![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Will You Take Away My Agency, I Mean Be My Mistress?
Dating Site Dude: Will you be my Mistress?
Me: What does that mean for you?
DSD: I dunno, like, be in control of stuff.
Me: What do you want me to be in control of?
DSD: Um...
Me: Do you want me to control what you eat? Tell you what to wear? Act like your mom and tell you to get off the Xbox and do your chores? Direct your career choices? Humiliate you? Do you want me to be in control of you in public? Just for a scene in a dungeon? All the time?
DSD: Tell me what to eat? WTF? No, I know how to feed myself! You're the Domme, you're supposed to come up with these things!
Me: Oh, I see. You've been reading 50 Shades. In the real world, it doesn't work like that. See, in *healthy* D/s relationships, the Dom might be the one crafting the scene, but the subbie is an equal agent in this collaboration and is required to provide the parameters. That's how the Dom knows what kind of scene to come up with and what things are off-limits.
DSD: Off limits? But you're supposed to dominate me! That doesn't make any sense if there are things I can tell you not to do!
Me: Oh, sweetie, if you think it's safe to give me complete and total freedom to do whatever I want with you without discussing limits and boundaries, you have a profoundly limited imagination. I guaran-fucking-tee you that I can come up with things that you will not want me to do. It's best that you decide what those things are *before* I do them to you.
DSD: But if I can tell you not to do something and you have to obey me, then you're not really in control of me!
Me: Give this boy a gold star! That's the difference between healthy D/s and 50 Shades. D/s is a mutually beneficial relationship between two (or more) individuals who all want to be there, choose to be there, and consent to every single activity that happens. The control is illusory. If you can't say no, then it's not consent, it's abuse, assault, and / or rape. That's what makes D/s a healthy expression of one's sexuality and not abuse - the ability to consent and to revoke consent.
DSD: But I'm consenting! That's the whole reason why I contacted you!
Me: You still haven't told me what you are consenting TO which, by inference, tells me what you're NOT consenting to.
DSD: I'm consenting to you controlling me!
Me: Do you mean that you plan to just stand there motionless while I position your body? What do you want me to control? And what happens when you try to resist my control or fail in your assignments? How am I supposed to punish you?
DSD: Now we're getting somewhere! Yes, punishment!
Me: But how? Impact punishment? Humiliation? Restraint? Silent treatment? Predicament scenarios? Erection torture? Forced delayed orgasm? Chastity devices?
DSD: I dunno, come up with something! I don't even know what all that is! You're the Domme!
Me: And here we go 'round again. If you can't understand the difference between abuse and consent, if you don't know how to maintain your own agency, then you are not safe to play with in a power exchange dynamic. You are unable to give consent.
Unlike Ana and Christian, a good Dom isn't in the relationship to work out anger and resentment at maternal figures of their past whether the victim likes it or not. A good Dom is an artist, crafting a scene like a playwright, designing the setting and costumes and dialog for their protege, their ingenue, their star. The "play" becomes the masterpiece intended to highlight and showcase the *star's* unique talents. The star isn't acting exclusively for the playwright, the playwright is writing *for the star* and the star gets to stretch their skills, abilities, or interests.
But the Dom / playwright can't do that if they don't know anything about their sub / star. Are they a singer so they should craft an opera? Are they a comic so they should craft a comedy? What kind of comedy - high brow? slapstick? If this isn't a collaboration with the star being allowed to give input, telling the playwright and director when they feel uncomfortable, when they feel the character might do something different from what's written in the script, when they feel that their creativity is worn thin and they need a break to rejuvenate before they can bring their A-game back to the stage, when they have an idea of their own to add to the character or the dialog or the setting or the costuming - when the star isn't allowed to give that kind of input, then we have the sort of abuse we see in Phantom of the Opera. And look how well that turned out for everyone!
Power exchange only sounds like it goes in one direction to those who don't understand that it's an EXCHANGE. While the subbie agrees to voluntarily give up control in certain ways, they ultimately retain their agency and complete autonomy - that's what makes it not abuse. They have the right to say no at any time to any action, they have the responsibility of setting the limits, and they have the freedom to renegotiate the boundaries and details of the arrangement at any time in order to get more out of the experience.
While it's true that Doms do, indeed, get something out of being "in control", the sub is who drives the arrangement. If the subbie ain't happy, it ain't healthy. D/s is as much for the sub (if not more) as for the Dom. It's an equal partnership. You may be taking on complimentary roles, but both roles are equally important and equally present. A good Dom might very well enjoy controlling another human being, but a good Dom also takes pride in crafting excellent scenes that leave the sub feeling satisfied and content with the arrangement - sometimes even more than whatever that feeling of "controlling" might give them. And for that, the sub has to contribute, and has to retain their agency.
Which is why this is not like 50 Shades, why that whole series needs to drown out of our culture and be seen for the abusive apologia that it is, and why you are not currently capable of consenting to a D/s relationship and I will not even consider you as a sub until you can at least give some parameters to start with.
The sub may be "dominated" by their Mistress, but they also hold all the power over their own body and mind, D/s illusion to the contrary. Once that agency is relinquished, it is no longer D/s and it becomes abuse.
Me: What does that mean for you?
DSD: I dunno, like, be in control of stuff.
Me: What do you want me to be in control of?
DSD: Um...
Me: Do you want me to control what you eat? Tell you what to wear? Act like your mom and tell you to get off the Xbox and do your chores? Direct your career choices? Humiliate you? Do you want me to be in control of you in public? Just for a scene in a dungeon? All the time?
DSD: Tell me what to eat? WTF? No, I know how to feed myself! You're the Domme, you're supposed to come up with these things!
Me: Oh, I see. You've been reading 50 Shades. In the real world, it doesn't work like that. See, in *healthy* D/s relationships, the Dom might be the one crafting the scene, but the subbie is an equal agent in this collaboration and is required to provide the parameters. That's how the Dom knows what kind of scene to come up with and what things are off-limits.
DSD: Off limits? But you're supposed to dominate me! That doesn't make any sense if there are things I can tell you not to do!
Me: Oh, sweetie, if you think it's safe to give me complete and total freedom to do whatever I want with you without discussing limits and boundaries, you have a profoundly limited imagination. I guaran-fucking-tee you that I can come up with things that you will not want me to do. It's best that you decide what those things are *before* I do them to you.
DSD: But if I can tell you not to do something and you have to obey me, then you're not really in control of me!
Me: Give this boy a gold star! That's the difference between healthy D/s and 50 Shades. D/s is a mutually beneficial relationship between two (or more) individuals who all want to be there, choose to be there, and consent to every single activity that happens. The control is illusory. If you can't say no, then it's not consent, it's abuse, assault, and / or rape. That's what makes D/s a healthy expression of one's sexuality and not abuse - the ability to consent and to revoke consent.
DSD: But I'm consenting! That's the whole reason why I contacted you!
Me: You still haven't told me what you are consenting TO which, by inference, tells me what you're NOT consenting to.
DSD: I'm consenting to you controlling me!
Me: Do you mean that you plan to just stand there motionless while I position your body? What do you want me to control? And what happens when you try to resist my control or fail in your assignments? How am I supposed to punish you?
DSD: Now we're getting somewhere! Yes, punishment!
Me: But how? Impact punishment? Humiliation? Restraint? Silent treatment? Predicament scenarios? Erection torture? Forced delayed orgasm? Chastity devices?
DSD: I dunno, come up with something! I don't even know what all that is! You're the Domme!
Me: And here we go 'round again. If you can't understand the difference between abuse and consent, if you don't know how to maintain your own agency, then you are not safe to play with in a power exchange dynamic. You are unable to give consent.
Unlike Ana and Christian, a good Dom isn't in the relationship to work out anger and resentment at maternal figures of their past whether the victim likes it or not. A good Dom is an artist, crafting a scene like a playwright, designing the setting and costumes and dialog for their protege, their ingenue, their star. The "play" becomes the masterpiece intended to highlight and showcase the *star's* unique talents. The star isn't acting exclusively for the playwright, the playwright is writing *for the star* and the star gets to stretch their skills, abilities, or interests.
But the Dom / playwright can't do that if they don't know anything about their sub / star. Are they a singer so they should craft an opera? Are they a comic so they should craft a comedy? What kind of comedy - high brow? slapstick? If this isn't a collaboration with the star being allowed to give input, telling the playwright and director when they feel uncomfortable, when they feel the character might do something different from what's written in the script, when they feel that their creativity is worn thin and they need a break to rejuvenate before they can bring their A-game back to the stage, when they have an idea of their own to add to the character or the dialog or the setting or the costuming - when the star isn't allowed to give that kind of input, then we have the sort of abuse we see in Phantom of the Opera. And look how well that turned out for everyone!
Power exchange only sounds like it goes in one direction to those who don't understand that it's an EXCHANGE. While the subbie agrees to voluntarily give up control in certain ways, they ultimately retain their agency and complete autonomy - that's what makes it not abuse. They have the right to say no at any time to any action, they have the responsibility of setting the limits, and they have the freedom to renegotiate the boundaries and details of the arrangement at any time in order to get more out of the experience.
While it's true that Doms do, indeed, get something out of being "in control", the sub is who drives the arrangement. If the subbie ain't happy, it ain't healthy. D/s is as much for the sub (if not more) as for the Dom. It's an equal partnership. You may be taking on complimentary roles, but both roles are equally important and equally present. A good Dom might very well enjoy controlling another human being, but a good Dom also takes pride in crafting excellent scenes that leave the sub feeling satisfied and content with the arrangement - sometimes even more than whatever that feeling of "controlling" might give them. And for that, the sub has to contribute, and has to retain their agency.
Which is why this is not like 50 Shades, why that whole series needs to drown out of our culture and be seen for the abusive apologia that it is, and why you are not currently capable of consenting to a D/s relationship and I will not even consider you as a sub until you can at least give some parameters to start with.
The sub may be "dominated" by their Mistress, but they also hold all the power over their own body and mind, D/s illusion to the contrary. Once that agency is relinquished, it is no longer D/s and it becomes abuse.
no subject
I would like to point out one flaw in DSD's logic that I think got missed, which is that while the Dominant has a framework of places that they may not go (i.e. anywhere outside stated hard limits or the boundaries of that relationship, or anywhere at all that is beyond where the submissive consents to go at any particular time) within that framework they are still the person who controls the direction of the scene, much like the director of a company has rules they must follow about how they treat their employees, but still remains 'in charge' of the company (for as long as employees consent to remaining employed by that company).
(As opposed to a 'service top' who does *precisely* what the 'bottom' asks for, and is less in charge of the scene than the person on the receiving end)
no subject
no subject
no subject
(if it's an actual D/s scene and not just plain old egalitarian SM using inappropriately power-laden terms, as done by far too many people)
But tbh it sounds like DSD really just wants a telepathic service top. I wouldn't go there either!
no subject
DSDs tend to be people (guys, in my experience, since I'm straight) who kinda sorta think they want a subby experience, but who have no idea what that is, so they become surprised when they meet a real, flesh and blood person who needs actual data to give them that experience. It reminds me of people who have had no sexual experience other than watching mainstream, softcore porn get when it comes time to get busy with a real person, and suddenly they're all confused when their partner asks for condoms or lube or clothespins or doesn't like oral or wants to give them a rim job or queefs or can't stay aroused or has to stop to go to the bathroom or their leg falls asleep because their porn didn't prepare them for the realities of sex so they just have no idea how *big* the question "can we have sex?" is.
Like, what kind of sex?
I dunno, just sex!
Be more specific.
Sex is sex! Just, have sex!
You'll still have to narrow it down for me.
I remember one time (and I've told this story before), a bunch of people at work were asking me questions about BDSM, and one guy was getting more and more uncomfortable and finally blurted out "I don't do all that kinky shit. The most I do is anal." So I said, "you like anal? Great! I've got a strap on in the car, let's go!"
He backed up, hands in the air, palms facing me, and stammered "no, I didn't mean on me! I meant on her!!" I said "well, you didn't specify!" It's that kind of cluelessness. Naivete might be a more charitable description. It simply didn't occur to that guy that both of them had anuses that one would have to specify which one got penetrated. In his mind, the default is that his is off-limits, so he didn't even think about needing to express that boundary. So I deliberately pushed on that boundary to make a point.
I don't read minds. It's fine to not know what one wants, especially if one is new to something. It's not fine to just expect me to come up with all the answers, or to expect all those answers to be correct. We will both have a much more pleasant experience if we talk about boundaries first (as I'm sure you understand!).
Submitting
(Anonymous) 2015-11-09 07:25 pm (UTC)(link)Re: Submitting
Once I start throwing out ideas, they pretty quickly start to learn that "no rules" or "no limits" is naively unrealistic. What they *mean* when they say that is that they can't imagine me wanting to do or being able to do anything to them that would actually cross a boundary, and that they are so new to the concepts that they're not even aware of how big the phrase "no limits" really is because they can't think of anything other than a couple of fuzzy fantasies they might have had that got them interested in the first place.