Is D/s roleplaying?

[FungiUg]

This came out of a discussion I was having with Richard in another thread.

Is roleplaying the fundamental basis to what we do in D/s?

Is "dominant" or "submissive" a role we play? Is it something inherent within us? Is role-playing a bad thing, or just something we do as part of our lives?

I'm leaving out the sado-masochist side of things, not because they aren't also roles, but because answering this question should be extendable to that as well.

 

[Netzach]

I don't think that being D or s is coded within us at birth and totally innate etc.

However, I also don't think it's roleplaying any more than my being an artist or a writer or a saleswoman is.

It's a thing you do, throwing as much of yourself as you decide to, into it.

 

[FungiUg]

It's a thing you do, throwing as much of yourself as you decide to, into it.

But isn't that exactly what a role is?

 

[WillowPuss]

For me the answer is a firm 'NO'.

I live a D/s relationship every minute of every day. I would not be able to sustain that if I were just 'playing a part'.

People have remarked just how close my Master and I are. Vanilla people see us and remark just how deep our love is. I have just had the priviledge of spending much of the past three days in the company of a renowned lifestyle Mistress and Her slave. In a quiet private moment I had with this Mistress, I shyly asked about my submissiveness - I think many do question themselves to see if they are truly submissive - the answer I got bought tears to my eyes and made my heart soar ... what She had seen confirmed what She had known from my many on-line conversations with Her. I was naturally submissive to most dominant people around me - but the control my Master has over me, that I have freely given to Him, bought out the beauty and depth of living the lifestyle.

If Master and I had been just 'role playing' we would not have lasted the pace of this weekend's encounter. O/our conversations (the four of us) have at times been intense. Often time has stood still.

So, D/s is not role-playing for me and my Master ... it is life itself.

 

[Netzach]

I guess you could call it a role.

What I don't mean is that it's play-acting. People equate those two things, I've learned that much.

If all that is a role, if it's role-playing, parenting might be in the same category.

 

[FungiUg]

I guess you could call it a role.

What I don't mean is that it's play-acting. People equate those two things, I've learned that much.

If all that is a role, if it's role-playing, parenting might be in the same category.

Yay! I'm not crazy!

Yes, role-playing and play-acting need not be the same thing.

 

[FungiUg]

For me the answer is a firm 'NO'.

[...]

So, D/s is not role-playing for me and my Master ... it is life itself.

Thanks WillowPuss. A lovely answer.

I do remain unconvinced (because I'm that kinda guy.) You fulfill the role of "submissive" -- in this case you live the role of submissive. It's not play acting. But in my mind, it's still a role.

Why?

Simple.

Are you submissive to everyone? I doubt it. So the role of submissive is something you live for your "Master". Hence it's a role, rather than something you are.

I don't mean to denigrate to put down your feelings at all. In fact, I admire them deeply. I'm just questioning whether people (yourself included) realise they are not always "the submissive" or "the dominant", but that it is a role they assume dependent on the location/circumstance, etc.

Anyway, thanks again for your reply. I think I am basically niggling over terminology here, but the phrase "role playing" has seemed to develop a bad reputation for some reason, and that's the crux of what I am questioning.

 

[Netzach]

LOL, no you are totally not crazy.

I've always felt this way, always been mystified by "I was born with a whip in my hand" Dominance. Personally, I had to learn a lot about me and grow up a lot and still have a lot of growing up to do. I'm constantly reinventing, revising, and refining...me!

I don't think I know quite who the hell I am and what I am and am not capable of. I'm having fun finding out though. I hope I never figure it out fully.

A role can be deadly serious, playing can be not just a game. See Wm. Shakes.

"All the world's a stage."

 

[ammre]

i can't really explain my submissivness. I see no childhood psychology that would lead to the way i am. But than again my relationship is first founded on love and a normal 'nilla relationship. It just has some dominence and submissiveness in it.
I'm an actress of sorts. When i pick a role i like to pick the challanging ones. i'm naturally compelled to pick the submissive role because it's a challange for me. I like to see how much i can take and how i can grow to love the pain i recive as much as i love to give up the power to my partner. i'm a really controlling person sometimes, and i like to be right. But sometimes i love just washing away all the need to be right and all the need to have control and i love hanging my head and letting all my power be scouraged away from me and relish myself into him. Sort of like a pennance for trying to be right all the time.

It's challangeing to do that but in the end every actor finds part of himself or herself in a role. I can't get into roleplaying at all though oddly. I would like to do it for things like the ren fair and stuff but it's never been too intresting for the bedroom. It's sort of like, i KNOW he's just him no matter what kind of persona he tries to addapt to, and i'm still lil anne form jersey who drives a beat up old car and still worries about stupid crap like her gpa and bills. When i'm subbing.. those thoughts don't come into play.

So for me, yes there is a difference between D/s and role playing .

 

[ammre]

heh. a lot of people posted since i started writing that and now that i've read their posts i'm wondering if mine is as thought out as i'd like.

 

[FungiUg]

Huge grin

I can tell I'm gonna lose this one! But that's okay. At least I get to die heroically, knowing I was right.

Or maybe... I will change my mind?

I can see that D/s isn't role-playing. But is role-playing a requirement for D/s?

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I wouldn't say it is role-playing, exactly...it is an outward expression of my inner truth.

 

[FungiUg]

Personally, I had to learn a lot about me and grow up a lot and still have a lot of growing up to do. I'm constantly reinventing, revising, and refining...me!

When you stop changing, you're dead. It's that simple. Yeah, I'm with the "constantly learning about yourself and reinventing yourself" as well. That's what led me into D/s in the first place.

 

[FungiUg]

I wouldn't say it is role-playing, exactly...it is an outward expression of my inner truth.

So it's not "play acting", because it's not something you are doing, it's something you are. Am I right?

At the same time, it is "role playing", because you are not dominant over everyone in your life, or for that matter, in the world. Or should I be calling you "sir"?

 

[ammre]

So it's not "play acting", because it's not something you are doing, it's something you are. Am I right?

At the same time, it is "role playing", because you are not dominant over everyone in your life, or for that matter, in the world. Or should I be calling you "sir"?

(this analogy works in my head bear with me as i try to make it work in test)
Everyone is born with the chemicals for them to be able to love. They are a "lover" by nature. Some people love more some people love less but everyone loves.
a select few could be born with the chemical hormones that make them more supseptable to being dominent or submissive. While you won't intimatelly love everyone... these people won't be intimatelly dominent or submissive to everyone.
If you were to fall in love with someone would you say you are taking on the role of loving them?

ok.. yeah.. i think that works.

 

[FungiUg]

heh. a lot of people posted since i started writing that and now that i've read their posts i'm wondering if mine is as thought out as i'd like.

No, your post was lovely. Thanks!

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Maybe I am roleplaying the rest of the time?

 

[FungiUg]

Maybe I am roleplaying the rest of the time?

Hmmm... it's possible. Are you saying you have no choice over who you dominate, but that you just naturally dominate everyone? How do you cope with other dominants?

I know with myself, I prefer to think of it as a role I can play or not play, as I choose.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I tend to dominate naturally...which caused some problems when I was a Marine! I have to watch myself, try not to take over every situation.

 

[FungiUg]

I tend to dominate naturally...which caused some problems when I was a Marine! I have to watch myself, try not to take over every situation.

Sounds familiar! Er, except for that bit about being a Marine, that is.

So maybe it's a role that you have to try not to play at times. Or maybe it's, as you say, not a role at all...

 

[ammre]

maybe it's a natural thing which you control in certian levels arround certian people.. you can let loose and be doninent over your sub but you realize it's not logical to whip your boss at work if he dosne't give you that raise.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I voted yes by accident, stupid me was not looking.

Anyway I think Dominance can be play acting for some. So I would have voted sometimes. I think Dominance for some is instinctive, for some it is a learned skill and have become Dominant and for some dominance is just a game.

IMO there are many ways that lead to Rome.

Francisco.

 

[Desdemona]

I voted no, because I initially interpreted role-playing as play acting. I can sort of see your point about being dominant or submissive as being a role within a relationship. However, I know it is different things to different people or as Fransisco put it:" there are many ways that lead to Rome. "

For me, it is a struggle not to be submissive. My professional life requires me to be assertive and that can be a big struggle for me. It was a learned behavior. If I have an opinion on something important that differs from that of my Master, it is a struggle for me to work up enough assertiveness to make my point.

Like many others, I choose to whom I submit. But, for me, it was a struggle to learn to with hold that submission and reserve it for only one. So, while I sort of see your point about it being a role, it really seems like semantics.

 

[Pure]

Fungi said,

//I do remain unconvinced [about DS as other than role playing](because I'm that kinda guy.) You fulfill the role of "submissive" -- in this case you live the role of submissive. It's not play acting. But in my mind, it's still a role.

Why?

Simple.

Are you submissive to everyone? I doubt it. So the role of submissive is something you live for your "Master". Hence it's a role, rather than something you are.

This is a fairly wacky line of argument, that says if you are something, you show it every minute. Horsefeathers!

No one, according to you, 'is' a lover, since they are not a 'lover' to all.

Your concept of 'what you are' remains quite simplistic. I guess you watch someone every waking hour, and if they are invariably, say, 'polite', you say they 'are' truly polite. If they sometimes 'lose it', you say, they are 'role playing' polite, and aren't really that way.

Define a role as a prescribed set of activities, including the thoughts and feelings 'behind' [within] them, which fit a certain function or are intended to further a certain goal. If you fill out your forms and pay as the law says, you're an 'honest taxpayer.'

The question 'are you _really_honest' is weird, once the scope of the roles is specified. She's an honest life-partner, honest taxpayer, honest parent (with her kids), and honest cashier at her job. (Core roles.) Is she _really_ honest, then makes no sense.

You look for exceptions, I realize. Joe is honest in several roles, at home, with taxes, etc. But he just 'borrowed' a sum from his employer. So he's not 'honest' in essence (the argument goes).

But the argument can be turned on its head, as is done in a trial.
"Character witnesses" establish a pattern of honesty. In that case, the exception was because he was depressed, or desperate to pay the kidnap ransom of his kid, or something. Hence the 'borrowing' did NOT show his true colors.

J.

 

[Ebonyfire]

In my case, I voted no!

YMMV.

I am a service oriented Domme and as such my subs are working boys. I do not play a role, and neither do they. They serve, and I am served.

Now others may differ. Good for them.