So I was talking to this guy...

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?

Consent continued

Although the consent issue is very clear in my mind, I know others, especially others who don't understand the dynamics of Dominant/submissive or Master/slave relationships. Keep in mind that I'm not an expert on this - and anyone who professes to be one should be avoided at all costs - but I'll do my best to explain how consent and being a submissive or slave can co-exist.

As I've already discussed here and here, consent is about an active decision to participate and be involved with something. This can sometimes create issues because subs, or slaves especially, will sometimes be ordered to do something they don't necessarily want to do.

This is where limits come in. Now, there are two main schools of thoughts on this, and I'll briefly explain them both, then argue for the side I agree with.

The first school of thought is that submissives shouldn't/can't have limits. Many people who subscribe to this school of thought are actually okay with subs having limits, but not slaves, because they are 'owned', and are therefore an object to be used, rather than a person with thoughts/feelings. The idea behind this thought is that when they agree to become a slave (or become collared, as the process may be), they give up their right to make choices to their Master - this is their consent to anything that the Master wants to do.

There are a couple of ways that Masters get rid of their slave's limits - the most common being breaking the slave and 'top down'. Breaking is just what it sounds like; the slave is worked until their spirit is broken, and they will blindly follow whatever their Master's will is. More and most often, it's seen as unnecessary, and even dangerous. 'Top down' is my term - it's more working with the slave to break through their limits through trust. Lots of limits are based on a lack of trust.

The second is that subs and slaves can have limits. There are soft limits and hard limits; soft limits are something the sub/slave is potentially willing to change their mind on, with the right person in the right situation, and hard limits are end-of-story no-way. That's not to say that they can't be changed, but they should always be respected by the Dom. A sub or slave has the right to veto hard limits, and depending on the relationship dynamic, may have the right to veto activities if they're not feeling it for that day/scene. This can either be through a pre-arranged safe-word, a conversation before hand, or a simple 'no'; whatever works for the specific relationship.

This is the school of thought that I subscribe to. I like being ordered to do things, but all of those things should be within my personal limits. It doesn't mean that my partner needs to get permission every time he or she touches me, but they should refer to my checklist and know what I'm okay with, and what I'm not. Hard limits should be respected, soft limits should be discussed, but anything I've marked as okay or up is fair game. I don't generally use a safe word because I don't play with people I don't trust to be able to read my body language and notice that something is wrong. Other people swear by them, and that's okay too.

At the end of the day, the best thing you can do to ensure your consent and your partner's is to talk to them. Know what they like, know the sorts of things that they are happy to do off the cuff, and know things that they prefer to be planned. There's no one right answer because it changes with every partner and situation.

A side note on safewords - don't think that just because you have a safeword, it means that you are safe. You are only ever as safe as your partner is; if you're restrained and they choose to ignore your safeword, it's as good as useless.

How far does consent go?

I know we've covered safe, sane and consensual, but I saw this today on fetlife and had to say something.

I am married to my sub/slave bev. I enjoy humiliating her to the point of tears.

I have written on her, spit and pissed on her but I am looking for something a little more extreme.

I was thinking about taking her out in public, in the middle of winter wearing only post-it notes. Force her to walk a crowded city block and I will pick her up when she is done.

The post-it notes would cover her privates and nipples and be attached to other parts of her body. Saying that she is a fat ass. That she is a dumb fucking whore. That she has rolls and cellulite. One by her mouth saying to piss in it.

Maybe have a "tailed" butt plug shoved into deep into her ass for her walk.

As long as her privates are covered I don't believe we are in violation of any laws.
I think this sounds hot and I would love to watch her reaction before, during and after.

Any suggestions to make this better? If this is not your thing please don't criticize.

Okay class, hands up who can tell me what's wrong with this picture?

Let's ignore the fact that this guy obviously wants to humiliate his sub - there's nothing wrong with that as long as she consents, even if it's not something you're into. Let's ignore the name calling - it might be unpalatable to you (and me, if I'm going honest - seriously, take note - calling me dumb and fat will not get you anywhere with me!), but it is obviously something that they like, and that's okay.

SSC stands for 'safe, sane and consensual'. The scenario above probably isn't going to be unsafe, especially as this person is pretty sure they aren't breaking any laws. I'd beg to differ, but if he believes they're not, that's on him. Sane - without putting our own views in there, I'm sure that he can argue that it's sane. He likes it, we can assume she likes it, or at least has consented to it by being his slave.

The issue here lies with the consensual part. He's clearly consenting, and we assume her consent through her slave status. But what about all of the people in public, who will see this near naked woman covered in insults walking down the street? Unless everyone was 100% aware that this was going to happen and had the choice to go somewhere else or avoid it, they're not consenting. In a public street, there are likely to be children who are underagedand therefore unable to consent.

The other thing is there is a general rule that you won't impose your kink onto any people who have not consented. This is, I think, especially important with 'vanilla' people - like the un-expecting people doing their shopping at lunch time. Most of us probably wouldn't want to see two people having sex in public, or a husband hitting a wife, or someone defecating in public, so why would it be okay to assume that other people want to witness something that usually happens 'behind closed doors'? And before I get jumped on for the domestic abuse thing; I'm not for a second implying that it's okay if it happens in private, that's ridiculous.

The only caveat I have to this rule about not imposing kink on others is the fact that I don't think sex should be some secret, private thing that we should feel ashamed about. If we keep sex, kinky or otherwise, a secret, then we are perpetuating this shame. That's an issue for me, because sex really shouldn't be so scary and embarrassing. In saying that, I still don't think sex should be imposed on unwilling participants; at the end of the day, consent is the trump card.

But I don't like it...

Someone asked me how I interact with people who are into kinky things that I'm not into. This sort of had me puzzled. How do I interact/get along with people who have different views from me? Well, first of all, I respect their choice, even if it's not something I agree with, then I treat them like a human being - sort of like how people in the real world do. Wait - we ARE in the real world!

I don't see how interactions between people with different sexual preferences makes that much of a difference. Just like in real life, there are some things that are deal-breakers. For example, I could not be friends with a person who doesn't respect women as people. I couldn't be in a relationship with someone who smokes; that's a deal-breaker for me. However, there are some things that I don't like, but that don't affect me. For example, I might not agree with someone's political views, but for me, that's not a deal-breaker, so I can still be friends with them. It's probably not something we're going to spend lots of time discussing, so it wont make too much difference in my everyday life.

The same goes with sexual stuff. A deal breaker for me would be someone who's into practicing bestiality (you'll note that this is distinguished from fantasising or role playing - those I don't have a problem with because they can be justified under SSC). Bestiality is a deal breaker for me, because I can't justify it under SSC. I could probably justify it as safe, if you used adequate protection and didn't involve an animal who is likely to kill you, but it's not sane to me as it's illegal, and I won't do anything illegal. It's also not consensual because you have an animal who cannot consent. There are other people who can, rightly or wrongly justify it. That's on them, but for me, it's not only something outside of what I'm comfortable with, but I think it's morally wrong. I couldn't be with a person who was into it.

However, there are some things that I'm not into sexually that aren't deal-breakers, much like my politics example. I'm not into permanent marks, piercing or anything similar - it is a hard limit. However, it doesn't bother me if my partner was into that, and, although I wouldn't be on the receiving end of it, I would participate if it was important to my partner.

There are a couple of reasons that this is different to bestiality, in my mind, at least.

• Consent is a huge thing for me - an animal cannot consent, therefore, SSC does not apply. People CAN consent, sanely to body modification, even it it's not something I'm into.
• Bestiality is illegal, body modification isn't. I can't see how it could be sane to do something illegal, and I can't see how you can consent to something illegal safely.
• To me, bestiality can signal lots of other things I'm not into - it's just not something I want to get involved in.
• I can see the appeal of the control aspect of body modification, there is no appeal at all to me of practicing bestiality.

So, what's my answer to the question of how I deal with people who are into things I'm not? With respect, the same way I would deal with anyone else in life who was into things that I'm not. Sorry I don't have a magic fix-all answer, but there's no simple solution. In order to know what you don't like in others, you first have to know what you don't like for you, and what you do like, and go from there.