Master Piece
Someone rebuked me in a chat room the other day. I forget what the precise context was but the point was what it usually is in these circumstances; that for me to express an opinion that is contrary to someone else's, is somehow to trespass on their right to hold it. This is, of couse, nonsense from beginning to end but what struck me was the rebuke itself. He informed me that the 'BDSM lifestyle' was based exclusively on trust, respect and tolerance of the views of others what ever they may be. He went on to reveal to me his view that, if I didn't subscribe to that principle, then I had no place in BDSM, that I was axiomatically unsafe and a psychopath and that he, for one, intended to ignore me. I will not labour the irony of this tirade mostly because it isn't really what I want to talk about. I told him that I thought that he had BDSM confused with a church! It did, however make me think about what it is that I do think that my life as a Master is all about and what characterises my relationships, few though they have been.
I suppose that, strictly, BDSM has to do with the practice of one or more of a number of activities that are contained within the scope of the initials. I don't practice all of them and few of those I know well do either. Is that to say that we are not really exemplary practitioners? I would say not. There are, of course, many flavours of relationship within BDSM and they are sometimes seen by some as some kind of hierarchy of practice - from wearer of rubber foundation garments at the one end to scary sadists or people who want to own your soul at the other. In fact, this is unhelpful at best and divisive at worst. I am from the Master/submissive or M/s flavour and that is neither better nor worse than any other, just as an international hockey player is neither the superior nor inferior of an international three day eventer. Their sports are different, require different skills and mind sets, take place in very different environments and neither is attractive to, or indeed open to everyone. There is nothing wrong with any of the things that consenting adults might want to do with each other but acknowledgment of what that actually is, what it is called and how it works is essential. If the New Zealand 3 day event team were to arrange a competition with the British hockey team, chaos would reign and what ever the result was, it would satisfy neither the participants nor the unhappy spectators!
Thinking more positively about the nature of M/s, I am struck so often by the way in which people use the same words that I use to describe my relationship with my submissive but, non-the-less, clearly mean something completely different by them. I have often heard people say of someone that he was not Master enough to control them. I am Master and I almost never need to 'do' anything to control my submissive. She is in control of herself and she has willingly given that control to me. That is her decision and requires effort on her part and not mine. Clearly, that submission is, on some level, inspired by me and would not be available to anyone who casually asked for it, but it is primarily given by her rather than taken by me.
If I express myself in these terms in the face of the comments to which I alluded, I am often met with the riposte ' Ah! But I am not a door-mat! I am a feisty sub!'. I think that anyone who submits willingly and without dissent to a sadist in full flow cannot really be said to be a 'door-mat'. The level of self control required to lie still and await the next stroke is of an order that never fails to take my breath away. What then does 'feisty' mean in this context? I would contend that it means that the submissive who expresses herself in that way is actually saying nothing more and nothing less than this. 'I want to play the role of a naughty girl in order that you will play the role of a stern man and discipline me'. Now. This takes us into another area - the vexed area of 'role-play'. There are many people who want to assume the roles of dominant or submissive for the sake of a party, an event or a club - or just for a session with their partner; and when it's over and done with, the roles of dominant and submissive are put away with the leather trousers and the toys and they get on with doing the shopping and being driven mad by the kids until next time they assume the roles again. This is harmless and many people find it fun and fulfilling in that it adds spice to their relationship. It is not, however, M/s - even though the terms 'Master' and 'subbie' may well be used. There has been no permanent exchange of power; that means that there is no acknowledgement of the imperative to accept the dominance of that partner in normal life and 'Not tonight darling, I'm pooped' would be an acceptable response to dommy showing up with a flogger in his hand.
Once again, let me stress that I am not saying that role-players are in any sense less than M/s people, indeed, role-play can, in many cases, amount to BDSM. There is however, significant risk of misunderstanding between a role-play dominant and an M/s submissive were they to embark on a relationship. The role-player means something completely different when he uses the term 'Master' from what I mean when I say it. For me, being Master implies an ownership of my submissive, which is not temporary, conditional or intermittent. That isn't to say that I am never weak, tired, wrong, in need of a cuddle or just plain ratty; just that I am always Master and my submissive has placed herself willing under my control at all times, not just when the toys are out of the bag.
My submissive's purpose, both to me and to herself is simply this; to meet my needs, what ever those needs might be. Her reward is to know that she has done so. I happen to be a sadist and so, some of my needs revolve around hurting her; a thing that she accepts willingly. She doesn't enjoy pain, I wouldn't be interested if she did in actuality but she does enjoy giving me the satisfaction of hurting her. In the rest of her life, she subjects herself to me in a hundred ways each day - some big, some small. She is happy to exchange her unquestioning obedience and compliance for my love and satisfaction. Not an easy 'door-mat' experience, but the active submission that anticipates what I want and need and accommodates it without fuss or fanfare. If her purpose were to be anything to do with herself in any other context than her satisfaction from serving, I would contend that she is not a submissive, rather that she is a role-player.
As for limits, they are actually irrelevant in this kind of relationship. The fact that she is there, is consent to the relationship and the notion that she would be able to call herself a submissive were she to simply pick from a list of possibilities, those activities that she doesn't find too disagreeable, is clearly and obviously nonsense. She trusts me and that trust is not misplaced. Were she to have asked me in the first instance, I would have allowed limits on physical activities while trust was developed. As it happens, she didn't and she never has since.
So! Having spoken a little about the general and given some examples from my own relationship, what have I to say to my cyber-assailant's helpful suggestions about what the 'BDSM lifestyle' is all about? Simply this. There is a range of activities and there is a range of motivation in our community. It is fair and reasonable to say that there is no 'gradient of deviance' between those disparate aspects of BDSM but it is also true to say that there is a need to be sure that we use the right language to describe what it is that we are engaged upon - so that we don't wind up playing hockey with people riding horses for one thing - but also so that, in our quest to be inclusive of everyone, we aren't so confused that we loose any focus about what the issues actually are and become nothing at all.
©2004 JB - domj61
