| Finding focus | Understanding motivation | Religion & faith | Sexuality | Families | Front page |
I have noticed several postings recently in which psychologically dominant (users of power exchange) authors have reflected on what it is about D/s that turns them on. Clearly the answer is not obvious or they would not bother to write about it. Indeed I suggest that some elements of this understanding may be difficult.
Clearly for some more experienced dominants what really turns them on is not technique or toys. These may both be enjoyed, but the deepest satisfaction appears rather to come psychologically and it comes in the act of surrender – largely before anything much physical happens. This essay attempts to explore why.
I believe there are some very important issues here which are often not recognised. Of these the most important is the submissive's conscious and deliberate choice of submitting. This is not an act of the dominant, it is the submissive that makes it happen. Let me explain.
Many with a religious background may recognise common terminology between BDSM and religion. The frequency of religious issues in discussion on Usenet newsgroups such as soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm is quite striking. (this observation relates to the period 1995-9). In particular, unconditional love, obedience and submission are important terms used by both.
There is a dramatic difference from religion however, as BDSM is performed between people who, if civilised, will recognise in each other a fallible human and so it is practised with a sense of limitations (safe sane and consensual) if not fully explicit negotiation and safewords. It is important to be conscious that dominants foul-up just as often as submissives. They have equally selfish needs, suffer comparable delusions, and make as many mistakes; if you disagree then I recommend some more honest self-examination. There should be inequality in BDSM but that inequality is willingly chosen not intrinsic, and it ends with the play.
Religion on the other hand is a relationship which presumes intrinsic inequality. Thus the religious are more likely to experience submission not as an active choice but rather as a necessary condition of existence – because I am not God (or because I am not dominant, or more tragically because I am not male). Such submission is passive, it is not something about which we may decide and choose, it is unavoidable (for the believer), it is not an option – it just is.
Some submissives approach BDSM this way too. They regard their dominant as somehow intrinsically superior to themselves and they submit not so much by choice but because they see this as the necessary order of things. They believe! Their submission is passive; it is not a voluntary choice deliberately made against an alternative relationship of equality but simply a necessary consequence of a their belief. Agreement which recognises no alternative is not consent.
Passive submission may sometimes be satisfying to the submissive. A ‘pain slut’ may enjoy the experience; another may obtain worthwhile benefits from the relationship without a sense of being an equal person to their dominant. Their submission however is much less satisfying to the dominant. I can rip the clothes off a polystyrene mannequin, whip it, stick needles into it, abuse it however I like, but with very little satisfaction.
Such a passive respondent is aptly described as a ‘black hole’. If the submissive yelps I can know my touch is felt but as a dominant I find no satisfaction if the submission is not active. There are some interesting studies on the pathology of brutalisation – passive submission is little different. ‘Ownership’ of a ‘slave’ can be great fun but brutalisation is offensive to civilised people. The difference is critical, it turns on consent and is regardless of techniques or toys.
The escapist submissive seeking to be ‘lost’ in a dominant is another danger. A submissive seeking a Master to take all responsibility is pursuing a fantasy. Cinderella was beautifully rescued but in the real world it doesn't happen. The submissive will never find someone who is intrinsically ‘better’ (whatever that means). A dom may be taller or stronger or whatever, but for every characteristic of which they have more there is another equally valuable respect in which they are less.
A relationship in which the submissive seeks to deny the realities and difficulties of life by abandoning all responsibilities to a dominant is not offering a gift, but dumping a liability. Occasional posts about ‘micromanagement’ suggest such relationships. Relationship therapists describe this as “other validation”, it is abandonment of self-responsibility. Healthy D/s is about dealing with ourselves, confronting reality and learning our limitations – for both dominant and submissive. The essential pathology of other validation is soon insufferable for the dominant and it is not fun.
Some others approach submission superficially and when asked to do very simple things they fail to take the task seriously. That may often reflect a failure of the submissive to understand the nature of surrender – the submissive isn't and has offered no gift. There is no consent without understanding. A dominant who punishes such disobedience is committing a criminal assault. The next step is brutalisation.
Some claim that their D/s relationship depends on inequality, that he is dominant and paramount, she submissive and intrinsically inferior. What is the meaning of ‘consensual’ if one person's opinion is considered to be of more importance than the other's. What is consent if he needn't ask? A submissive who considers herself intrinsically inferior may accept such treatment. Any protest is insubordination; after all he knows best and she must defer.
Surrender as an act of deliberate choice requires equality – a sense of personal worth – to choose from. The choice of inequality (submitting) in the face of equality is a gift. This action by a conscious submissive is what fires D/s most strongly and it depends on the submissive's freedom to choose and sense of self-worth.
This dominant's greatest pleasure is thus the act of the other, and depends on a considerate and respectful relationship of equality, which means being of equal worth or value – it does not mean being identical. It is not an act of the dominant, it is the submissive that makes D/s a really powerful experience. By definition a willing submissive is not owned, but must be free to choose.
The dominant cannot deliver this but can only enable it by honouring and respecting the submissive as a worthy equal at other (non-play) times. There are significant implications for those who would recognise no such other times (24/7). ‘Slave’ relationships can work fine as fantasy play where the ‘slave’ is willingly submitting. Dominants who seek permanence and fail to discriminate such play from reality are in danger of severe criminal penalties.
This is not to suggest that the skills of the dominant are not important. Creating an atmosphere of expectation is no accident and can greatly amplify the submission offered, but without that surrender all the skills in the world are worthless.
Original: June ‘02
Minor edit Jan ‘05
This page is part of “Living in the Light”
found at: http://www.geocities.com/phoban2000/
| Finding focus | Understanding motivation | Religion & faith | Sexuality | Families | Front page |