Understanding Submission

[spiritualxtc]

http://www.peter-masters.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Submission

Although I feel this would have been momentously more useful to me when younger, and first delving into the world of D/s and BDSM, I nonetheless think of the above link as a critical read for anyone that wants to better understand the submissive mindset, whether that someone is a Dominant or a submissive.

In fact, I feel it is particularly important for a dominant to understand the mentality, and the proper term usage, because if one is unable to truly get in the mind of their submissive, then a true power exchange is that much more difficult to achieve.

Knowledge is power; understanding is mastery.

 

[thischainedpet]

http://www.peter-masters.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Submission

Although I feel this would have been momentously more useful to me when younger, and first delving into the world of D/s and BDSM, I nonetheless think of the above link as a critical read for anyone that wants to better understand the submissive mindset, whether that someone is a Dominant or a submissive.

In fact, I feel it is particularly important for a dominant to understand the mentality, and the proper term usage, because if one is unable to truly get in the mind of their submissive, then a true power exchange is that much more difficult to achieve.

Knowledge is power; understanding is mastery.

Ooooo yes. I've read his stuff many times. Great teaching. Love it.

 

[Loverskitten]

Thanks for the link. I am new to these boards but there is a lot of talk about titles and definitions. He does a great job breaking it down and I definitely see myself clearly in one of those 3.

 

[DVS]

http://sexuality.org/search.php Search submission once at the page.

 

[midwestyankee]

The linked article has its merits but it also has a flawed foundation: the belief that to be BDSM, there must be both control and pain, discomfort, or restraint present in the relationship. This is simply not true. These are very common elements in BDSM relationships, but this idea dismisses the possibility that someone could submit to another without the presence of pain, discomfort or restraint. And yes, that does happen.

 

[spiritualxtc]

The linked article has its merits but it also has a flawed foundation: the belief that to be BDSM, there must be both control and pain, discomfort, or restraint present in the relationship. This is simply not true. These are very common elements in BDSM relationships, but this idea dismisses the possibility that someone could submit to another without the presence of pain, discomfort or restraint. And yes, that does happen.

I think you're getting your terminology confused, if I may say. I would agree that to have a functional Master/slave relationship, one does not need to base that in a foundation of pain, discomfort, or restraint. That there are indeed a number of M/s relationships, including husband and wife, where it is based purely out of love and pleasure. The lighter side to a darker fetish, if you will.

However, BDSM means Bondage/Discipline, Dominance/Submission, and Sadism/Masochism. With sadism being deriving pleasure from inflicting some measure of pain, and masochism is deriving pleasure from having pain inflicted upon oneself, I think it is safe to say within the scope of definition of the very term BDSM, that the pain and discomfort (sadism, masochism) and restraint (bondage) are in fact pillars of the BDSM community.

What you would otherwise be talking about is something no doubt remarkably close to BDSM, but not defined as it.

 

[CutieMouse]

I think you're getting your terminology confused, if I may say. I would agree that to have a functional Master/slave relationship, one does not need to base that in a foundation of pain, discomfort, or restraint. That there are indeed a number of M/s relationships, including husband and wife, where it is based purely out of love and pleasure. The lighter side to a darker fetish, if you will.

However, BDSM means Bondage/Discipline, Dominance/Submission, and Sadism/Masochism. With sadism being deriving pleasure from inflicting some measure of pain, and masochism is deriving pleasure from having pain inflicted upon oneself, I think it is safe to say within the scope of definition of the very term BDSM, that the pain and discomfort (sadism, masochism) and restraint (bondage) are in fact pillars of the BDSM community.

What you would otherwise be talking about is something no doubt remarkably close to BDSM, but not defined as it.

But how can the bondage/discipline and sadism/masochism be the only "pillars" of BDSM, when you yourself acknowledge that the BDSM acronym includes DOMINANCE/SUBMISSION - which do not in and of themselves, have anything to do with bondage, discipline, sadism or masochism?

BDSM as an acronym can mean

bondage/dominance
bondage/discipline
dominance/submission
sadism masochism

 

[midwestyankee]

I think you're getting your terminology confused, if I may say. I would agree that to have a functional Master/slave relationship, one does not need to base that in a foundation of pain, discomfort, or restraint. That there are indeed a number of M/s relationships, including husband and wife, where it is based purely out of love and pleasure. The lighter side to a darker fetish, if you will.

However, BDSM means Bondage/Discipline, Dominance/Submission, and Sadism/Masochism. With sadism being deriving pleasure from inflicting some measure of pain, and masochism is deriving pleasure from having pain inflicted upon oneself, I think it is safe to say within the scope of definition of the very term BDSM, that the pain and discomfort (sadism, masochism) and restraint (bondage) are in fact pillars of the BDSM community.

What you would otherwise be talking about is something no doubt remarkably close to BDSM, but not defined as it.

So, by your very own definition, any Master/slave relationship that is based purely out of love and pleasure does not qualify as BDSM? How does that make sense?

Look, I didn't say that the article was worthless, only that it makes an assumption about what constitutes the various forms of BDSM that is inadequate.

 

[Goodgirl4him]

http://www.peter-masters.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Submission

Although I feel this would have been momentously more useful to me when younger, and first delving into the world of D/s and BDSM, I nonetheless think of the above link as a critical read for anyone that wants to better understand the submissive mindset, whether that someone is a Dominant or a submissive.

In fact, I feel it is particularly important for a dominant to understand the mentality, and the proper term usage, because if one is unable to truly get in the mind of their submissive, then a true power exchange is that much more difficult to achieve.

Knowledge is power; understanding is mastery.

thanks for the link! I'm fairly new to all this and I'm always trying to gather as much knowledge a possible.

 

[Stella_Omega]

As an old skool-er, I tend to agree with Pete. D/s by itself isn't BDSM. It's good old-fashioned chattel marriage, with some new terminology.

 

[midwestyankee]

As an old skool-er, I tend to agree with Pete. D/s by itself isn't BDSM. It's good old-fashioned chattel marriage, with some new terminology.

With the caveat that marriage is not a necessary element in a D/s relationship.

Seems to me that so long as large numbers of people take the DS initials to refer to dominance and submission as well as their roles in the Bondage-Discipline and Sadism-Masochism parts of the acronym, then dominance-submission is, indeed, part of BDSM. Language evolves and apparently the acronmy BDSM now is widely understood to include three different dynamics and not just the two that were in its original meaning.

No matter how old school one is, it's downright reactionary to refuse to accept this wider interpretation of the acronym. And I don't generally think of you as reactionary, Stella.

 

[Loverskitten]

http://sexuality.org/search.php Search submission once at the page.

Well that's not overwhelming at all :/

 

[Stella_Omega]

With the caveat that marriage is not a necessary element in a D/s relationship.

indeed, but the dynamics are mostly the same, regardless of how the relationship was entered into.

Seems to me that so long as large numbers of people take the DS initials to refer to dominance and submission as well as their roles in the Bondage-Discipline and Sadism-Masochism parts of the acronym, then dominance-submission is, indeed, part of BDSM. Language evolves and apparently the acronmy BDSM now is widely understood to include three different dynamics and not just the two that were in its original meaning.

No matter how old school one is, it's downright reactionary to refuse to accept this wider interpretation of the acronym. And I don't generally think of you as reactionary, Stella.

I said: D/s By itself is not BDSM.

D/s can be part of BDSM, always has been. It can't be all of it, and never has been.

you young whippersnappers...

 

[DVS]

Well that's not overwhelming at all :/

Who said it was going to be overwhelming? It's just another web site and the many definitions of submission.

 

[darlynd]

If one may interject. "Understanding Submission" as a topic is very broad. Submission, as a concept, is what is agreed upon by those to whom the concept is being applied.

My Master and I may have come to our own terms on what our concept of submission should be. Our definition, or anyone else's, should not be made to apply to any other, but may be considered as an option for others.

Just an opinion …

 

[bhndblueyes88]

indeed, but the dynamics are mostly the same, regardless of how the relationship was entered into.I said: D/s By itself is not BDSM.

D/s can be part of BDSM, always has been. It can't be all of it, and never has been.

you young whippersnappers...

I have to agree with yankee, though, Stella. As someone who appears to work so hard for change, and to work to achieve acceptance for people, you seem oddly resistant to it on topics like this.

I don't necessarily disagree with your statement that, by itself, D/s isn't really BDSM. Honestly, you'll find some degree of D/s dynamics in most interpersonal dynamics. People rarely function on truly even footing with each other, particularly once a peaceful equilibrium is reached in relations.

However, I don't think you necessarily need to be "all of the above or nothing" either. Do you think that people MUST be into bondage, AND sadomasochism, AND D/s in order to be classified as practicing BDSM? Also, how stringint are you willing to apply those terms to people to classify them as being into those practices? I love the sensation of rope, think knots are fascinating, and love being tied up, but you will never get me into some suspension contortion, and honestly, my joints probably wouldn't handle much contortion at all very far beyond a simple hog tie. How does that classify me in terms of bondage? Do I do bondage, or not? That's rhetorical, btw. Just meant as an example. Where are the lines going to be drawn, if you insist on drawing them?

My point is just that if one is going to espouse to acceptance of a wide variety of individuals, but then say than only a small number of those individuals "actually belong" in your group... it's kind of contradictory. Is it just the use of "BDSM" as a specific definition? Like, are people who only practice D/s and bondage still part of the "BDSM Community" but not "BDSM"? Or would you say they're not part of the community at all, even, and are just using "your label" for their purposes?

 

[KoPilot]

Man this is sooo why I stopped giving any sort of fuck about the whys and wherefores about what I classify myself and my relationship as. We're all going to be an imposter to somebody.

As for the article, yeah it's alright. It ain't no gospel though.

 

[DVS]

Man this is sooo why I stopped giving any sort of fuck about the whys and wherefores about what I classify myself and my relationship as. We're all going to be an imposter to somebody.

As for the article, yeah it's alright. It ain't no gospel though.

I agree. Labels, schmabels. I try not to get mixed up in discussions involving politics, religion, books vs. movies, American muscle cars vs. foreign sports cars, whether size matters, Coke or Pepsi and never EVER the nuts and bolts of submission. When talking about something that's as individual as submission, everybody...and I do mean EVERYBODY will have an opinion.

 

[darlynd]

Where's the 'like' button when you really need one.

Well said DVS

 

[switchbitch]

Man this is sooo why I stopped giving any sort of fuck about the whys and wherefores about what I classify myself and my relationship as. We're all going to be an imposter to somebody.

As for the article, yeah it's alright. It ain't no gospel though.

I so agree with you.

 

[KoPilot]

I agree. Labels, schmabels. I try not to get mixed up in discussions involving politics, religion, books vs. movies, American muscle cars vs. foreign sports cars, whether size maters, Coke or Pepsi and never EVER the nuts and bolts of submission. When talking about something that's as individual as submission, everybody...and I do mean EVERYBODY will have an opinion.

Exactly. There are opinions, and there's ideology... the difference is that one is far more likely to change through the course of a discussion than the other, and the other isn't likely to change much at all. That's why I don't even see the point in talking about it anymore. Label fetishists will always have that need to categorize, and others won't. And that's that.

Yes I realize the irony in that second-to-last sentence.

 

[Curious_in_Cali]

Awww. I remember this. WAY fun to think about. My own conclusions about my own labels were somewhat soothing, but then again maybe not all that conclusive after all. If this article resonates with how you see submission, then you are on the right track to defining and claiming what you need and want. Yay for that. THAT, in my opinion, is what is really important here.

Thank you for sharing this as I am still fascinated by how different people can interpret these labels. I do have to admit though, that upon reading his definitions for submissives, I am now quite curious how many types of dominants he feels there are and which type he would shuffle himself under. I think his perspective on that could be brain tickling.

 

[thischainedpet]

I agree with MANY of the above posts. I am a firm believer that these relationships are whatever is "right" for the ones involved. No labels needed. There's way too many "categories" etc. When it is real, it's what both sides desire.. or agreed upon. I just enjoy his writing... I have a way of gleening from almost anything I read.

And please excuse if I strayed way off topic. I wasn't able to read many of the the posts after the original post.

 

[Stella_Omega]

OMIGOD you guys, don't ask me to THINK!

Well here are some thoughts, no conclusions as of yet-- if anything sounds like a complete statement, be kind, will you? I'm just thinking aloud.

Hmm. I am pretty dogmatic about the definitions of words.

Not so much about the definitions of people-- Everyone has the right to define themselves-- but I do encourage people to look honestly at themselves and the labels they use. Self Definition will only get you so far when you get around other people...

BDSM is a combination of power and physical play. SM is physical play. Ds is power play. ("Bondage and Discipline" refers to the restraint implicit in bondage, FYI. As in; "you gonna stay right there." A hog tie is as good as a suspension harness in that regard!)


***

Okay... there ARE reasons why D/s is distinguishable from marriage as we currently define marriage (but pretty much indistinguishable from the way we used to define marriage, at least when the marriage was MAN/woman).

One of those is the right of the Dominant to impose his or her will on the submissive in any way they see fit. That includes things the submissive might not normally agree to, outside of this type of relationship. Which would, I think, imply a certain amount of what we might call comfort play, much like painplay, or humiliation play, or any other form of imposition. Somebody is going to have to acquisece to something they otherwise wouldn't want. Or at least, that possibility is going to be there.

I might even say that this dynamic of "imposition" is exactly what defines BDSm in general, either physically, or power, or emotional... I'm sure there are other words for what I'm trying to say here as well.

For instance;

So, by your very own definition, any Master/slave relationship that is based purely out of love and pleasure does not qualify as BDSM? How does that make sense?

here's a little riff on the theme....

Master and slave, by the strictest of definitions, means that the slave has NO rights beyond what Master bestows. You might play using safewords, but you, as Master have the right to withdraw safewords from your slave. You might dole out nothing but pleasure and love, but that's your decision. Not hers. You might acquiesce to her wishes but that's your indulgence. If you decided to withdraw your indulgences, a slave will have nothing to say about it. If you wanted to, as we say "break your toy" well-- broken or not, it's still your toy.

I am not saying that your relationship is anything as absolute as that, but once again-- you gotta be aware that that's the definition, the benchmark, by which M/s is defined. That's why it's called
Master/slave," right?

So yeah, that's how D/s and M/s fit into BDSM. the cultures has softened and re-vamped a lot of practices, and that's a damn good thing IMO! You used to not get much say in how you got tied up, for instance. Now, you get to set limits. I am ALL for it. ALLLL in favor of limits, mutual respect, RACk and SSC. SO many concepts that did not exist when I was trying to figure this stuff out.

I really love it that we can protect ourselves from predators, that we can educate people, that someone with very low tolerances can have those limits respected. Nobody has to be competitive, or limited, or shamed for not being able to contort in a suspension harness. We've taken a lot of steps.

But there's someplace in those fuzzy lines where you might be able to say that someone is outside the line, Like-- you like a good hogtie, and you like knots. Okay. You're still using them, in an interpersonal way, maybe. Someone else might like a picture of knots hanging on a wall, even have practiced tying knots over their wrist but never wanted to use those knots on another person. They MIGHT call themselves a "bondage enthusiast, I can't stop them-- but I wouldn't think of that person that way.

In the same way, we see so many people who show up here and call themselves "Submissive" because... because they feel like calling themselves that. But what does that mean, in real time, if say, I took someone on?

Me, I love the words master" and "slave", they get me hot. I fantasize about M/s situations, call someone "Master"or "Mistress" or alternatively, "pet" or "slave" during a scene. But! I don't define myself that way. Nobody has that much power over me, and I do not have that much power over someone else. I'm pretty rigorous like that, when it comes to definitions.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

OMIGOD you guys, don't ask me to THINK!

Lol sorry. thanks though, see what you meant more clearly