The other night I had a conversation with a guy from Canada who has been in the BDSM scene for about 20 years. He said some things that really made me think in a different way about submission and sex and relationships in general.
The first thing he said was: submission is voluntary, it rests on the choice to submit.
I really loved this statement. He's right, submission is something you choose to do. It might be something that you feel more or less inclined to do, but it's not like just because you feel inclined to submit that you go around submitting to everyone you see who feels like dominating you today. In fact, I think it's hugely important be very picky about who you choose to submit to - even more so than the pickiness you should have when choosing who to have sex with.
I'm a pretty picky person at the best of times, but I'm even more picky about choosing partners that I will be involved with BDSM with than I am with normal sexual partners. I think a lot of it, for me, anyway, is that I recognise the risks that are involved. Potentially, this person could hit too hard or choke me too long - and cause permanent harm or death. Trust is a huge thing for me, even in the early stages.
The next thing was: submission must lead the sub to do things they would otherwise not do.
This was something that really made me think. It's true though; I'm not actually submitting if I'm doing something that I would be happy to do anyway. But then I wonder - if I'm happy to do everything up to my hard limits, aren't I actually not submitting until I allow those hard limits to be broken? Or is it enough that I'm doing something I wouldn't usually, even though it's not something I've say, never done before or something I wouldn't want to do?
The more I think about this idea, the less I tend to agree with it. I can submit to someone else's will without doing something I wouldn't do at all otherwise. The important thing is that I'm doing it because they want me to rather than because it's something I want to do right now. It doesn't necessitate me doing something I absolutely don't want to do; it's more about doing things because it's what I've been ordered to do, rather than because it's what I want to do.
The next thing: the sub and dom are intimately linked roles, like a coin; two sides, but one coin.
I agreed with this. He said: a dom is to serve the needs of a sub, who needs to submit and serve the needs of a dom. A sub needs to serve the needs of a dom, who needs to dominate and serve the needs of a sub. This was an interesting perspective for me - it showed me that there really isn't that much difference between a sub and a dom - neither can exist without the other. The coin metaphor illustrates to me how important it is not not necessarily settle for the first dom-type you find - that person has to fit with you and your lifestyle and what you want. There's not a 'one sized fits all' when it comes to any relationship.
It's for that reason that I don't agree with generic sub or slave training - a sub or slave needs to tailor him or herself to what her dominant wants, rather than assume all D-types want the same thing out of their subs. The D/s relationship should be something that evolves over time, and should be founded on communication. Now, don't get me wrong - I have no problem with formality in a D/s relationship (like names, positioning and that sort of thing), but I don't think it's something that needs to be set in stone on the third date, or anything like that. Evolution of relationships is the thing that allows them to withstand changes in people and environments - this is exactly why I think that contracts in BDSM relationships are the most stupid thing I've ever heard of. I'll write about that another time, because it deserves a whole freaking blog to itself.
While I agreed with most of what this guy said, I did not agree with one thing. We were talking about the power dynamic, and I mentioned how the power of dominance attracts me, but I'm concerned about being dominant myself because of the responsibility that goes along with it. He said: 'Responsibility is an illusion. Why? Because of the voluntary nature of submission'. He is of the school of thought that a sub is purely using the dominant as a tool to 'meet his need to submit', whereas I think there's more to that. At least, there is to me. There is trust and respect involved. Maybe it's an old fashioned view, but I really think that a dominant has a responsibility to protect their sub, even if it's only to protect the sub from themselves.
I spoke earlier about potentially trusting my dom with my life; this is something that I don't take lightly, and it's something that I expect that he doesn't, either. Luckily, that sort of issue is easy to overcome with communication. Isn't it funny how we keep coming back to that?
No comments:
Post a Comment