> Of course, dominance also is an emotionally loaded word, especially
> for people who identify with feminist or leftist ideology. However,
> in this realm we're not talking about traditional dominance (e.g. as
> defined by Marx) but situations where one person not only willingly
> but gratefully gives up control (within spoken or unspoken limits) to
> another person in order to obtain sexual or emotional pleasure or
> satisfaction. This is consensual dominance/submission. (Nonconsensual
> D/S---also known as "rape" or "abuse"---is condemned at least as
> strongly by people who participate in BDSM activities as by the rest
> of society.)
Right...like when the police come to the door of a domestic violence call and the woman tells the cops to forget about it. She gratefully gives up control, right? She wants it and deserves it, obviously.
You do not see dogs, monkeys, or people in hunter-gatherer cultures engaged in sado-masochism? Why? Because it's unnatural - and sick.
John Robinson had plenty of relationships where he was the dominant-sadist. After "finishing" with the girls he chopped them up, put them in barrels and dumped them in various places in Kansas and Missouri.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/robinson/100902_ctv.html
Then again, he probably had his good side. After all "if one really probes into the psyche of the 'sadist' who successfully engages in BDSM activities with other people, it is almost always the case the attributes possessed (empathy, desire to take care of and please the partner, responsiveness to the partner's reactions, highly developed sense of responsibility) are the opposite of those which might be expected from the sociopathic implications of the dictionary definition." Maybe men beat their wives because they love and care about them.