D/s . . . an unequal relationship

[BeachGurl2]

I read something tonight that set my mind to wandering. A comment from a switch that basically said that she could only see herself as a switch because outside of the bedroom she viewed herself and her lovers as equals.

Hmmmm . . .

If you submit, does that mean you are less than your partner?
If you dominate, does that mean you are more than your partner?

In my opinion, just because I submit does not remove my value as a person. In a D/s relationship, power is one-sided. Does that make me less than because I'm not the one who holds that power?

And that leads to even more taxing of the brain - if a dominant does not have someone to submit to him/her, is he/she still a dominant? Can you lead if there is no one to follow? If a submissive does not have someone to submit to, is he/she still a submissive? Can you follow if there is no one to lead? How can one be 'more than' the other, when they are both necessary for the balance of the relationship? For the relationship to even exist?

Okay, I know. Heavy stuff. But the statement was made, and I just had to put the question out there.

 

[FurryFury]

I believe in an equal relationship too. I believe each person brings an equal amount of "something" to the relationship. I think it's sort of a ying/yang thing.

Some of that something for one partner might be that s/he brings submission.

Some of that something for the other partner might be that s/he brings dominance.

Does that make one partner more powerful or more important than the other?

Not in my book, or in the book, I suspect of any Dom or sub without a partner who truly fits them.

 

[snowy ciara]

Good questions BeachGurl... But I'm going from back to front here.

I have always felt that being a submissive was part of my personality. Even when I was not with a Domme, I was still a submissive. To my mind, it's a part of me, like having hazel eyes and being Canadian. I sometimes wear colored contacts and I have lived in other countries. But I still had hazel eyes and was still a Canadian. Even when I lived in the US, I never stopped being one. I just wasn't living as a Canadian at that time. When I was first learning my submissiveness, I was not living it. I was slowly beginning to learn who I am, and growing carefully into that mold. I don't feel that I am done growing yet, but it's always a color in my world. An opera singer does not sing all of the time, or she would damage her voice and not be able to sing at all. An author doesn't write all the time, they stop and rest and recharge their creative batteries. A preacher does not spend all of his time shouting his message from his pulpit; he takes time study, to meditate, to listen to his Creator. But none of these people ever stop being an opera singer, or an author, or a preacher. Even when I am not actively pursuing my submission with my Mistress, I am still a submissive, even if those traits are dormant at the time.

I don't feel that a submissive is somehow a lesser being than a Dominant or switch. Everyone has value. Everyone has an immeasurable worth to their soul. Some are meant to serve, and some are meant to lead, but without each other, they remain dormant. I see D/s as an organic, symbiotic relationship. While both sides of the equation are needed for the active state of the relationship, both of them experience an occasional down time, where a partner is not necessary. But for both of them to reach their fullest potential, periodically they do need to come together. One cannot exist in the active phase without the other, so neither side is diminished, or greater than or less than the other. If you can stand another analogy, a tree cannot exist without sunlight, air, earth and water. But if those are out of balance, the tree dies. When they exist in equilibrium, the tree thrives.

 

[BiBunny]

I'm a switch who no longer chooses to bottom. In some ways, I sort of understand what your friend (or acquaintance or whatever) meant. I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to articulate this well, but I'll try. I'm going to lump my submission/masochism and dominance/sadism together for the purposes of this thread, but they're really all separate entities.

I crave both sides of the coin for similar reasons. The need to relinquish control/experience pain and wield control/deliver pain stem from basically the same desire. I find that I'm not truly happy unless I can feel comfortable expressing both aspects of my personality. I also find that it's usually only fellow switches who can truly understand this desire. (Usually, not always.) A lot of dominants can be real pricks/bitches, depending on gender , about having a submissive who *needs* to Top. A lot of submissives can be the same way about having a Dom/me who *needs* to bottom. I think that's probably where the "equal relationship" thing comes from. Two people more or less have to be on equal footing as far as the power exchange goes in order to accept the other's need to switch, be it with each other, or with other people. It's not so much that dominants are "better" and submissives are "lesser," but that when the power differential leans too far to either end, it becomes pretty damn hard to allow the other person to express his/her need to switch.

I think I'm babbling, and I'm sorry.

 

[Marquis]

This is a totally un-sexy topic, but here are my truthful answers.

If you submit, does that mean you are less than your partner?

No.

If you dominate, does that mean you are more than your partner?

No.

Does that make me less than because I'm not the one who holds that power?

No.

And that leads to even more taxing of the brain - if a dominant does not have someone to submit to him/her, is he/she still a dominant?

Yes, as a noun but not an adjective.

Can you lead if there is no one to follow?

No, I would think this is fairly obvious.

If a submissive does not have someone to submit to, is he/she still a submissive?

Yes, as a noun but not an adjective.

Can you follow if there is no one to lead?

No.

How can one be 'more than' the other, when they are both necessary for the balance of the relationship? For the relationship to even exist?

Yeah, I think you got it.....

 

[FungiUg]

If you submit, does that mean you are less than your partner?
If you dominate, does that mean you are more than your partner?

Not in my eyes.

Both the dominant and submissive are, at core, people. Different people have different strengths, talents, capabilities yes. We prefer different roles, yes. We develop synergies that make what we can do together possible. But we are all people, all equally valuable.

 

[BeachGurl2]

BiBunny, that makes perfect sense, and maybe that's what she was leaning toward when she said it. Since I don't switch, I can't really 'get it' from that point of view, but it was an interesting question for me because I think there are a lot of people on both sides of the D/s coin who do believe it is unequal and I was interested to see what people thought.

Marquis, as always, well said. And pretty much what I already believe.

 

[wicked woman]

I read something tonight that set my mind to wandering. A comment from a switch that basically said that she could only see herself as a switch because outside of the bedroom she viewed herself and her lovers as equals.

BeachGurl2 I read that comment and identified with it (although I'm submissive, not a switch). Let me explain how I interpreted it.

I am not always submissive...in fact most of the time I'm not...my job and my life choices have not allowed it. I'm also big on compartmentalizing my life. So in my relationship with my Dom, we are not always entering into a power exchange where he is dominant and I'm submissive. We participate in that power exchange mostly for romantic/sexual situations. Outside of that realm, we are equals...as far as the power exchange is concerned...not our worth as a human being (we're always equal in that sense). If we're deciding how to spend our day, say...that's a conversation between equals (no one's opinion has greater weight). If we're discussing his work or mine, say...we discuss it as equals.

In romantic/sexual situations though...I am his submissive. He is in control. I might voice my opinion, desires, etc. but it is for his information to do with ...or not...as he chooses. There is no assumption that my input will have equal weight to his. It doesn't...trust me.

So I didn't interpret the use of 'equal' to relate to human worth...it's to the weight given...the power exchange not occuring. We both have equal power unless we're in the situations that we have agreed to exchange power. For us, that mix of equal and D/s is important. It's what works for us.

Edited to add: Rereading the quote, I caught something I didn't originally. I hear the person saying that while she (I think it was a woman who posted it originally) may be a submissive in the bedroom, because she doesn't participate in a power exchange outside of the bedroom, so she isn't submissive then...that she considers herself a switch.

ooo that's different. I can see why she might say that but personally I don't see it that way. I only take into account when a power exchange takes place...which by my definition isn't when both parties are equal. When the power exchange takes place, I always submit my power to my Dom...hence I identify as a submissive. I don't participate in a power exchange when I take control and someone else submits to me so I am not dominant. Equal power is not a power exchange in my mind.

 

[ecstaticsub]

Interesting question. I will often say that my marriage is different than my D/s relationship because my husband and I are "equals". This isn't to say that in my D/s relationship I feel I am less of a person than my Dom. It refers ony to who has the power to make the decisions in the relationship. In my marriage the power is equal. In my D/s relationship the power belongs to my Dom.

For me personally if my present D/s relationship were to end I would say I was not a submissive. Outside of this relationship I do not have a submissive personality at all. I don't know if there would ever be anyone else that could put me into that mindset.

 

[RJMasters]

I come from the school of thought where both people in the relationship each has a 110% peice.

People do tend to have dificulty at times understand how 2 things can have differences and yet be equal.

I think people struggle with the whole male/female thing as well in a simillar manner. They just can't get past acknowledging the differences and still see how they are the same as human beings.

I agree with what you and Marquis said.

What has always been of interest to me are those who cannot reconcile inside themselves the "different but equal view" and the resulting perceptions and behaviors which come from this. I typically see two extremes that emerge which are those who try to eradicate the differences in order to make things more equal, and those who exaggerate the differences in order to embrace the inequality. Both of these are in stark contrast to one who can accept the differences for what they are and yet still maintain equality.

I have noted that there are many who do not hold the "different but equal view" and go on to find compatible partners where like opposites attract. People can and do make it work, but thee many various of ugliness when it doesn't.

 

[h_i_s]

Simply put:
It's not about who is better or who is more important ..... it's about recognizing, tolerating, respecting, and accepting the differences which exist between us.


And in greater detail:
In the relationship between IYM and I, when defining who and what we are toward to each other, it's not about who is better or more important or who has more power. We are who we are and became exactly who we are once we became 'us' : two people who when they came together made a 'couple'.. aka made a 'relationship' .

When we were not a couple, we were the same people. As those people prior to being 'Us'... the difference was in 'HOW we lived' not who we were.

While I certainly do submit to His dominance over me, we do not always view the use of the labels of Dom and sub as the best fitting for us, or as the best toward conveying who we are to each other. We use the label slave. More precisely, He is my Owner and I am His property... and consensual slave.

If He suddenly didn't have me tomorrow, He would still be a person of dominant tendancies...... and he would no longer be an Owner.
Likewise, if I were to wake one day and find that He were no longer with me, I would no longer be His property .... and I'd no longer be a slave.

To me, a consensual slave is a person who, as chattel, serves at least one other in an absolute and unlimited capasity. I do not identify as a slave if I don't serve in an absolute manner. Part of the reason for this is also because I can not serve just anyone -- they have to MAKE me WANT to serve them.. to submit to them .. and to honor them and obey them. I don't switch [only because I don't get off on being dominant -- because in past relationships I HAD to be dominant and had to do so 'against my will'] and I am not capable of bowing my will to 'just anyone'.

It's not about who is better or who is more important ..... it's about recognizing, tolerating, respecting, and accepting the differences which exsist between us.

 

[Netzach]

Marquis pretty much said it.

Though I like what BiBunny had to add. Made me kind of jealous of the uber-flexible types again.

Also I've found a lot of submissive people who are overall nicer, better quality humans than I'll ever be. I tend to look up to a lot of them.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think the whole equal/unequal thing depends on the people involved, and the dynamics of their particular relationship through their eyes. For us, I am owned and a consensual slave...I had the choice to submit to that or not, though I no longer have that choice. In that sense I am not equal to him, not because I am not as smart (he sometimes says he thinks I am more intelligent in many ways than him), or because I don't work in a paying job, or because I am not as good a person as he is...it is about submitting to his power, and though he may ask my opinion, and consider my feelings about certain things, if he chooses to do something he knows goes against what I would prefer or think wisest, I must respect that decision and support him in whatever way I can.

He often asks my advice or thoughts, and it is no secret he has placed me in charge of our financial matters, but he holds all the power in the relationship. On a similar note, he knows it would hurt me if he came home and told me he has been sleeping with someone else for the last 6 months, or he has been looking for a sister slave to live with us, but it is his right to do so if he chooses....he doesn't because he considers how it would affect me and our relationship (he recognises I am human and such have emotions), and consequently how it would affect himself, but if he did it would be expected I accept it...I OTOH have no such rights...in this sense it is an unequal relationship.

Catalina

 

[Lancecastor]

I think you shouldn't spend so much time thinking about circular topics and concentrate on keeping your pussy shaved, nails painted and hair looking good.

I read something tonight that set my mind to wandering. A comment from a switch that basically said that she could only see herself as a switch because outside of the bedroom she viewed herself and her lovers as equals.

Hmmmm . . .

If you submit, does that mean you are less than your partner?
If you dominate, does that mean you are more than your partner?

In my opinion, just because I submit does not remove my value as a person. In a D/s relationship, power is one-sided. Does that make me less than because I'm not the one who holds that power?

And that leads to even more taxing of the brain - if a dominant does not have someone to submit to him/her, is he/she still a dominant? Can you lead if there is no one to follow? If a submissive does not have someone to submit to, is he/she still a submissive? Can you follow if there is no one to lead? How can one be 'more than' the other, when they are both necessary for the balance of the relationship? For the relationship to even exist?

Okay, I know. Heavy stuff. But the statement was made, and I just had to put the question out there.

 

[Homburg]

Also I've found a lot of submissive people who are overall nicer, better quality humans than I'll ever be. I tend to look up to a lot of them.

Hell yes. Submissives are far better people than I am. It's why I prefer to hang out with them.

It has nothing to do with that whole "submissive = sexy" thing. Nothing.

Joking aside, I own my gal, but I do not somehow consider her less of a person. When we established the ownership thing, she asked whether or not she should use lower-case letters to refer to herself and all that. I snorted and said hell no. She's who she is, period. She is no one's lesser, period. She just happens to be my property.

 

[FungiUg]

I think you shouldn't spend so much time thinking about circular topics and concentrate on keeping your pussy shaved, nails painted and hair looking good.

Shaved? Dude, we're going for the waxed-to-be-gone look here! Totally hairless: bald women can be hawt. You really gotta keep up with the times!

 

[twysted73]

In my opinion, just because I submit does not remove my value as a person. In a D/s relationship, power is one-sided. Does that make me less than because I'm not the one who holds that power?

And that leads to even more taxing of the brain - if a dominant does not have someone to submit to him/her, is he/she still a dominant? Can you lead if there is no one to follow? If a submissive does not have someone to submit to, is he/she still a submissive? Can you follow if there is no one to lead? How can one be 'more than' the other, when they are both necessary for the balance of the relationship? For the relationship to even exist?

Okay, I know. Heavy stuff. But the statement was made, and I just had to put the question out there.

Chicken before the egg? D/s is the sucessful allusion of above and below power dynamics. Allusion because the Pyl gets the power from the gift of submission from the pyl. Paradoxically, the pyl doesn't have the upper hand either because they are subservient and defer to the top. So every relationship is equal regardless of the dynamics. Because without concent on either side.....it's not even happening.

** dismounts to the roar of the crowd **

 

[catalina_francisco]

Joking aside, I own my gal, but I do not somehow consider her less of a person. When we established the ownership thing, she asked whether or not she should use lower-case letters to refer to herself and all that. I snorted and said hell no. She's who she is, period. She is no one's lesser, period. She just happens to be my property.

LOL, this is what a lot of people don't consider...would you go to a car lot and buy the most beaten up, rusted, smoke farting car for the same price as the new, beaut sparkly sports model fresh outta the factory? Not likely, so why would any self respecting PYL want to devalue their property or settle for anything less than what they considered worth their weight in gold unless they felt they were not worthy of owning such a prime piece of property?

Catalina

 

[Homburg]

LOL, this is what a lot of people don't consider...would you go to a car lot and buy the most beaten up, rusted, smoke farting car for the same price as the new, beaut sparkly sports model fresh outta the factory? Not likely, so why would any self respecting PYL want to devalue their property or settle for anything less than what they considered worth their weight in gold unless they felt they were not worthy of owning such a prime piece of property?

Catalina

Absolutely, I want her holding her head up proudly and smiling to those she meets because she is happy and is aware of her worth. If she wants to use lower case letters to establish a certain point, she is welcome to, but I am going to do nothing that artificially brings her down. That's just silly to me.

 

[_kiana_]

FurryFury said it's a yin/yang thing. RJMasters has "different but equal". I'll add two sides to a coin. Sinn0cent1 said "It's not about who is better or who is more important ..... it's about recognizing, tolerating, respecting, and accepting the differences which exist between us."

Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup!

I am equal in worth to anyone I decide to submit to. I may not be equal in power as the other person, but that's the point isn't it?

Homburg and Catalina are getting to a good point too. Who would even want something (someonone) that isn't worth anything?

Ok, so I just reiterated what other people said. But they're awesome points!

 

[FurryFury]

I think you rock!

 

[_kiana_]

I think you rock!

Were you referring to me? *blush*

 

[FurryFury]

Were you referring to me? *blush*

Yes, my dear, I was!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

FUNGIUG

People arent equally valuable. Nothing can be more untrue.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

This whole thread is absurd. The issue is preferences not equivalence.

If I require a dentist, a plumber is not equally valuable. You cannot substitute one for the other and expect to get equal results.

And even when two things are essentially identical, say, beef hearts and beef steaks, people prefer one or the other or like both.