There’s an interesting discussion going on over at Delving Into Deviance, triggered by a post entitled ‘The devaluation of male submission‘. I came at it via Tom Allen on his vanilla edge blog, along with his interview at Dishevelled Domina.
I think it’s worth reading and raises some good points. I certainly agree with Tom when he talks about a lack of cultural models for male submission and female dominance. Outside of the stereotypical dominatrix dynamic, there is really no good understanding of these roles in conventional society. I also have a lot of sympathy with Dev in her original post when she expresses frustration at the ice queen archetype and the preconceptions of what femdom should and should not be. I frequently feel the need to fight against the tired cliche of the snarling domme dressed in leather. However, a number of the arguments in her post had me scratching my head.
One contention seemed to be that the ratio of submissive men to dominant women is 1:1, and she links to a post by Bitchy Jones arguing exactly the same thing. Now while there are a lot of good things you can say about Bitchy’s writing, such as entertaining, thought provoking and heartfelt, I never found logical coherent arguments to be her strong suit. In this case the argument seems to run: The ratio of dominant women to submissive men is 1:20 (made-up number), the actual ratio is 1:1 (made-up number), therefore 19:20 (made-up number) women are being excluded from their true identity as dominants. This is because of the current screwed up culture of femdom (supposition without evidence).
All the anecdotal evidence points to the existence of considerably more submissive men than dominant women. As Dev herself says, any woman signing up to a BDSM site is going to get an instant influx of men messaging her to be her slave. I think it’s fine to say that more women would enjoy exploring a more dominant role given better cultural models. But if you’re going to go completely against the existing evidence, and claim that the ratio is actually 1:1, it’d be nice to have some real data points to base that on. Or even some anecdotal evidence to throw onto the other side of the scales.
There’s also this statement:
As I’ve come to realize the fucked up state of femdom, I’ve concurrently become aware of the fucked up state of male submission – namely, it’s devaluation. While female dominants are made out to be some scarce resource, male submissives are depicted as a dime a dozen – common, and, even more disturbingly, weak and worthless.
Who is depicting male submissives as weak and worthless? When does this happen? The role doesn’t exist in the mainstream world, so it’s hard to see how it can be denigrated in that context. Good pro-dommes certainly don’t treat their submissives as weak and worthless. Maybe the reference is to local kink community activities, but that seems like it’d depend very much on the specific local community in question. Male submissives obviously can’t rely on their submission alone to make them valuable, the numbers just don’t work out. But that’s true for most things in life, both kinky and vanilla. Any relationship is about the total package each individual brings into it, and components of that package that are both rare and useful will always be more valued.
Finally, there’s this:
Pro-Dommes meet a need. They are the supply to a demand. However, they contribute to the perpetuation of a picture of female domination that just doesn’t reflect real life.
Whose real life are we talking about? Are not pro-dommes part of real life? They’re certainly part of my life, which seems pretty real to me. There often seems to be a tendency to draw very black and white distinctions between pro and lifestyle play. But in reality pro-dommes are normally lifestyle players themselves. And many lifestyle people enjoying playing with a lot of the accoutrements found in a professional dungeon. Pro-dommes aren’t dressing up in leather because they all own shares in cattle farms. They’re doing it because lots of people find it attractive.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy Dev’s writing and I’ll be adding her blog to my blogroll. I’d certainly like there to be a lot more dominant women out there, and treasuring male submission is a fabulous thing to do. I’m just not sure I follow all the arguments in this particular post.
This image has been floating around a number of tumblr sites. I found it on lunar black. I liked it for showing an atypical activity for a femdom situation and still making it work. I’m certainly no fan of strictly demarcated lines for what is and isn’t appropriate dominant behaviour.
Hi Paltego:
Good thought provoking post.
I think its true that the number of submissive men out there far outweighs the number of dominant women. Perhaps because the classic fantasy of the leather clad, whip wielding woman is largely a male fantasy. Naturally dominant women like to manipulate men or boss them around or have their wishes. desires and demands fulfilled. Dominant women want to get their way. There are plenty of naturally dominant women out there. But not all of them are turned on by the kind of stereotypical sexual role play that is the stuff of male BDSM fantasy. Thankfully some are or at least they are willing to give it a try. Others may be dominant as all heck in their day to day lives but submissive in the bedroom. In fact I am convinced there are many women out there who fit into that general mold.
Pros on the other hand play male sexual fantasy to the hilt because that is what their business is all about. I agree that many pros are also lifestyle players but the way they play in their private lives may be markedly different from the way they play professionally. My Mistress (for example) turned out to be sexually submissive. I have heard that many pros are like that and that’s fine.. But it doesn’t necessarily fit the fantasy many male subs/masos/fetishists imagine. We can be awfully specific about what turns us on. For some reason the amount of “reality” we perceive behind the role play can be awfully important to some of us.
At the risk of sounding Clintonian I am going to say that the number of dominant women out there is inversely proportional to how specific we are about our definition of the words; “dominant woman”. The more open minded and flexible we are the more opportunities for submission exist out there. Lifestyle situations are rarely like we imagined our perfect fantasy to be and all relationships require compromise.
Pros on the other hand allow us to be extremely specific about our approach to play and follow our BDSM fantasies where ever they may lead. The sky is pretty much the limit. Pros will even lead us to explore new territory that we had not previously imagined. Not that being a client is perfect either. Nothing is. There are limitations to the Pro/client relationship as well. But clearly Pro and lifestyle D/s are very different scenarios.
Good post. Got me thinking with my first cup of coffee! 😉
Hi HMP,
When it comes to the ratios, see my response to Scott below. I certainly don’t disagree that there are lots of potential dominant women out there, and the idea of being a whip wielding leather glad mistress is no doubt very off-putting to a significant fraction of them. Having healthy alternatives to that style of femdom is great. But my engineering brain gets all twitchy when I see arguments constructed using made up numbers and dubious assumptions taken as truths. 🙂
When it comes to the pro/lifestyle thing, I’m probably just being a little picky on the “real life” comment. But people have a tendency to bucket things when life isn’t that simple. There isn’t a real part (my thing) and an unreal part (thing I don’t like). Pro’s may be members of the kink community, attend the parties, have lifestyle relationships, host workshops, etc.
It’s true that a session with a pro is clearly a different thing to lifestyle play. But lifestyle play varies pretty radically. For some it might be a 24/7 thing, for others a few hours of playtime in the bedroom periodically. And even within a pro/client relationship, it’s pretty hard to state exactly what a session is. They vary massively as well.
I definitely agree that being open and flexible about what dominance/submission looks like is a good thing. I’d hate to raise barriers to people interested in exploring that side of themselves. From a personal perspective, I think that without the internet and all its resources I’d have probably never had a chance to explore it.
– paltego
Hi Paltego,
I don’t know about ratios. I think a lot of men have submissive desires and lots of women want their men to be who they want them to be. Those feelings and needs are very real and can find expression in very particular and individual ways.
I love the picture, by the way. The very first sexual activity between Em and I was on our first date. She was driving and when she was dropping me off at my place and, while I was contemplating whether to risk moving in for a kiss, she surprised me with a blowjob in the front seat. I figured there was a generation gap working in my favor in regard to first date etiquette. It was a totally aggressive and confident move on her part and not in the least submissive. She was giving me a blowjob whether I wanted it or not simply because she wanted to.
Best,
scott
Mrs. Kelly’s Playhouse
Hi Scott,
When it comes to the ratios I think there are two things most people will agree on:
1/ There are a lot of men and women who potentially could explore their D/s traits but currently don’t.
2/ The current ratio of sub men to dom women appears to be heavily skewed towards sub men.
Neither of these things tell us the current ratio or what it theoretically could be. Providing a more healthy/normal role for femdom in mainstream culture might improve it. Or make it worse. Or leave it unchanged. I think it good to think about how we can fix (1), but I’m not sure that discussion should be tied to (2).
That’s a great first date story. I always hate the little dance at the end of a first date where you try and figure out the right level of affection. Plus, given my personality type, being forceful and pushing the issue isn’t my style. Em’s resolution to the problem seems a fine one 🙂
– paltego
Hello there,
This is a well-thought-out critique to my post. I’ll admit that my ratios have no data behind them. The BDSM scene is rather understudied. All I’m really trying to say is that when women enter the scene and feel like they have to conform to this stereotype that isn’t them, and doesn’t even reflect a woman getting what she wants but rather a man getting what he wants, then it seems likely that it would turn a lot of women off and potentially make them think that what they thought would be exciting is not what they signed up for.
As far as ‘real life’ goes, yes, it seems uncharitable to demarcate what I prefer as ‘real’ and what I don’t as not. I think ultimately we agree that there should be more flexibility in what dominance/submission looks like. It just sometimes feels that the female dominant/male submissive dynamic gets taken over by a client-centered dynamic. Instead of asking me what I’m interested in, I get a lot of messages detailing the ways that I will ‘torture’ them with specific things like chastity – which I’m just not into. I know several other women who have encountered the same.
I also have also found in multiple cities throughout the world that the majority of female dominants I encounter on the scene are professionals. It makes me wonder why that is and whether if that is somewhat self-perpetuating.
Hi Dev,
Thanks for the comment. It’s always a little tricky to write this kind of critique style post in a concise fashion without appearing to negative or argumentative. I’m glad you perceived it in the spirit it was intended.
I don’t think I disagree with anything you’ve said above, so this is more my random musing, rather than specific counterpoints…….
I think part of the problem stems from what a nebulous term ‘femdom’ really is. You might ask 3 random self-identified sub guys and find:
– One enjoyed heavy bondage and corporal, but only in clearly self-contained private scenes.
– One enjoyed age regression and public humiliation.
– One enjoyed servitude on a 24/7 basis, but disliked pain of any type.
All would claim to be into femdom, but each would match up very differently with potential dommes.
None of that is to excuse boorish or rude behavior of course. Irrespective of whether its a kink environment or not, you’d hope everyone tries to show empathy, respect, understanding, etc. You don’t build good relationships by being demanding and making people feel uncomfortable. But there’s a whole set of different desires out there for both tops and bottoms, and managing the match-up seems difficult in both directions.
I think using ‘client-centered’ in this context is a little bit of a loaded term. It suggests its possibly a learned behavior from pro-dommes, and I think that’s a bit of a jump to take. I could equally describe it as ‘horny asshole behavior’. After all guys behaving in a self-centered pushy way in a sexual context (particularly in the partial anonymity of an online environment) is nothing new or unusual. Arguably guys that have explored their own desires and feelings (regardless of in a pro or lifestyle situation) have a much better understanding of themselves, and therefore may be better at communicating or negotiating. It’s certainly helped me evolve considerably over time.
Your comment about cities is interesting. It’s not something I have experience of, but my view is no doubt highly limited. To be self-perpetuating it’d have to mean that the pro’s were essentially skewing the guys behavior to such an extent that non-pro women were put off from getting involved. Which would in turn create more business for pro’s. That’s possible but given:
– The very limited number of pro’s
– The high cost of seeing them
– The large number of potentially kinky guys
it would seem unlikely in my view. To make some random numbers up of my own 🙂
Seattle metro area = 3.5M people
Lets say 2% are kinky = 35K kinky men.
Lets say 20 active pro-dommes with 100 unique clients each = 2K kinky men seeing pros.
That’s a lot of kinky men left over!
OK, so not exactly scientific. But in any large population I’m always going to bet on the rude jerks being a significant portion and drowning out subtle effects (if there are any) from other sources.
Of course my friends would say I’m a natural cynic 🙂
– paltego
ROFLMAO! How about this: in batches of three men each, one of each who match the desires you describe, ask how they self-identify, rather than asking them what “femdom” is. I am willing to wager that, on balance, only a few of them will self-identify as submissive men (or “sub guys”).
Here’s an anecdote. I was privy to a draft of a post on the topic of submissive men being invisible, and among the other people granted a preview was a heterosexual cismale dominant man who took some issue with parts of it. In the (pre-publication) comment thread, he wrote, “I can name a dozen male subs that I consider prominent, leaders in the community, and I can [only] name half a dozen het male doms that fill a niche community surrounding Kink.com.”
To which I challenged, “Please name these prominent submissive men.” I figured that if he was full of it, this would make it clear. If he wasn’t, then I’d hear of some other men I could reach out to. Win-win!
He named four. Not a dozen. Four. Moreover, apparently not realizing who he was speaking to, one of the four he named was “maymay”—me. (He was local to the BDSM Scene in San Francisco, as am I.) That left three. Of those three, one “hasn’t been active for a while” (his words) and was someone I have never even heard of nor could find any clear reference to elsewhere. That left two. Of these two, not only did I already know both of them personally, both actually self-identify as switches.
Guess which single individual that leaves in this man’s list of “a dozen prominent submissive men”?
I ended the conversation with him by saying, “Sounds to me a bit more like you were recalling examples of ‘non-dominant men,’ which is perfectly understandable and, as a submissive-identified man I’ll dare say, highlights my feelings of invisibility and the need for [this post] to be published in the first place. Thanks for the illustrative real-time example of this issue, though.”
In exactly the same way, the reason I have to laugh (so I won’t cry) at your comment, paltego, and much of this discussion, is because while talking about “the devaluation of male submission,” you are actually doing so by discussing femdom, not male submission—and, you don’t seem to even notice the cultural weight affecting you. That is, of course, perfectly understandable, but I hope you can also understand my “stress” (your words) at how that very pattern of behavior is so damned ingrained that it has you asking if it’s “really such a big deal?”
Another anecdote: guess what the most popular category for listing MaleSubmissionArt.com under is? Yup, it’s most often listed under “femdom,” despite trying its damnedest to be anything but! So, yes, if you must ask, it really is such a big deal. Until male submission does not need to be discussed as though it is an adjunct to something else—femdom or same-sex male-male dom or garden-gnome-yodeling-dom or WHATEVER-dom—it will not stop being “devalued.”
One day, someone will write “The End of Femdom.” That day won’t simply be the first day when “dom” won’t imply “male dom,” it will be the first day that we can stop conceptualizing sexual submission only as the inverse of sexual dominance.
That day is fast approaching. That day will be a good day.
As I might have expected, you and I end up on very different pages here.
That statement does not correspond to anything that I’ve observed hanging it at various forums or blogs. Typically I’d say those kind of guys would self-identify as masochists or submissives or both. You could probably throw some “I’m just kinky” responses in there as well, but submissive is a very common identification. Potentially an incorrect identification in some cases, but these terms are poorly defined/understood.
I’m not really sure I necessarily follow the point of your anecdote. Yes, there aren’t a lot of prominent male submissives (although it depends how you define ‘prominent’, there are plenty of them blogging and posting). I’ve said as much myself in the past. There are just far less routes and options available to become prominent. But that’s not down to some evil plot. And it’s not the same as devaluing something.
I do not share your desire to talk about male submission in isolation from female (or whatever) domination. It’s not cultural weight affecting me, it’s just that it doesn’t make any sense to me to talk about it that way. The two are inexorably intertwined. My own submission only exists in the context of female domination (or vice-versa). Taken separately they seem like laughable concepts.
I actually agree for the most part with the flurry of articles that got written around this topic. It’s just that a number of the arguments in them seemed a little weak in places. Personally, I’d love to see male submission take a more prominent role. The ice queen dominant strutting around with her worthless slaves holds zero interest. For me it’d be great to see the complex dynamic between dominant and submissive as the focus, rather than the focus on the individual.
To be honest, I thought Bitchy’s post to be perfectly logical. She was making the point that due to very messed-up circumstances, the ratio of dominant women to submissive men is _bound_ to be skewed against dominant women, and that this observation is at least as valid as any anecdotal number.
Now, anecdotal data is not to be dismissed, and it is a running trend in many top/bottom D/s style subcultures that there are more subs than tops. I saw numbers to that effect myself (and in fact, those numbers put dominant women in the rarest category and submissive men as the most prominent… I can try to dig up this study if you like). But it is anecdotal, and the point that Bitchy was making is essentially that it’s even more obvious that there is a lot of sexism in BDSM and a lot of cultural forces that would conspire against the cultivation of dommes.
I know that it took finding the likes of Bitchy, malesubmissionart, and scouring the net for decent porn to act upon dominant desires that I’ve had since time immemorial, and I’m more of a solid domme than most people are.
I don’t know a lot about the pro-domme world at all, nor even terribly much about the normal BDSM culture. I do know that every boy I’ve topped or dommed has had to go through a similar process of analyzing themselves and coming to terms with their submissive desires as I had to with my dominant ones– but with the added problem of dealing with the fact that the mainstream culture views symptoms of submissiveness as feminizing/emasculating and hence inferior, devaluing, and dehumanizing. I do know that because of the association between submissiveness and femininity, people think of the sort of boys I would domme as “lesser men”; they’ve all but been referred to as such in my presence, _and I largely hang around queer genderflexible sorts_. If these kinds of attitudes were to reflect themselves in the BDSM community at large, as many have attested they do, I would be hardly surprised, given that my firsthand observation of the scene has revealed plenty of entrenched sexism.
Hi Ariadne,
Thanks for the comment. Before I go further I should emphasize that I like Bitchy’s writing and have linked to it from my ‘bdsm articles’ page from the very early days of this site. However, I struggle to see how the construction of that particular argument can ever be seen to hang together.
It’s fine to make a personal observation based on anecdotal data. But she’s arguing based on a number (1:1 ratio) she pulled out the air. I could equally argue that the correct ratio of d:s is 1:20, and since I observe 1:20 then everything is actually perfect and we have no problems at all. QED.
I don’t particularly disagree with the point she’s trying to make. I just disliked the way she made it. The running trend for more subs than tops may be due to the culture or may be due to other factors. It’s seems wrong to arbitrarily state there are no other factors and therefore its entirely a cultural effect.
Reading back on my post I realize I did a poor job of communicating one aspect. The questions in the first and third part were mainly rhetorical. But the questions in the middle about who denigrates subs and when does this happen were genuine. I’m actually really interested in real data or observations here.
My personal observation about mainstream culture is that it doesn’t really engage in this area. For example, it’s not the situation that gay people used to face, where the characters were frequently portrayed in popular culture in a negative light. Sub men just don’t seem to have any representation. That’s obviously bad in itself, but not the same as being denigrated, which was the original contention. I’m therefore curious to understand more about exactly what denigration we’re talking about.
I don’t actually disagree with a lot of what you’re saying here. I’m certainly in favor of more female dominants and supporting male submission. I just think if you make big sweeping statements like the original post did, it’s good to give at least a few solid empirical data points, even if they’re anecdotal.
-paltego
Right, you’re correct that if you break it down in such a logical fashion it doesn’t hold up; however, those numbers are, explicitly, a rhetorical device used in response to a statistic that was given to her about the ratio being 1:20. She is simultaneously unpacking that bs statistic and using it to make her own argument. To me, at least, it was pretty clear that all the numbers quoted in the essay, both hers and those of that were quoted to her, were not at all gleaned from any kind of study or even anecdote.
Now, Bitchy can be pretty wild and wooly with her tangents, so I will definitely agree that it’s not as coherently described as it could be. Rhetorically, however, I think it’s solid.
“The running trend for more subs than tops may be due to the culture or may be due to other factors. It’s seems wrong to arbitrarily state there are no other factors and therefore its entirely a cultural effect.”
Certainly true, but I think the point that Bitchy was trying to make was simply that there _definitely_ are cultural forces at play and as such, there are almost certainly less dommes than there otherwise would be. There is plenty of empirical and anecdotal data for the effect of such cultural forces.
“I’m actually really interested in real data or observations here.”
Have you read Maymay’s blog? He talks a great deal about this phenomenon, and if you were to ask him, he’d likely give you a stronger first-hand answer than I ever could, from my peripheral and pretty inexperienced perspective.
You have a point about male submission being invisible: however, I think the bigger issue is that SYMPTOMS of submission are what tends to receive notice from the culture. Men are policed against all symptoms of submission, which is partially why, I think, scenes of humiliation are virtually requisites for common femdom porn.
“I just think if you make big sweeping statements like the original post did, it’s good to give at least a few solid empirical data points, even if they’re anecdotal.”
Certainly agreed. I think the call to back up Bitchy’s points with some empiricism can only help the conversation.
I think we’re in danger of violently agreeing here, so I’ll try and restrict my reply to where we may differ slightly 🙂
My argument with Bitchy’s post was with it’s logic (which I think we both agree is problematic) rather than the rhetoric. But she was also using the number to suggest that some huge majority of women were excluded – 95%! It wasn’t simply a point about there being less dommes than there should be, at least in my read of it. It was that the culture is so screwed up this huge majority is excluded. That’s the bogus part for me. It stretches a made-up ratio into a point about the degree of cultural failure.
I think if she’d just started with “There are way more subs than dommes and I think one of the key reasons for that is this messed up culture” then I’d have simply nodded and agreed.
I’ve read a lot of Maymay’s blog. I’m happy there are very passionate people like him around. I think we need people like that to try and shake things up. But at the same time I find his anger and emotion casts a shadow over the data and observations he presents. He’s extreme about so much, and I often find myself thinking “Is that really such a big deal? I don’t get the stress about that.”
I certainly hope he continues writing and shouting about what he believes. But he seems to come at the world from such a different direction that I have difficulty relating to his point of view. And I’m sure he’d hate this blog if he ever came across it 🙁
Your comment about humiliation being a prerequisite for femdom porn was interesting. I’m not at all into humiliation or degradation. Anyone being obnoxious or insulting to me in a scene would quickly lead to the scene ending. But I don’t particularly notice it in femdom porn. It’s entirely possible I’ve become immune to it, and simply have a huge blind spot. Or that I’m being very selective without necessarily realizing it. I’ll make a mental note to look for it in future and see if I’m simply tuning something out that is always there.
Would you be willing to link me to the posts you think I would hate the most, paltego? Thanks. 🙂
Hey maymay,
I can’t say I had any specific posts in mind when I wrote that. But while I try and present a mix of different material, and stuff I find interesting, there’s certainly a non-trivial amount of commercialized femdom material from the big producers. I’ve heard you railing against that type of material in the past. Have a browse around, I’m sure you will not have far to go before finding something to annoy you. 🙂
-paltego
Oh, paltego:
I rest my case. It hurts so much to be laughed at for thinking as I do.
I wasn’t laughing at you. I was laughing at the concept of separating these two things. It’d be like talking about +ve voltage as distinctive from -ve voltage. Or talking about a binary switch that can only be on. It needs the alternative to give it meaning. I said laughable as it seemed almost a pythonesque idea. Power exchange without the exchange.
Which isn’t of course to say you need a dominant to be a submissive. Whether that relationship exists or not is a function of time, space, happenstance, desire, etc. Basically all the usual stuff that messes with our lives. I’ve been wired that particular way as long as I can remember, but for many years could do nothing with my desire for submission as I took no actions to engage with someone who’d accept it. Arguably for some I still haven’t, depending on ones views around the complex area of pro-dommes.
Sorry if you were offended. But if you go looking for reasons to be hurt, I’m sure you’ll have plenty of opportunity to find them.
I didn’t say you were laughing at me, paltego. You didn’t offend me with your opinion.
Okay, now you offended me because I do find the implication that I look for reasons to be offended offensive. I get that kind of bullshit a lot. And “sorry if you were offended” is not an apology, which I trust you already know.
You might consider disentangling your understanding of power from your understanding of authority.
I still need to write a post about why “power exchange” (at least in a BDSM context) is a stupid idea that relegates sexual submission to an arena where personal agency and sexual autonomy is made unnecessarily difficult to be claimed by submissive-identified people. It’s downright dangerous and is a big contributor to domism. What most people regurgitate as “power exchange” is simply “authority play.”
In the mean time, the closest I got to explaining that is when I touched on the topic of power versus control in this post. It might be up your alley, and we might disagree on…a lot of it. Which is grand, really. 🙂
I’m coming late to the conversation but after digging my way though it to assure myself that the difference between “power exchange” and “authority play” wasn’t simply a semantic argument, I’m still confused. As I currently understand it Maymay is positing that a D/s dynamic isn’t really power exchange because both parties maintain positions of personal power while Paltego is associating the word “authority” with a loaded context of authority figure (teacher, peace officer, etc.) Perhaps the reason I’m confused is that I don’t see these as mutually exclusive. While it is possible to give up authority in a BDSM context (whether through role play or simple following of instructions) while maintaining power, it can also be possible, and for some desirable, to give up both power and authority. I’d probably go even further to say it is possible to give up power (as in the ability to do something) without giving up authority (think consensual non-consent where in you have the authority to say no but not the power to enforce that).
In so far as sexually agency being difficult to claim as a submissive-identified person, I believe that will be the case as long as self is identified with respect to other, and not just for submissive men. I am A because I am not B. Not virgin therefore slut, not dominant therefor submissive. Distance from the other is an important part of creating and image of self, but it gets problematic when too few options are presented and/or when the available options are rigid. “I’m not dominant therefore I must be a cock sucking sissy” is a very different thought from “I’m not dominant, what else can I be and how does it look for me?” For this reason if no other I would argue for a definition of submissive and a body of submissive imagery that is distinctly different and separate in context from dominant imagery. Or to put it more simply: figure out who you are before you can see if it fits with what I want.
So not falling down that rabbit hole today…total fail 🙂
Hi Alisa,
Actually to date I haven’t associated the word ‘authority’ with anything. That was introduced for the first time into maymay’s last response, which I haven’t yet replied to. I’m not strictly sure what is meant by it in the given context. I think a lot of these terms are loaded with baggage that is not being fully manifested in the discussion. My default position would be (like you) to say they’re not mutually exclusive.
When I talk of power exchange I use it in a very straightforward way. I submit by giving up power, whether that’s my power of speech, my power of motion, my power to breath, etc. Indeed it can even be my power to think, as significant pain can destroy my ability to string together coherent thoughts. I enjoy the sense that it’s no longer my body, that I’ve entrusted it somebody else to enjoy themselves with. But that giving up of power says nothing about my sense of self or my personal autonomy. I always retain the right to take back all of my power. Normally that’ll be via a safeword or, if I’m playing without a safeword (with someone I know and trust well), then it’ll be by clearly indicating I want to step away from our interaction and reclaim my power. I wouldn’t describe that as authority play, and power exchange seems a pretty apt description of it.
I completely agree that being clear on who you are is important. An interaction where only one party is clear is always going to be unbalanced. And one can clearly be a submissive (and write about all sorts of things related to that) without a dominant being within a 100 miles of you. However, I still fail to see how submissive imagery can exist without an act of submission. And an act of submission implicitly implies an act of domination.
Shots of me with me with my friends are of a submissive but are not submissive imagery. The various shots of me on this blog with needles sticking into me are submissive imagery. The act is key. Similarly I can’t go on a vanilla date and simply be submissive. That’d be weird. The other party needs to be an agreeable and consensual participant in the act, which makes them dominant.
This isn’t to say submissive imagery has to focus on the dominant or be about the dominant. They might not even be in the shot (a lot of the aforementioned needle shots are a case in point), or physically involved in it at all. The focus can entirely be on the submissive and their reactions. But that doesn’t remove the need for a dominant somewhere in the equation.
-paltego
No, it is not. That is why my blog is now subtitled: “Because kinky is an adjective, not an activity.”
Oh, and see also:
Hard to know where to start here. I could go with ‘And your point would be?’ Or highlight the basic falseness of this part “since—let’s face it—that’s most of the erotic material out there for such guys”. But instead lets go with a direct quote from the linked article itself
Absolutely. Couldn’t agree more. And exactly who is the ‘that’ person in this scenario? That would be the dominant right? And since I assume we’re talking about consensual acts, presumably those vulnerabilities are ones the dominant wants to take advantage of. Thank you for confirming my basic point.
Just in case there’s still some doubt around this, lets go to the dictionary
It takes two to tango. One person can write about tango. They can be a skilled tango dancer. The can describe what tango means to them. But to actually tango, or create images/movies of a tango dance, they need someone else.
Hmmmm. I may be having reading comprehension issues, but when I introduce the word laughter into the discussion (“laughable concepts”) and then you directly quote that line and say (“It hurts so much to be laughed at…”) it seems a very direct statement of being upset or offended. I’m not sure how I’d read that another way. However, moving on…..
I read the article on domism. Interesting, although I’m not sure how it relates to the issue of separating submission from dominance, or power exchange for that matter. Some dommes are idiots would be my summary of it.
Ditto (in terms of interesting but not sure of the relevance in this context) for the other article. I’ve written more in my response to Alisa. Rather than repeating myself, maybe you’d care to join me over there for the continuation of this thought….. 🙂
Thank you for the invitation, paltego, but no thank you. I am finished conversing with you, at least for now.
Disappointing but not really surprising. If you’d actually wanted to engage on the points raised in the thread, rather than ignoring them and linking to only vaguely related posts that barely touch on the relevant issues, it might have been an interesting discussion. It seems that was not to be.