"Power Exchange" wadda f***?

[Pure]

I'm wondering what is this 'power exchange'. Twice in two days, it's been tossed at me, and damned if I can see the 'exchange'. Ms T is pretty vague about the 'somethings'. (See below)

I always figured it was a lame metaphor, a bumbling attempt to conceive of the process, and it seems my misgivings are somewhat shared in the often quoted, 'Deviants Dictionary' from which I give an excerpt, below.

Maybe one of the users could enlighten me on this 'exchange', what's going in each direction, what the nature of the 'power' is, and so on.

Thanks,

====
James G 5:

Additionally, D/s to me is a power exchange that's about the sub willingly GIVING control to the Dom

-----
Ms T:

[bdsm involves] obedience based upon a power exchange.

Exchange being the operative word.
I give you something.
You give me something back.

=================================
http://www.queernet.org/deviant/frames.htm
Deviants Dictionary and related material

power exchange


PE. A term used by some people to refer to what happens in a BDSM scene when the bottom agrees to be submissive and/or gives up control to the top. Also sometimes identified as the defining characteristic of SM, which has been described as 'a form of eroticism based on a consensual exchange of power' (Samois 1982). More on this not entirely transparent notion in the 'Boundaries' section of the Dynamics and Definitons sourcesheet.

from "Boundaries" of Des de Moor, section "Power Exchange"
same website.


Unfortunately many of SM's defenders have made similar mistakes to their feminist critics and abstracted and idealised what is going on in SM encounters. One common view, popularised by the influential compilation on lesbian SM, Coming to Power (Samois 1981), is that of SM as a 'power exchange', which is an attempt to reflect the fact that SM scenes usually involve negotiations of some sort over who does what to whom. These negotiations, however, are less to do with power and more to do with issues of control and consent; the question of power may only be said to apply if one of the participants is encumbered or restrained in some way and therefore 'powerless' in a narrow sense, though restraint is not essential to an SM scene.

Wider social factors that account for real power in this world cannot be simply resolved into individual packages of power that individuals can exchange freely in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

 

[lark sparrow]

Here's a view

Hint (for those unclear): Click the link originally provided at the bottom of this view for full text and exploration of the website.

The term "power exchange" refers to two basic concepts:

First, the transaction of a trade between two people, each of whom starts with some natural rights about his or her own body and life, involving the transference of some of those rights; and
Second, the feelings or perceptions felt and described by people who do BDSM, and in particular, those who exchange power.

In both usages, the person to whom power is transferred is called the dom or top (depending on which word works for you); the person who hands over his or her natural right to power over some aspect of his or her existence is called the submissive or bottom. The act of handing over power is often called 'submitting.'

In the first, transactional, sense, people exchange power when one person simply agrees to hand over control to another person. In BDSM, that transaction often happens as a consequence of a forthright prior verbal negotiation, and sometimes a written contract. Still, there are many times when power is transferred without any verbal agreement: unspoken understandings and communications between partners work very well in many cases even though they are more subject to errors of judgment.

Some examples of A and B exchanging power (A becomes the bottom/submissive and B becomes the top/dom in these examples) are:

Person A agrees to allow Person B to decide who will cook dinner and who will clean up afterwards each night.
Person A agrees to let Person B flog him or her, or to kneel to B each evening on first seeing each other, and to not object or be angry about it afterwards. They might simultaneously agree on some outer bounds or limits in the process (say, that flogging to the point of bruising or cutting skin lightly is ok, but no permanent marks may be left), or they might agree on a safeword, or they might agree that in cases of a non-BDSM guest being present, kneeling is excused, etc. Or they might not discuss the matter of the limits of the power being granted, in which case it is up to them to figure out as they go along in their relationship if their implicit understandings of each other were what they had in mind and are agreeable to them.
Person B, in the midst of sex, pins down Person A's wrists and with the force of body weight, fucks A. This was either a power exchange, or a taking of power (which might or might not have been a power exchange in a a metaconsensual sense); or perhaps even a rape, depending on matters such as whether it was discussed or consensual from A's perspective. If they never talked about such a possibility in advance, then they will have to work it out afterwards. Consensual or not, though, power and control over the situation was obtained by B from A.
Person A fills in a negotiation questionnaire for Person B, describing which activities are off limits and which are desired or at least ok; and the two parties agree to a session based on that questionnaire.
Person A agrees to be the sole property of Person B, signing or agreeing to a submissive or slave contract, thus handing over all decision-making power to Person B (possibly with limits stated in the contract, or, if A is being handed over to B by A's previous owner, with some explicit consideration and agreements between B and the previous owner).

In BDSM, the word "exchange" is critical in the phrase "power exchange" because the transaction is presumed to be consensual. That is, both parties are presumed to be capable of making informed decisions; are presumed to have clear prior rights to whatever they are offering to trade to someone else; and are presumed to get something out of the trade--else they will not agree to the trade.

What each party gets out of it is up to each individual. It is in the nature of trades that what people get out of them does not necessarily have to be "tit-for-tat;" nor do the rewards have to be simultaneous with the experience.

BDSM trades--that is, power exchanges--often involve complex perceptions of when and what exactly the individuals expect to get out of the interaction. (For example, Person A might want to get out of being whipped something as subtle as enjoying fantasies of it months later even if the experience is not expected to be pleasurable.) However, adults with unencumbered faculties are legally and morally capable of deciding for themselves what they want and which trades they might make are to be expected to be in their own interests; this is the basis of informed consent. Each party weighs his or her own internal costs and benefits in deciding on the exchange.

This leads to the second usage of the term power exchange: The feelings received by each party to a power exchange, rather than the transaction itself, are often what people refer to when they use the term.

For the top/dom the feelings are sometimes described as a "power rush," "topspace," or "domspace." For the bottom/submissive, the feelings are sometimes described as "floating," "bottomspace," "subspace," etc. Words are usually inadequate to capture feelings, which is why people invent new ones or struggle to use existing words to convey the emotions! Sexuality is often but not always a part of the motivation for the trades involved in BDSM: for some, the feelings involved are directly sexual, but for others, or at different times, the feelings are not directly erotic at all but are still desired or satisfying for other reasons.

The difference in nuance between the term power exchange as a "transaction" versus when it is used as a "feeling" shows in common statements like "Well, yes, when I agree to let someone string me up and whip me, I am technically submitting or transferring power to the person, but what I'm looking for is the feeling that comes to me when it 'kicks in.' It's not the whipping or the kneeling itself, but the feeling of my top's controlling me that is the power exchange for me." Both concepts are aspects of what power exchange is about.

http://www.submission.net/powerexch.html

 

[James G 5]

What Lark said
I'll try & post a longer exchange about this tonight
I would say in addition that the power exchange is what takes D/s (as opposed to the S&M from the Deviant's Dictionary) from the realm of "kinky sex" or simple pain in to the arena of mental & spiritual play
People who don't get power exchange are more often those who don't get not assosciating sex with their encounters
With power exchange, the play's the thing, rather than being a form of foreplay or a sadist/masochist encounter

 

[Pure]

Thanks Lark S, that a very full definition and defense you posted. The authorship of the posting may not be entirely clear, but everyone should know it's the words of "Lauren" from the website you mentioned at the end. Just for other readers, would you [LS] consider saying that at the beginning of your post?

There are problems in it, but I'll wait a bit.

Thanks again,

J.

 

[Netzach]

What I'm hung up on is why the author seems unable to break the idea of power out of its wider social context. Yeah, I can't trade my own unique social history and standing with a partner, but I think that's a pretty tightly constructivist idea of power. What the Samois folks are talking about is another sense of the word power, probably informed by the feminism they felt they needed to reconcile with their own SM practises (this is a big deal for a lot of women who play, me included) This has to do with a more subtle, undefined notion of personal power. It's abstract, it's *not* academic, it's a concept that belongs to a more spiritual and less forensically debateable realm. If I were to limit my feelings of being empowered or helpless to my actual social standing and to the forces that shaped me, SM would be a different thing.

 

[Pure]

Hi Netzach,

Your usual interesting thoughts:


This has to do with a more subtle, undefined notion of personal power. It's abstract, it's *not* academic, it's a concept that belongs to a more spiritual and less forensically debateable realm. If I were to limit my feelings of being empowered or helpless to my actual social standing and to the forces that shaped me, SM would be a different thing.

Des the author does seem to have in mind a social dimension, if not definition, of power, I agree. I'm deferring comment in general, but may I ask Is it your belief that this 'subtle' personal power can be 'exchanged' 'transferred' 'given away' or 'given up'?

 

[lark sparrow]

Thanks Lark S, that a very full definition and defense you posted. The authorship of the posting may not be entirely clear, but everyone should know it's the words of "Lauren" from the website you mentioned at the end. Just for other readers, would you [LS} consider saying that at the beginning of your post?

There are problems in it, but I'll wait a bit.

Thanks again,

J.

Sure, Pure. Yes, I thought that might keep you busy for awhile. I honestly have no interest in debating the value or definition of the term power exchange - it works fine for me as a general concept - but, I did think of an obvious link to give your inquiring mind a jumpstart. Re: your concern as to authorship, I have added in instructions at the top of the page about why the link I posted should be clicked, in case someone unlike you, was unable to figure out the connection. Have fun.

 

[Pure]

LS said

Sure, Pure. Yes, I thought that might keep you busy for awhile. I honestly have no interest in debating the value or definition of the term power exchange - it works fine for me as a general concept - but, I did think of an obvious link to give your inquiring mind a jumpstart. Re: your concern as to authorship, I have added in instructions at the top of the page about why the link I posted should be clicked, in case someone unlike you, was unable to figure out the connection. Have fun.

Yes, it's a good link. It's just a matter of conscience for me, if I take a couple hundred words verbatim, I try to indicate to the reader who the author is, and his/her url. The internet doesn't particularly encourage cultivation of attributions, as you know. No doubt your writing has already been borrowed without any note at all.

Best,
J.

 

[lark sparrow]

Yes, it's a good link. It's just a matter of conscience for me, if I take a couple hundred words verbatim, I try to indicate to the reader who the author is, and his/her url. The internet doesn't particularly encourage cultivation of attributions, as you know. No doubt your writing has already been borrowed without any note at all.
[/B]

Normally I would have made it a bit more clear but my lack of desire to enter the debate on a personal level precluded this. In the interest of ease to the readers, I copied and pasted the information so it could be read directly and then "clicked" for more information as to it's origin. I provided the url and notice the intended connection was indeed made by you.

How about this? I will keep an eye out for anyone in the thread who doesn't make the connection despite you pointing it out, asking me to point it out, and going back and forth on it, and you can go back to addressing the problems in non-famous Lauren's definition, as well as the general usage, of the term 'power exchange'.

Pick, pick, pick!

 

[Pure]

// my lack of desire to enter the debate on a personal level precluded this. //

hey, if you're used to dominating, do or avoid doing whatever's necessary. that's the enjoyment! love ya for it, honey bun!

 

[lark sparrow]

This was nit-picking with you about how I choose to make my posts, not personal involvement in the debate you were attempting to create regarding what power exchange is and if it's a valid phrase.

Dominating? As in like a BDSM relationship? It might just be a little bit different than the classified and editorialized world of perpetual indulgence.

Now get to your point, punkin! Cause you're just as cute as a little bug in a rug, and I want to hear all the thoughts running through that precious little head.

"honey bun"

 

[Pure]

Power Exchange; some thoughts --- dedicated to Honey Bun.

There are a few, like Des, who question the 'power exchange' concept; for him it's a situation of negotiation of who does what to whom, of control, and who consents to what.

Lauren says a power exchange is where one is 'handing over control to another person'. But she's both insistent that 'exchange is critical' and vague about what the submitter gets; her only example is that the submitter gets material for a fantasy a few months later. Exchange is critical, she says, because we want a consensual transaction. That is, each has to get 'something,' else why the transaction. (This is what she calls the 'first concept' of power exchange and is the only one discussed in this posting.)

The basic idea is a sort of Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith idea of 'exchange', e.g, commercial exchange, as 'free'. I pay you 10 dollars for a cup of your breast milk. If I merely take (rob) the cup, that's not free, it's forced.

The modern libertarians have this position: for instance if A, a female wants to sell sexual intercourse to me, B, she asks and is 'given' $100 and I am given a good lay.

It was the marxists and feminists of the 60s who questioned these 'free exchanges' _on the grounds that the power between the supposed 'free agents' was unequal_. Clearly where the prostitute has a kid to feed and no other income, she's coerced by circumstance, though not by me.

Ironically, it was a lesbian SM group Samois who questioned this power analysis--or ignored it--and went back, full circle, to the liberal 'free exchange' idea. Whatever adults want to 'exchange' is fine. No matter how 'bad' the one thing apparently is --say a whipping-- it's presumed something is given/exchanged in return.

In answer to the question, 'what free exchanges are equitable and legitimate--and should be legal', the tendency of most perverts is to say 'whatever turns your crank, among consenting adults, is just fine'. So 'something' is said to come back to the submitter(=one who transfers power to the other), so that it's a fair trade. Hence the term 'power exchange.'

The issue of 'return' is key, since an abuser just 'takes' from his partner; he 'takes' her services and gives only hits.

The dom 'takes' his partner and her services, and whips her when she, according to him, deserves it; she 'gives' her suffering. She says it's ok and consensual. **

Now the BDSM person, esp if a feminist, wants to say that the first woman is NOT in an exchange, since she gets nothing. The second woman does get something, maybe arousal, so it's an exchange. (Lauren says as much in her forceful-fuck/rape example; a rape is a simple 'taking'; bdsm consensual forceful fuck[overpowering] would be 'exchange'.)

What are the problems with this 'exchange' position?

Even liberals draw some lines: I can't sell myself into slavery. In most countries I can't enter an 'exchange' in which someone cuts off my arm (other than a surgeon for gangrene).
In Britain, the 'Spanner' guys did time since the judges held you cant exchange pleasure for having your cock and balls tortured.

Notice the parallel with abuse. If the woman says "I deserved to be hit and felt better afterwards, although my nose was broken." the judge says,
That 'better' feeling you were 'given' does not count. There can be no fair trade (legitimate exchange) involving your broken nose."

Conclusion: the most abstract position (ultimate libertarian) is the easiest to defend: whatever adults, without coercion, want to 'exchange,' do, or transact in sex or elsewhere is fine. If I want to simultaneously fist the sub both vaginally and anally, and she consents, fine. If I want a kilo of cocaine, fine.

The problems come in trying to rule out some 'exchanges' as the liberals do. Can the nastier bdsm 'exchanges' involving mutilation be ruled out, as is domestic abuse; and ssc routine whippings ruled in?

On 'power exchange'--assuming 'exchange' is usually fine, the interesting questions about legitimate exchanges are not really answered or clarified with the concept.

--punkin

[added, 3-12, 10:36 am est]
** She may well say, "He gives me his love" or "I undergo things because I love, and it satisfies me to demonstrate it so; I'm 'given' that satisfaction." Two comments: Love as exchange is a fairly economic conception: each is to 'get' something, and the relationship is structurally not unlike a deal for a used car.
Can't one say, by contrast, "I love her and do things, and nothing is expected in return?" (or nothing beyond her love)?

Further, "I love her so I may choose to 'receive' as little, in return, as I please." is connected to all kinds of irrational, possibly self destructive scenarios: "I love her, and give her my life savings, just to make her happy." Or worse, as in domestic abuse "I love him, and am willing to be beat up, if he thinks I deserve it, and I probably do. My 'return' is his love, shown thus." Some prostitutes have made similar statements in defense of their pimps. In all these case of great sacrifice, of body, of resources, society tend to look past or disregard the 'love' defense, and try--paternalistically, some say-- to safeguard the 'givers' interests.


Prostitutes' statements, like those of abused wives, are often ignored. "Sub's statements" in cases of serious physical harm have been ignored--see "Spanner."

"I made myself his literal slave, out of love" would similarly be ignored in a court, recognizing, as Lauren says, the 'natural' and basic right to freedom.


Of course, in the end, paternalism can go only so far: no one can stop a woman from giving everything to her beloved Master for a single look of approval as he leaves for the Argentine--something that seems to everyone but her, a non-equitable (power) exchange.

 

[Netzach]

I think that my personal notions about power exchange are kind of moot, as I'm really very uninterested in pushing the edges of ownership, control, and do-it-if-you-love-me manipulations that seem to turn the cranks of a lot of people into PE. My personal relationship and philosophy is that my partner asks me for whippings/tyings/namecallings that feel good for him AND for me, and that's what we do. If both of us are not into it, it's probably not going to happen often if at all.
That said, as hokey as it seems, SM experiences, as Top and bottom, have had a feel of transcendance and connectedness at times, that makes me think, yes this personal, essential, je ne sais quoi power can at least, sometimes, be a shared thing.

You seem to want us to quit being all relativistic. Is it ok for me to spank him with a hairbrush but not OK for him to tell me that I can have a ring put in him anywhere I want? Or for me to castrate him, should that be something we both wanted? I can't say for sure. My criteria is simply does the bottom acted-upon person seem happier, better off, more functioning after said activity? Really and truly? There's a big gap between the abused wife who thinks maybe she deserves it and the SM bottom who has actively and deliberately chosen her path.

I think this "ok" ness has less to do with an exchange model and is much more driven by internal indicators.

 

[Pure]

Hi Netzach,

Thanks for your thoughts. Some of what you're saying seems to amount to "It's hard to pin down, what's given and what's received." That may well be a kind of objection to the exchange metaphor.

As to your statement:

You seem to want us to quit being all relativistic. Is it ok for me to spank him with a hairbrush but not OK for him to tell me that I can have a ring put in him anywhere I want? Or for me to castrate him, should that be something we both wanted? I can't say for sure. My criteria is simply does the bottom acted-upon person seem happier, better off, more functioning after said activity? Really and truly?

I'm against "being all relativistic"? No, but I'm conflicted! Part of me can be quite Samois or libertarian, "Whatever two persons agree about what's to happen to whom." Assisted suicide, Legal prostitution, free dope, and all that.

Then I get to castration for the mistress, and young women saying they want 'circumcision' and widows who 'want' to climb on the funeral pyre. So I say, "Whatever two sane persons agree." to get a little maneuvering room.

But that founders on domestic abuse, and--being in part, an 'old, 60s, style feminist'-- I want to discount abused women's statements of consent, and also NOT call them insane. So there's my element of paternalism.

On the 'really and truly' better off criterion: Same dilemma, different wording. Do you take the word of the parties? i.e., 'subjective test'? or use an 'objective test.' She says "I'm better off without my clitoris. Really." Do you go with that? With a 'subjective test' you have no choice but to say, "Fine."

Best,
J.
-----

Netzach's full posting:

"I think that my personal notions about power exchange are kind of moot, as I'm really very uninterested in pushing the edges of ownership, control, and do-it-if-you-love-me manipulations that seem to turn the cranks of a lot of people into PE. My personal relationship and philosophy is that my partner asks me for whippings/tyings/namecallings that feel good for him AND for me, and that's what we do. If both of us are not into it, it's probably not going to happen often if at all.
That said, as hokey as it seems, SM experiences, as Top and bottom, have had a feel of transcendance and connectedness at times, that makes me think, yes this personal, essential, je ne sais quoi power can at least, sometimes, be a shared thing.

"You seem to want us to quit being all relativistic. Is it ok for me to spank him with a hairbrush but not OK for him to tell me that I can have a ring put in him anywhere I want? Or for me to castrate him, should that be something we both wanted? I can't say for sure. My criteria is simply does the bottom acted-upon person seem happier, better off, more functioning after said activity? Really and truly? There's a big gap between the abused wife who thinks maybe she deserves it and the SM bottom who has actively and deliberately chosen her path.

"I think this "ok" ness has less to do with an exchange model and is much more driven by internal indicators." [end posting]

 

[lark sparrow]

More interpretations of P.E.

http://www.sssswr.org/henkin.htm

Consensual erotic power exchange is a phrase through which I mean to embrace both the physical interactions at the heart of sadomasochism (SM) and the psychological interactions that underlie dominance and submission (DS),* two styles of being intimate that merge in the loosely-knit "leather community" where a fearsome political tenet attributed to Wilhelm Reich is eagerly articulated and erotically celebrated: that if you control someone's sexuality, you control the person. By definition of its terms, using the Oxford English Dictionary (1971), the phrase invokes the agreed-upon (consensual) give and take (exchange) of sexually amatory (erotic) control, command, dominion, or authority (power). In practical terms it makes explicit the rules of conduct adopted by two or more participants for a BDSM relationship of whatever duration those participants elect. The format for the rules is roughly tantamount to that which governs the interactions between a director and an actor when the director, like the actor, also has a performance part in their mutual production. In the eloquent phrase I first heard from Sybil Holiday, it makes explicit who runs the fuck.

http://www.saroftreve.com/home/bdsm/submission.htm

Power exchange is the underpinning of submission, and is easily defined but a bit harder to specify. Definition: the consensual granting of power and control over one's person to another person. Power exchange is specified by consensual agreement, is typically constrained by limits and relationship parameters, and may be inclusive or exclusive.

Both parties must agree to the specific boundaries and parameters of the exchange in their relationship, thus consenting for either a) a specified period of time, b) an unspecified period until consent is withdrawn, or c) an unspecified period without the right to withdraw consent. These are the three possible durations of consent.

Two types of boundaries exist in power exchanges. Limits represent an explicit agreement between dominant and submissive that they will not engage in specified activities. Relationship parameters, the broader context provided by the overall relationship, inherently limit the exchange according to both parties preferences or needs. Examples: "we will not do play piercing" is a limit, while "we exchange power only during scenes" is a relationship parameter.

Inclusive power exchange defines the activities that may be pursued, while exclusive defines those that may not. This is a critical distinction, since the range of possible activities in BDSM is nearly limitless. In an exclusive relationship where no limit is defined for X, doing X is the dominant's discretion. This is not true in an inclusive relationship… activities for which specific consent has not been granted are out of bounds.

http://www.leatherswede.addr.com/whatisleather.htm

What usually characterizes BDSM is an exchange of power. On some level, one partner agrees to give up some element of “normal” control of perceptions or reactions, so that the other partner can guide both of them into feeling a greater than “normal” feeling of sensual and/or erotic power, stimulation, excitement or release. This is called "power exchange" and is sometimes used synonymously with "BDSM" or "S&M."

http://www.heavyleather.com/bondage.htm

The power exchange is central to every D&S encounter, and those who regularly engage in D&S are highly attuned to the exercise of power in all aspects of their lives...
For the power exchange to work, the dominant must maintain control. [The dominant] attains psychological control by exhibiting the traits associated with power - by being direct, assertive, and aggressive; taking initiative, and showing confidence and assurance. And [the dominant] reinforces [her/his] power and status by using various dramatic techniques (costuming, lighting, body language), verbal commands, and strategies for physical control (pain, bondage, and humiliation). [The dominant] acts as if [she/he] knows exactly what [she/he] wants and does not apologize for making the submissive feel the intended discomfort.

http://www.bondagecalgary.com/articles/exchange.htm

Erotic power exchange is any situation where partners, of their own free will and choice, actively and willfully incorporate the power element in their lovemaking (and usually for a great deal in their relationship). Erotic power exchange is best known as either BDSM, S&M, D/s or sadomasochism, but these terms are all too limited, incorrect and all too frequently confused with stereotypes and forms of mental illness, which is why we like to call it Erotic Power Exchange (EPE).

Erotic power exchange can take any shape or form within a relationship between a man and a woman. From little things like blindfolding her when making love to anything like 24 hours a day, 7 days a week dedication or branding.

The shape and form it takes totally depends upon the fantasies, situation and boundaries of the partners involved. As long as it is informed consensual, safe, sane and voluntary it is called erotic power exchange. If any or all of these four elements are missing, it is called abuse.

Next, erotic power exchange requires a specific environment. Call it a biosphere, if you like. What it requires is a very sound, honest and sincere relationship, intense and open communication, trust, a lot of mutual understanding, an open mind, lots of love and care and a fair bit of creativity.

http://www.thescreamergirl.com/power.htm

So, when the subject of a “power exchange” comes up, I bristle.

Why?

Because I’m a word purist. Because it sounds like a slogan. Because I’m not giving UP power to GET power in return. I know that people believe they’re doing that – that they receive personal power by giving up their personal power in a safe, loving environment. Sometimes, I envy people who can look at BDSM that way. I don’t. Nothing is ever simple for the Screamer <g>.

For me, giving up my personal power in a relationship means – that I’m giving up my power. I don’t expect to get any power back. I DO expect to get something of equal value back. And I’m usually not disappointed. But what that is, is not power. It’s freedom. It’s acceptance. It can be sexual gratification, it can be masochistic release. It can be fulfillment of fantasy. It can be emotional release. It can be, and should be, many things to many people. But to me, it ain’t power.

http://www.subco-op.org/peacock/essays/ess5.htm

I see a power exchange as a simple relationship between two people who choose well-defined roles for themselves. There is a dominant partner who has responsibility for being the leader, and a submissive partner who has responsibility for preserving harmony while following and supporting the dominant. The two work out how each one's abilities can best meet their common needs. Sounds vanilla so far, which is no surprise. Not so many years ago what we now think of as a power exchange was a traditional marriage. The one real difference from modern day vanilla is that the two are honest about their wants and needs, without the burden of politically correct thinking.

http://www.sensuoussadie.com/bdsmre...psvsvanilla.htm

BDSM relationships have an inherent structure that may or not be present in vanilla relationships. The Dominant/submissive form is a yin/yang of giving and receiving power. The power exchange may occur with vanilla couples, but it is an unstated and covert operation. In contrast, we revel in making this exchange overt, often through written contracts. Whether it be a 24/7 Master/slave relationship or just an hour of topping someone after breakfast, the roles are clearly delineated.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/soc-subcul...dage-faq/part3/

In reality, there are many situations in life in which someone chooses to give some of their power over to another, because they trust that other to use that power wisely. Examples include entering the Army (which regulates your life for the duration of your service); getting married (which is often a commitment to abandon some of your personal autonomy); taking a job (which restricts your choices of how to spend your time); and, of course, entering a BDSM scene (during which your top has authority over what goes on). All these power exchanges are mutually agreed upon, and are mutually beneficial; when they stop being beneficial, the exchange itself should stop.

 

[Pure]

An amazing and exhaustive and exhausting set of postings.

It's almost as if she's trying to shut everyone up, but no doubt I'm paranoid and delusional.

I do hope LS, our favorite honey bun, will share one of her own thoughts on the subject, with us peasants.

 

[lark sparrow]

An amazing an exhaustive and exhausting set of postings.

It's almost as if she's trying to shut everyone up, but no doubt I'm paranoid and delusional.

I do hope LS, our favorite honey bun, will share one of her own thoughts on the subject, with us peasants

Speak for yourself, punkin - who are these "our" and "us" and "everyone" you speak of? I checked out of my own curiousity, and enjoyed the search, but found it doesn't seem a particularly difficult basic concept, even within the varying interpretations presented. It's pretty simple, and I don't think it's meant to change your life or world view. What do you think? Does it make sense?

As for things like "Assisted suicide, Legal prostitution, free dope, and all that, She says "I'm better off without my clitoris. Really." Do you go with that?", etc. - those truly have very little to do with erotic power exchange as defined in BDSM. You can of course make things as difficult and/or broad as you like - I don't mind your conflicts - I'm just not feeling them.

However, it is not my intent to shut you up - I would say I have actually encouraged you.

 

[Pure]

Thanks for all the material, honey bun. You know I'll read it. I even responded to the first, 1000-word chunk of it, but it's totalling 2300 words, now.

I hope some others will wade through part of it at least. There is lots of overlap, but much good stuff, I'm sure.



'punkin'

 

[RisiaSkye]

Pure, I'm curious: what do you think of Judith Butler's treatment of power and exchangeability? If you haven't read it for whatever reason, I think you'd get quite a kick out of The Psychic Life of Power.

RS

 

[Pure]

RS:

Pure, I'm curious: what do you think of Judith Butler's treatment of power and exchangeability? If you haven't read it for whatever reason, I think you'd get quite a kick out of The Psychic Life of Power.



Thanks for the ref.

I remember reading one of her first books, --and liking it--but haven't looked at her recently. If there's a short passage summing her views on PE, maybe you can post it.
Though there's a helluva lotta undigested material here now.

I'm an admirer of D. Haraway. Are you? Think she's relevant?

 

[Netzach]

Wheee! We are into Judith Butler on this board!

I like her gender analysis, heady as it is, have not delved into the power stuff as much. Frankly, though, the further I get from my 20's the more Theory gives me a spinning headache.

Pure, no, I'm not accusing you of accusing me (us?) of mindless relativism. That's the big hang up I have always had myself, at what point do you stop and with what criteria? Honestly I don't know in this case, it's like art, I know it when I see it, which is really not useful in a larger matrix (it seems like legal is the one you imply here but that's not the only one)

I think that my criteria are a mix of subjective and objective. If the woman who just got beaten with an electrical cord says she loves it and goes to bed crying every night, I have misgivings. If she says she loves it and goes to bed smiling most nights of the week, I'm inclined to say she must love it.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I think that my criteria are a mix of subjective and objective. If the woman who just got beaten with an electrical cord says she loves it and goes to bed crying every night, I have misgivings. If she says she loves it and goes to bed smiling most nights of the week, I'm inclined to say she must love it.

MMhm....but does she REALLY ("really") love it, or does she just think she loves it, having never sufficiently questioned the degree to which she is conditioned by the patriarchy?

 

[evesdream]

hm, but does he really enjoy beating her or does he just think he loves it, having never sufficiently questioned the degree to which he is conditioned by the patriarchy?

 

[Netzach]

MMhm....but does she REALLY ("really") love it, or does she just think she loves it, having never sufficiently questioned the degree to which she is conditioned by the patriarchy?

Hey, don't assume I'm on that bandwagon. If someone says "I want XYZ" and come off as otherwise rational, great. I want a lot of things that happen to line up with what "the Man" thinks I should want, supposedly. Oh well, guess I'm a lousy Feminist, note big F. That's been what's alienated a lot of us, when Feminists thought it would be more empowering to poke their noses into one person's bedroom and porn collection than to continue to question and address the fact that so many of us get stuck in shit jobs, die of some diseases much more quickly, still make less money for the same jobs as men, and suffer from so much depression and malaise, overeat, undereat...you get the picture. It's SO much more easy to critique my enjoyment of dirty pictures and tell me I'm succumbing to the mores of "the Man" than to approach questions with no simple answers. It's so much easier to employ an immigrant cleaning lady while you write a book on why porn is oppressive than to look at your own behavior.

However, feminism, as a concept and a notion, as a way of thinking, not the official capital F entity, if no one has noticed in the last ten years...is changing.

For those of you who have talked to no one under 40 about the subject, a lot of younger women and women who never felt comfortable in the second wave are the people calling the shots and getting the air time. We like sex. With men, women, and others. We like kinky. We like butch, femme, and neither.

We like men, not globally, but the ones who are OK, and we assume that a lot of them *are* ok. We don't automatically assume someone's OK just because she's female.
We don't automatically assume someone's female just because they were BORN that way. It's not this dogmatic, hard-nosed, Victorian thing that so many people want to paint it as.


Honestly, I don't think that most fsubs or MDoms *are* conditioned by "the patriarchy" or the going heteronormative sexual outlook, or the Dominant mainstream culture model of your choosing.

I think where there's an element of transgression there that complicates what's on the surface (and no matter how mainstream the trend may get, SM is transgressive, still. I think when we feel mainstreamed we really are in a state of complacency, I think it means you've been hanging out on the fringes too long. I thought the whole WORLD was New York City till I moved to Minneapolis, let's put it that way.

There are schools of SM/D/s whatever that specifically seek to reinforce the patriarchy or the gynesupremacy, depending who you ask, along the lines of the sexes, but I've always found them terribly boring, and the notion of the sexes terribly flawed. Note how your average Gorean and your average FemSuprematist have identical rhetoric. I always found that good for a laugh.

Is it a fluke that one of the books to garner the most attention recently features a hermaphrodite as its protagonist? Maybe we are moving towards a state of getting over it, and beginning to focus on material means as the locus of power, genitalia as a genetic crapshoot.

 

[Netzach]

Ah crap. I like eve's dream's answer to the question much better.