Once, a long time ago, I had a conversation with a soon to be ex lover. I was still in the closet. She was politically opposed to D/s, and when I said “but what - theoretically, of course - if it just feels right?” she stated that she would not discuss that topic until I had read the feminist literature debating it.
Needless to say, it was a short relationship . The point of the story, however, is what I see as the difference between a “lifestyle” as a political or social stance versus living one’s truth.
For me, what comes first is the experience, the knowing. My submission and my kinkiness is not a political statement, nor a lifestyle choice. What’s a choice is whether to deny it or honor it.
Words, debates, definitions . . . that all comes later, after the fact. It’s like Marge Piercy says about art in her poem For The Young Who Want To: “Talent is an invention, like phlogiston / after the fact of fire.”
I think of this as the “born this way” model of how D/s works.
So, given this, I find I am puzzled and a little alienated by the concept of a person “working their way up through the ranks” of D/s, being a submissive as an entry level position, (pun intended), and eventually being “promoted” to Dominant.
To me, the “promotion” concept implies both that the power exchange roles are just that - roles to be assumed, not truths to be lived - and that submission is a transitory and lower stage of development.
However, the “promotion” model satisfies many intelligent caring people, and suits their experience of power exchange. Others find this a respectful and gratifying way to live their D/s, and I’m certainly not interested in dissing others’ experiences.
I am left with this question: are we looking at two different and incompatible ideas of how D/s works, here, between the “born this way” model and the “promotion” paradigm? Or is the difference merely semantics? I would welcome others’ thoughts on this.
Meadow Theas
Ryn’s kajira
8 comments:
I assume you are referring to the Old Guard method in which a Dominant moved up through ranks to achieve the title of "Master".
This was something that was done when a new person entered the scene and wanted to be a Dominant, and it had good purpose. Today, anyone can show up and proclaim themselves a Dominant with X number of years of experience, etc. Back then, to be considered a trained Dominant, you were required to know what the submissive under you might feel.
You had to experience the other end of the leash in order to deserve holding onto the controlling side.
The process weeded out a lot of abusers, taught valuable skills such as how to gently push a soft limit without harming the sub or how it felt--REALLY FELT--to be left naked, bound and alone. Feeling the bite of a lash made a big difference in how one might apply it as a Dominant.
More than anything, it taught the Dominant to respect submissives and understand how valuable they are.
The potential master did not come into the community confused--their goal was to be a Dominant. It wasn't like "trying on" submission, then deciding to "try on" Dominance. It was more thinking along the lines of professional sports in that former players make the best coaches because they know what the players must endure.
The Dominants in training are still "born to be Dom", so-to-speak, they are just being trained in the skill set.
In some ways Dannah is correct. To become a Dominant through that method would certainly weed out the wannabes. I could not do it. It is part of the Old Guard and it is part of the signing-up for the lifestyle that they had.
I would not say that it is outmoded but there is no Ds way that says that this is the only way to go. For me being a Dominant is a mind-set, you can't just pick it, you either are or not. It is the same with being submissive.
There are however lots one can do to learn the role and become more accomplished as a Dominant. No one is fully formed at anything. My father always said I loved to be in control but he did not mean this nor did I realise for years what it meant to me.
This question has stumped me a few times too, Meadow. I used to think that the process would only work for people who identify as switch, however I've talked to a bunch of people about it and have another perspective now.
There are those who identify as dominant slaves out there, for instance. People who feel dominant but choose to submit to others for whatever reason. Sometimes it's just to feel themselves straining against their bonds so that they can feel more alive.
There are those who train themselves for years to, essentially, "put up with" another's control over them. They say it didn't come naturally, but they did it for love, lent, ...
If I were a young dominant who didn't know which way was up but needed to learn to respect the submissive journey, I might look into stepping into those shoes for a while. It doesn't make that person submissive because they will, if they are intrinsically dominant, not get the same thing out of the experience that someone who is, or is closer to being, intrinsically submissive, will.
I think that there is validity in the idea that we all exist on a continuum. I consider myself to be deeply and inherently submissive but, as a submissive, I know what I need and crave, and when one of my submissive friends is frenzied I'm happy to take the reins for a bit and supply them with what they need so that they might regain some equilibrium.
What do I get out of it? Well, I am happy to make them happy. There's absolutely nothing sexual in it, and there is nothing compelling me, no need in me to do so other than for love and compassion.
I'm not implying, at all, that the only and best way that one can be a good dominant is to work their way up through the ranks... I have, truthfully. no opinion or experience of that process and absolutely no way of judging it's validity. Having spoken to people about their experiences with this I've discovered that it seems to work for some and not for others.
I'm just offering my own musings here. Walking a mile in someones shoes might give us blisters, and we'll never REALLY know what that person's experiences in those shoes are, but sometimes it's useful to do so just for a glimmer of understanding. For myself, my little forays into dominance tell me that being dominant is a lot of freaking work, and that, in turn, allows me to have more respect for those who do it well.
Thanks for your comments, everyone. DannahB, that's a good explanation. Zano, thanks for sharing your experience of being Dominant and I agree, there are many roads to the same goal. Janine, I totally agree with the idea that we all exist on a continuum, and that experiences that help us understand what it's like to be someone else will both be imperfect and helpful.
So, given that the point of the Old Guard practice is to make sure Doms know something about what it's like to be a submissive, I still have a couple of questions. First, I believe it is equally valuable for submissives to know something about the experience of being Dominant. And I believe a submissive can be just as dangerous to a Dom/me as the other way around, not physically in a scene, but certainly emotionally in a life. Given that, why is it not the practice that subs might have to also "work their way up through the ranks" by spending time as a Dominant before they get the title of submissive? And . . . why is it "work one's way UP through the ranks?"
Submissives being dangerous to Dominants...so true. But as Ds is about a deep intimate relationship I will have it no other way. It may hurt at times, even when things are good, but a real rounded relationship with Ds thrown is is what I need.
What ranks can true submissives work through? They cannot make Dominant as it is not them, even if they have dominating characteristics within them. I don't really see that there are Dominants other than the Old Guard idea.
Ranks implies more power and realness. As I posted in another discussion Dominance or submissiveness is inherent within us. It is not something we assign to ourselves or awarded by others. It just is.
@Meadow... After I commented on your thread I posed this question to someone who had "worked their way UP." He said that submissives have no need of the dominant experience. I don't think that there was a "why" to that statement that made any sense to me. The argument of "that's just how it's done" does little to appease me and my line of questioning on these topics.
Over and over I read that "The Old Guard" is a myth. Sure, there are groups out there that have more structure and higher protocol than most and have had for a while...but, by and large, most of them will even admit that they were neither the norm or subject to any normalizing structure that labeled them, or those of any other group, Old Guard. Most will go into a long explanation about gay leather and the military, but I'm not going to bother with that here. Besides, before they were OLD... what were they? Guard? ;)
If we want to consider any bdsm themed group or house that's been around for a few years, has a hierarchical structure and a lot of protocol "Old Guard" I guess that's acceptable. Of course it's that hierarchy that creates the "working up" template that I, and it seems you also, find a bit insulting. I think you and I have more of a Taoist understanding of D/s rather than a militaristic one?
Janine, "a Taoist understanding" is a great way to put it. Yes, I would agree.
A model that said each half of the polarity needed to spend some time acting in the role of the other as a tool to understanding would neither offend nor puzzle me. D/s is a high risk relationship style for both parties, and the physical risks of kink are only a small and obvious part of that.
A model that places more value on one half of the polarity than the other - and I'm sorry, but the concept of "working one's way UP through the RANKS" is a value judgment, at least as the English language is generally understood - that does offend me, if that concept is put out as being meaningful to D/s in general.
"Submissives have no need of the Dominant experience" in the context of the promotion model . . . without more understanding of how that's meant it's hard to comment directly. It is possible that this leads into another incompatible difference in D/s world views.
So far, in the discussion we've had here, I am seeing two separate and in some respects mutually exclusive paradigms of how D/s works.
I was looking for something else and came across this fascinating discussion.
The reason I find it fascinating is because I'm one of these people on a continuum. Am I innately Dom or Sub? I still don't know.
Is this an academic or a feeling question?
For me, I am starting to understand the concepts of the two: Dom and Sub.
Much more importantly, I am, with the help of my new traveling companion, learning what it feels like to hold the Dom reins in the relationship. And as Zano so nicely put it, this is by no means a smooth ride, even when things are going 'well'!
Protocol holds a little bit of appeal to me - in as much as you can tell where you are. You can learn what is required to demonstrate that you have attained a certain level of knowledge. But that is the end of the appeal. I have been attending lectures on the nature of D/s for a number of years, and that conceptual understanding only led me to trouble and strife in my first two D/s relationships.
It is FEELING within the dynamic of the relationship I am currently in, along with targeted reading (Peter Masters book on Control), excellent mentoring and support from the likes of Mirjam, Julala and Jadzia, and of course, my co-traveler, dana, that is allowing me to grow.
Promotion? nah. I'll settle for a stillness of the heart and only a small voice of disquiet.
Post a Comment