“Not all BDSM is dominance and submission
by Patti (Fetlife) 3 months ago
In a recent discussion on a completely different topic, a sub-thread popped up on a subject that’s near and dear to my heart. I thought it deserved a thread of its own, so I’m starting one.
Here are some quotes from the original discussion. Please don’t be offended if I’ve included your quote here. I do it merely for purposes of illustration, and with no degree of ill will or malice.
>My initial idea was/is to try bottoming [...] At this point, however, I am re-considering that notion. I have ZERO interest in subbing/servitude
>Bottoming” implies submitting
>All bottoming is, FOR THAT MOMENT, submitting. Submission is more than bottoming, true. Bottoming is being THE submissive for that scene. Period.
>I can see how, if a person (normally a dominant in our usage) wanted masochism, an endorphine thrill, they could have their boy/girl/bottom/submissive/slave/SO, whatever, or anyone else, spank them… thus ‘topping from the bottom’… ‘legitimately’, LOL, but it is still ’submitting’ to the spanking, the ACT, and that is the absolute to which I refer. A person ON ‘the bottom’ ’submits’, to it OR ‘Tops from the bottom’ in some degree.
>I see the key fetish in BDSM, the one that ties us all together as being the power exchange
>Without a power exchange dynamic, it is just kinky sex. It is the need to -have- or -give up- power that sets us apart.
From where I sit, each and every one of those things is false.
The term BDSM is a big umbrella. It covers a lot of activities that used to be addressed with their own acronyms– Bondage and Discipline (e.g. Harmony softcore bondage magazines), Dominance and Submission (playing with power exchange and power dynamics), and Sadism and Masochism (playing with pain and sensation.) You can also overlay Slave and Master onto the SM, or just take the B for bondage without the D. The term also wraps itself around lots of things that don’t really fit into the alphabet soup, such as human animal play, some fetishism, some body modification, self-bondage, ageplay, and quite a few other things. It’s really pretty much a catch-all term for a big chunk of alternative eroticism.
It’s entirely possible to do BDSM play without any sort of dominance, submission, or power exchange being involved. It’s quite possible to mix dominance and submission with pretty much any BDSM activity, of course, but doing so is far from mandatory. While many people do choose to do power exchange as part of BDSM, there are plenty of people in the scene who do not do so and the people who do play with power don’t do it in all of their scenes. Their way of playing is just as valid as any other, and they are equal participants and members of the community.
When I first came into the leather community a couple of decades ago, the words top and bottom were the catch-all terms for giver and receiver, or what a friend of mine referred to as pitcher and catcher. This seemed to work really well, as they fairly clearly described the roles without ascribing any particular motivations or orientations to the participants. Over the years, and for reasons that I won’t elaborate on here, the catch-all terms became dom and sub. This is an unfortunate linguistic shift, as it now colors the participants in any scene with roles and motivations that may not actually exist.
It’s even more unfortunate, as it suggests that all of BDSM involves dominance and submission. It leads people to believe that all bottoms are submissive and all tops dominant, and that in order to be a top/bottom one must also be dominant/submissive. This does a terrible disservice to people who are interested in some aspects of BDSM play but have no particular affinity for power exchange, as it leads them to try to assume roles that do not fit. This can be awkward, annoying, or even damaging to the player who is not oriented toward power exchange, but feels that they must pretend to be in order to be a part of the BDSM community. It is especially dangerous for newcomers who lack the experience to see the full rainbow of BDSM diversity.
We all tend to view the world through the lens of our personal experience. If I see a flogging scene in the dungeon, I will generally perceive it as an SM scene. If a DS-centric person sees the same scene, they will probably perceive it as a scene involving power exchange. From the outside, it may be difficult or impossible to tell whether there is a power dynamic going on, but if you think of BDSM primarily as power exchange you will probably see dominance and submission even where none exists.
The belief that all BDSM is DS is my hot button, and I have made it my personal crusade to correct this misconception whenever I encounter it. People often ask me why I care so much, or why I feel so strongly about this. That’s easy. When I first came into the community, I was around people who believed that DS was an integral part of what we did. I was drawn to bottoming, and I wanted to experience the intensity of spanking, whipping, and other SM play. My desire was very strong, and I was willing to do what I had to in order to fulfill my needs. Unfortunately, much of what I had to do involved shoehorning myself into a submissive role for which I was ill-suited, and I was profoundly unhappy doing so. I spent quite a bit of time suffering through this unhappiness in an attempt to find what I needed, and more than once I was on the edge of leaving the community in frustration.
I eventually met up with a merry band of sadomasochists who showed me what I was missing, and taught me that I could be myself and find what I needed without having to fake something that was contrary to my nature. I learned that top and bottom could be collaborators and co-conspirators who met as equals in the dungeon and shared equally in the journey.
The misconception that all BDSM involves dominance and submission made me extremely miserable, and I wish that I had learned earlier that I could be myself and still find what I needed. I speak up on this topic because I don’t want anyone else to go through the same agony that I did– I’d much rather have them find the joyful agony that they seek. While some people may perceive my arguments as linguistic hair-splitting, for me it’s an educational mission of truth and happiness. If just one person reads my discussions and learns that they don’t have to pretend to be dominant or submissive, it will have been worth it to me.
Over the years, I’ve had a surprising number of people tell me that I’m wrong, and that what I’m doing really does involve dominance and submission. If you’d like to well and truly infuriate me, I highly recommend this technique. Nobody but me is inside my head, and nobody is closer to my thoughts and emotions than I am. When you tell me that what I’m doing is DS, you undermine and invalidate my entire experience of BDSM. It’s almost certain that the flavor of BDSM you do is different from the flavor of BDSM that I do, but I would never deign to judge your play or question your truth. Yet, for some reason, DS practitioners often feel the need to do that to non-DS players. The arrogance of this is truly stunning.
There are an infinite number of ways to do BDSM. None of them is deeper, kinkier, more evolved, or otherwise superior to any other way of doing BDSM. There’s no hierarchy of kink, no grade levels, no leather evolutionary path. There are just different flavors of BDSM, each custom-tailored to the individuals involved.
Not all BDSM involves bondage, and that’s OK. Not all BDSM involves sadism and masochism, and that’s OK. Finally, not all BDSM involves dominance and submission. That, too, is OK. Well, it’s more than OK– if egalitarian BDSM play is your kink, it can be truly glorious.”
Thank you to Patti for permission to reprint this here.
As I have stated before, perception (both public and private) is very important within, and for, the community. I suppose it’s important to the vanilla population as well, but most people don’t think vanilla is unusual or deviant. The terms that we use for one another, whether it of how we play or how we identify, define us in a very tangible way. The problem with this is that I may define myself as one thing (based on my perception), but the observer filters that definition through their own experience and beliefs, sees me a different way.
Patti’s point about someone else defining her play invalidating her experience is extremely insightful and valid. Our experiences, in play and in life, are enriched by our own interpretations of their meaning. Any meaning assigned from outside devalues, and lessens our empiricism. I can only experience and assign meaning to my own activities, just as you can only experience and assign meaning to yours. The only way we experience each other is through observation and our own thoughts and beliefs.
Perhaps there needs to be some deeper understanding of, and maybe curiosity about, what our titles mean to us, as opposed to blind obedience to a “commonly” accepted meaning. After all who’s interpretation became the accepted one?
We deal enough with the vanilla world wondering why we have come to this lifestyle, and what we get from it. Let’s not detract from our experiences by defining someone else.
We have all come to play, let me worry about what my interactions mean to me.
In the words of Inigo Montoya (Princess Bride) “You keep saying that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Thanks for sticking with me.
No comments:
Post a Comment