of other activities, like cooking a meal, cleaning the house, or driving the car. Interestingly, outside of CG/l this also seems true such as in a parent/child relationship and the teacher/student, mentor/mentee, leader/follower relationships ... an act becomes dominant when it is performed by the dominant person and submissive when performed by the submissive.

I find this to be an interesting duality and I am curious about others thoughts and observations of this phenomena in their own relationships as well as any examples of this duality that sticks out to them from their own experiences.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Righan

[gemmy]

It's very interesting and I'm glad you've posted this thread! My question for you is why do you think this occurs or where do you think it stems from?

Something like cooking or chores or even washing would be categorized (in my mind only) as things you do for your partner regardless of your D/s or CG/l roles, so I've never considered the type of perception you're talking about. I'll be mulling this over for a bit.

[sweetgirl222]

Following and I'm with @gemmy. Very interesting, and I'd like to hear more. I always think of it as a mutual caring.

[Righan]

I was using the term 'double standard' in a neutral sense ... simply the idea that the same activity is handled or perceived differently depending on what group or identity one belongs to ... i.e. two different standards. I think it is mostly considered negative because we often use that term to highlight situations of inequality such as when people in two different groups (i.e. male and female) get paid differently. Of course, in this case I was not using it that way. Although I admit that socially, double standard almost always has a negative perception which is why I used "duality of perception" as the main term and double standard as a supporting reference.

I also think there was some trouble with my use of the term 'act of service' and I was using that term uncomfortably because I have yet to find ways to clearly express the nuance of what the caregiver/dominant does versus what the little/submissive does for them in a single phrase or term. As a daddy/dominant I view everything I do for others as an act of service ... taking care of them and guiding and teaching is an act of service ... its something I'm doing because I enjoy taking care of people and I want to nurture them and make them happy, much like a parent ... and I think that is true for the mommy/daddy/caregiver role in general ... its really what separates it from the standard dom who is a little more focused on getting what they want out of the deal. And a little is often a bit less submissive and less service oriented than your typical submissive type ... much like a child. This deviation from the standard dom/sub roles is probably why there is some question of whether a little is even a submissive type and why it is possible to have a dominant little.

I do agree that the phenomena is largely related to the natural dichotomy between dominant and submissive roles. The parent is naturally dominant simply because of their role and so cooking a meal for their child is naturally an act of taking care of their child ... alternately, if the child cooks a meal for their parent it is often thought to be "sweet" or "nice" a special gift or act of thanks for the parent. In this case it has to do with responsibility ... it is the parents responsibility to take care of the child and they are 'in charge', the child is not. So if the child spontaneously decides to cook a meal, then it is a gift or an act intended to express thanks/appreciation or to show love ... and even if the child becomes responsible for cooking meals regularly, since it is at the directive of the parent then it is still a submissive act.

However, lets look a little bit more complicated example ... driving ... socially, it is often viewed that the person who drives a car is dominant ... I don't really know how that idea came about, maybe because the driver has control over the car, but if you look at most hetero-normative couples the male always insists on driving ... it is perceived as emasculating for the female to drive ... a loss of power on the part of the male. I remember thinking it was so strange when my father and step-mother were together, he always drove even if they were taking her car. They never said anything like "whose driving?" or "I'll drive" ... it was just assumed he would drive. So in that way of looking at things, whoever is driving is currently dominant.

However ... its not that simple is it? What if we, in turn, look at rich people who ride around in the back of cars while someone else drives. In that situation the person driving the car certainly isn't dominant are they? So that tells us that who drives the car is not what indicates dominance. It's really about who is making the decision. Who is in control. Perceptually, we don't typically think about it that deeply ... we are just used to this seeming contradiction and take it as a matter of course. Very few people I know actively question the idea that who drives the car is dominant ... its just how it is ... the person in charge drives... but we also don't question that the guy in the back of the limo is the guy in charge even though he isn't driving ... and we just don't think about these perceptions. Just like we don't generally think about or question the relationship between parent and child, we just inherently know that if the parent does it then its an act of care giving ... and if the child does it its either a show of appreciation or a responsibility given to them by the parent. We don't think about it or question it, it just IS.

I think it is about leadership. When the person 'in charge' or who is responsible or leading does something it is viewed as a dominant act ... an act that supports their role ... and if the follower or person not in charge does something for the dominant person then it is viewed as a submissive act ... an act that supports their role ... whether that act is done as a gift without being asked to do it or if they are tasked with it by the more dominant individual. Even in a standard relationship, where power exchange and roles are less clearly defined and people are more 'equal' there is still some levels of power exchange ... as mentioned, the typical hetero-normative relationship has a patriarchal element where the male is traditionally considered more dominant than the female ... hence the phrase "wearing the pants in the family" ... granted, couples can often go beyond hetero-normative roles these days (thankfully) and power structures often develop as a result of more complex factors ... like mental health, physical health, income, etc... and it can be fairly fluid ... and in those cases I think 'taking care of each other' can loose a lot of its dominant and submissive characteristics.

I also want to clarify that when I am referring to something as being dominant or submissive that these are just words to describe the perceptual differences between the two and doesn't assign value to dominant or submissive. I'm not talking about inequality or anything. I believe that ultimately all these different kinds of relationships are equal, particularly D/s and power exchange relationships where power is a gift given to the dominant by the submissive and can always be taken back. Not to mention that in many ways the idea of power exchange is really just a different division of responsibilities in the relationship that is different from a standard relationship ... they each give and get something, its not just a linear exchange of power ... so in the end its still equal.

However, one of the key components of a D/s or CG/l relationship are performing activities that reaffirm their dynamic and their individual roles. A little wants to do things that make them feel little ... that support that perception in their mind ... and the caregiver wants to do things that make themselves and the little feel like they are a caregiver and support that part of their role. So, a main part of this thread for me is to illustrate that the activities that support those different roles don't have to be different activities ... the Caregiver can do the same activities the little does and those activities can support their individual role ... and vice versa ... its all about perception.

So what other examples of this dynamic can we find ... other things littles and Caregivers can do that are the same, like washing each other, but still support their individual roles in the dynamic. For instance, do you think if a Caregiver colors or watches cartoons with their little, is that an act of caregiving? does it reaffirm their role as a caregiver? I know socially, if a parent does activities with their child that aren't really considered "adult" that it is considered "supporting your child's interests" ... so maybe something similar is true in a CG/l relationship. What do you think? What other activities can we come up with that share this duality?

[sweetgirl222]

I loved reading the free association here - it is thought-provoking, and valid. Warning - rambling ahead -

I think the part that resonated with me is the dominant actions as an act of service. I have to ask my own Daddy, but I would have to ask whether he views it as service as such. I know when I give my own submission, it's an active choice. I have no idea if it's an innate situation or not, but I do know that I have a consciousness about it, because I've made the choice to suppress it for so long. I fully give myself to my Daddy, and I trust him unconditionally, but I also know in my own mind that if something was wrong, I would raise a red flag immediately.

But, does that make my Daddy someone who is performing an act of service? That's where I get stuck. Whether it's because I don't want to believe it or it's really true, I can't say. Anyone else want to jump in?

[Guest UnicornPuff]

I agree with Gigisweetheart. My Daddy works a lot and sometimes I take care of him. It is not service, it is simply love. He's tired and needs care just like we Littles need. 

[ZandraMeow]

@Righan It's an interesting topic.🤔 Let's try to discuss the issue of duality.

An act itself consists of the actor, the action, and the recipient of the action. In other words, the perception of the action by both parties also constitutes a part of the act itself. If we define power as the ability to cause or prevent change, then once the behavior itself may involve power exchange (like DDLG), the difference in perception of the behavior between the two parties becomes particularly significant. For example, right now I am writing a post and you are reading it. Obviously, I assume that when you read the post, you have already agreed to spend time reading it. Even if there is a power exchange, it is very small in this case.
However, if I were to make a request/conduct a behavior with a power exchange nature that could change your state of being, then the power gap would create a negotiation space for the behavior. At this point, the perception of the behavior by both parties becomes very important. After all, if the conditions for natural trade are met, willingness is a prerequisite. So even if it is the same behavior, it will also bring the behavior's own perception/will/motivation by the actor (such as Dom/Sub), and truly determine the nature of the behavior.
So the behavior itself is not the key point, even drinking water and breathing can involve power exchange, right? The key point is whether the parties' perceptions of the behavior will lead to an agreement on power exchange. On the other hand, like the example you mentioned about who drives by default, even if there is a power exchange in the behavior, if both parties have the same perception of the behavior/considered as normal, that means there is already an agreement in place, so there is no need to renegotiate the power exchange.

In other words, it is the power itself that brings about the sense of changes/destructiveness for someone that cause the space to have the perception, then create Duality/Role play. So, it can be said that what behaviors generate a sense of dominance can vary. It depends on the extent to which your behavior is disruptive or transformative to the recipient's perception of the behavior.🧐

The conclusion is common sense, just trying to discuss the underlying mechanisms.🤣

Edited April 23, 2023 by ZandraMeow

[Righan]

On 4/21/2023 at 7:25 PM, sweetgirl222 said:

I loved reading the free association here - it is thought-provoking, and valid. Warning - rambling ahead -

I think the part that resonated with me is the dominant actions as an act of service. I have to ask my own Daddy, but I would have to ask whether he views it as service as such. I know when I give my own submission, it's an active choice. I have no idea if it's an innate situation or not, but I do know that I have a consciousness about it, because I've made the choice to suppress it for so long. I fully give myself to my Daddy, and I trust him unconditionally, but I also know in my own mind that if something was wrong, I would raise a red flag immediately.

But, does that make my Daddy someone who is performing an act of service? That's where I get stuck. Whether it's because I don't want to believe it or it's really true, I can't say. Anyone else want to jump in?

I think we might be getting caught up in words ... regardless of whether you call it an act of service or not ... the Daddy / Caregiver role is more nurturing and more focused on taking care of their little/middle/babygirl than the standard Dominant type ... hence why it is called a caregiver ... so when I am calling something an "act of service" on the part of a Daddy, it is simply an act that takes care of or nurtures their little/middle/babygirl ... which could even include punishment if its the right situation ... I am calling it an act of service if their intent is to help or improve the life of their partner in some way ... rather than their own. Granted, for many daddy's taking care of their little actually makes them feel good so in that sense it is always for themselves ... but the bottom line, at least in the way I'm using the term, is who is the daddy trying to benefit ... so we can throw out calling it an act of service and call it anything you want ... it doesn't change what it is, even if changing the term changes how we think about it.