As I was writing yesterday’s post on La Domaine Esemar I had a nagging feeling it was a subject I’d covered before. Searching past posts didn’t find anything, but my bookmark list turned up this article from The Daily Beast. It’s an article I’d intended to post about but never got around to. It’s similar to the Cosmos article, giving background on the people and the Chateau, but provides a lot more detail and context. It’s certainly an interesting article, but there’s one really infuriating part in it.
This deep-seeded dedication to submission, and potential subsequent evolution into dominance, is one of the ways that La Domaine sets itself apart from the commercialized BDSM scene in New York City. People are encouraged to experience both sides, traditionally starting as a submissive and moving into a dominant role, to more fully understand the symbiotic nature of the lifestyle, whereas in other parts of the subculture people will adhere to one or the other for superficial reasons rather than trying, over time, to explore the inner-workings of their sexuality and come to a honest consensus about their true nature as a submissive or a dominant.
Firstly, dominance is not an evolution of submission. The two states are peers and partners. One is not a more advanced lifeform than the other. Secondly, the idea that it’s necessary to explore both sides to fully understand one’s true sexual nature is ludicrous. Are straight people superficial if they don’t first explore same sex relationships? Or have gay people not reached a honest consensus about themselves if they haven’t tried sleeping with someone of the opposite sex? If someone is curious or just uncertain then by all means explore. People’s desires can change and knowledge is a wonderful thing. D/s is not necessarily a binary choice, but some people know deep in their bones what works for them. The above quote smacks of ‘one true path’ bullshit and BDSM hierarchies, and that always drives me nuts.
The above image is Mistress Couple with a slave at La Domaine Esemar.
My (albeit limited) understanding La Domaine Esemar’s, ahhh, instruction in BDSM, is that many people who personally identify as Tops start as Bottoms, or “slaves” as subs are always called there. I have heard that Dommes who go there for “Mistress in Training” are sometimes taken on a “probationary period” as long as they “start” as slaves.
I’ve never been there myself, and I am not trying to gossip, at all. I’ve heard this information from a few trustworthy people and I’ve seen the emails firsthand. I can show you where I’ve seen them.
It’s a very odd view that submissives grow into dominants as they “progress.” It strikes me as (maybe) very old-school American leather culture. Otherwise, I don’t know how LDE came to it.
In any event, I’m with you: there’s no reason for a person to “try out” or experience a role that is contrary to their personal sexual identification, unless of course they want to! It doesn’t make them more competent, or authentic, or even more knowledgeable.
The only exception I can think of offhand is that I think it’s a good idea for Doms/Sadists/Tops to physically experience the physical sensations of the implements they use. For educational purposes.
Good post, thanks for blogging!
Margo
Definitely seems very old school. I’d heard of the concept, but was surprised to read about it in this context.
I agree with you on the need to experience sensations. That seems essential to understand and empathize with the bottom, but that quite a different dynamic. More of a brief experimental or educational analysis to better gauge how to build and layer sensations.
Hope you’re well and had a good time in SF. Thanks for stopping by to comment.
-paltego
The difference between what we do, and any of the examples you gave, is that everyone grows up in the dayworld – literally from infancy you’re being taught and absorbing the mores of WIITWD for standard-issue, straight, do-what-great-grandmama did culture. So, there’s no question of “are you straight?” “do I want to be straight?” etc. By time you’re old enough to put theory into practice you absolutely know exactly what you are sexually….except you have no clue what you are/could be/should be/want to be in our lifestyle. Yes, you do have proclivities and feelings about what end of the leash you belong on – but until someone says “hey, there’s this BDSM stuff, take a look” when you’re (hopefully) of legal age of consent, you don’t even know there’s such thing as a leash. So, if you’re being brought into the lifestyle in an organized fashion, by mentors showing and telling and demonstrating and introducing you to others, having you experience all that there is to experience is reasonable and proper. You’ll figure out really, really fast where you belong. The secondary reason for the sub-until-you-grow-into-a-dom is that the “leader” does have to know how to be a follower. Yes, partially “don’t hit somebody with instruments until you know exactly how that works,” but also understanding “don’t command until you know what obedience means to the obedient one.” Sort of the same thing as potential military officers go through some sort of training where they get dumped on and have to put up with seemingly-irrational nonsense (military academies, officer training school, etc.), or fraternity/sorority pledging.
So many things to discuss and disagree with here, it’s hard to know where to start.
1.
People don’t necessarily grow up knowing if they’re straight, gay, bi or whatever. Some people are uncertain and need to experiment. For some people it changes over time. For others it is baked in from an early age. BDSM is the same way. For some it’s worth experimenting for others its clearly something they know from early one. To claim that one identity is baked in and one is completely fluid until people experiment flies in the face of all the evidence. Most (but certainly not all) submissive guys I’ve talked to have been clear that it was something that they identified with from early on. I’ve known dommes who similarly identified that way from early on and others who were much more fluid than settling into that role.
I think it’s fine to encourage people to try different roles if they’re open to that. But to tell someone who intrinsically feels they’re a top that they absolutely have to bottom first is busted. Would you suggest that non-kinky people should all bottom sexually before they top? No penetrating other people to you’ve been penetrated yourself?
2.
You seem to automatically conflate dominant with mentor or leader. That’s messed up in my view. Why can’t a submissive be a mentor or a leader? These are entirely orthogonal concepts. A mentor is someone who can guide, offer their experience, talk through difficult situations, etc. A dominant could mentor a dominant. A submissive could mentor a dominant. A dominant could mentor a submissive. To automatically mix the sexual dynamic with the learning dynamic is very odd in my view.
If we’re talking about TPE then yes, it would be hard to separate dominance from leadership. But that’s typically not the type of relationship being discussed.
3.
I find the kind of bullying that goes on in hazing and military academies abhorrent. So that’s not a great comparison to use if you’re trying to convince me this is the right way to start a healthy BDSM relationship.
-paltego
I am someone who has fairly intimate knowledge of La Domaine – albeit from a slightly removed perspective – and I do think that The Daily Beast did a pretty good job representing the inner workings of the chateau. That said, I think that you’ve interpreted their words in a very different light than was intended, as your conclusions about how things are run there are flawed.
To start with, La Domaine does not believe nor imply that Domination is an evolution of Submission.
There *is* a belief, held there, that having explored the submissive side of the equation will allow one to have more empathetic insight into the submissives experience. I think we can all agree that insight can be valuable, no?
The same goes for a submissive: having experienced the dominant side of the equation can allow a submissive greater insight into their partner’s mindsets and experience. This isn’t about D being an evolved s; it’s about comprehensive insight.
Yes, if someone comes to the house open to exploring both sides, they are traditionally started as a submissive – as a lot of the groundwork of D/s training that is involved at La Domaine is more easily taught to those in a submissive role.
But of course, as you said, not all dominants have an interest – or even capability – to switch. Same goes for submissives.
Which brings me to a point that you seem to have missed entirely: this experience-of-the-other-side is not mandatory at La D. It is encouraged, as a part of the learning and growing process, but it is by no means insisted upon.
La Domaine is a place that encourages exploration of the full spectrum of sexual and BDSM experiences. It is a place that focuses on providing a space for individuals and couples to expand their horizons and embrace their potential, whatever that may be.
So of course exploration of the full spectrum of D/s is encouraged – not mandated by any means, but encouraged amongst those involved with the house.
I went back and re-read the article and quite frankly I don’t think I have missed the point. At least in terms of my response to the article.
You can certainly argue that the article mis-represented their position and the way people are encouraged to explore BDSM. I could easily believe that. I’ve been on the wrong side of countless articles myself, where I could clearly see them mis-representing a topic I had expert knowledge on.
So if the folk at La Domaine doesn’t believe that dominance is an evolution of submission then great. Equally good if they encourage exploring all sides of their sexuality. But that’s not what the article seemed to suggest. And the article was what was available for me to write about and comment on. In your view I may be working from faulty data, but I’m not twisting the data I do have.
-paltego