My First Rant[tm]
Jul. 2nd, 2004 02:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lapsedagnosticThere's a line that you hear in the community a lot, and read in all the books, and it always annoys me.
The Submissive has the ultimate control.
I don't where this conclusion came from, whether it came from someone that truly believed it, or if it's just a wacked out piece of propaganda to make everyone more comfortable with the thought of someone being tied up, helpless, and having terrible things done to them.
"It's alright, the sub is really in control."
Uh-huh. Let me tell you, there are plenty of times that the only control my sub has over her immediate fate is whatever control I give her. And that's not meant to be ominous, just the truth. If I've got someone tied up (or chained up) and hooded in my basement, then for all practical purposes, I have all the control. I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.
But, the standard argument goes, you only get to do what the submissive agrees to let you do. Okay, yes, in the real world, I am limited to what my partner is comfortable with. But she's limited to what I'm comfortable with, also. "Okay, I won't do X, but there's no way I'm doing Y. That work for you?" Seems to me to be a fifty fifty power split.
And then there's the final argument: If I don't play nice (by the sub's definition of nice), then she can decide not to play with me ever again, and tell all her friends. The ultimate powers of veto and propaganda. "You'll never play in this town again!". But this walk away and propaganda thing seems to equally apply to doms as well. If you turn out to be psychotically clingy, or just not to my taste, there's no reason to assume that I'm going to play again just because you asked. Again, fifty fifty.
And maybe that's my base issue. The assumption that the sub has all the power because she can always walk away presupposes that the dom doesn't have that power. Either he's obligated to play whenever asked, or that he will leap at any invitation. Neither of which is flattering.
Thoughts, opinions? A lot of people quote this line, and it seems to me to be basically flawed, but maybe I'm just being an idiot. Been there before, no reason to stop now.
The Submissive has the ultimate control.
I don't where this conclusion came from, whether it came from someone that truly believed it, or if it's just a wacked out piece of propaganda to make everyone more comfortable with the thought of someone being tied up, helpless, and having terrible things done to them.
"It's alright, the sub is really in control."
Uh-huh. Let me tell you, there are plenty of times that the only control my sub has over her immediate fate is whatever control I give her. And that's not meant to be ominous, just the truth. If I've got someone tied up (or chained up) and hooded in my basement, then for all practical purposes, I have all the control. I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.
But, the standard argument goes, you only get to do what the submissive agrees to let you do. Okay, yes, in the real world, I am limited to what my partner is comfortable with. But she's limited to what I'm comfortable with, also. "Okay, I won't do X, but there's no way I'm doing Y. That work for you?" Seems to me to be a fifty fifty power split.
And then there's the final argument: If I don't play nice (by the sub's definition of nice), then she can decide not to play with me ever again, and tell all her friends. The ultimate powers of veto and propaganda. "You'll never play in this town again!". But this walk away and propaganda thing seems to equally apply to doms as well. If you turn out to be psychotically clingy, or just not to my taste, there's no reason to assume that I'm going to play again just because you asked. Again, fifty fifty.
And maybe that's my base issue. The assumption that the sub has all the power because she can always walk away presupposes that the dom doesn't have that power. Either he's obligated to play whenever asked, or that he will leap at any invitation. Neither of which is flattering.
Thoughts, opinions? A lot of people quote this line, and it seems to me to be basically flawed, but maybe I'm just being an idiot. Been there before, no reason to stop now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-02 11:57 am (UTC)BOTH the dom and the sub must agree to the terms of play, otherwise you get a bad, if not totally effed up, scene.
"The submissive can stop the scene at any time. They just have to safeword."
Well, only if the dom is honest and true to the negotiated terms. If they aren't, the sub could be in a world of hurt.
As in many situations, there's the black and white version and then there's the real-world version, which often functions in shades of grey. It's the ablity to navigate the grey areas that's important.
Just my opinion.