Imbalance of power from the other side

Power imbalance from the bottom is an idea that doesn't (in my humble opinion) get enough exposure in the world.  It is part of the idea of "mental health" that is essential to peaceful and rewarding human relations: a balance of power in a power-exchange is the only way this is going to work.  The power must flow like circulating blood, to and fro, between the partners, an ebb and flow like tide and ocean.  The sun must not dry out the water supply without providing the relief of rain; the rain must not pour indefinitely without providing recovering spells of dryness.

It is an idea to meditate upon, for sure: it does not look the same for everybody.  It feels differently for everybody.  But we all know (or do we?) when our power is being drained without restoring it.

(I am not talking about topping from the bottom.  Sometimes a sub takes the top position if there is a power-vacuum and nobody else is taking control, and there's no whining about it:  if a dom wants the control back, it's there to take.  I am talking, instead, about a chronic abuse of power; a time-after-time lack of needs-met, and placing the blame squarely upon the shoulders of someone else.)

It has been my experience that people in dominant situations have drained me of all my good humour and loving disposition (historically, not presently) and it has been a good learning to discover I can prevent this from ever happening again.  My main source of frustration, historically, is the lack of self-governance -- the lack of mental clarity and self-respect among those who presume to dominate others.  (Sir Will, Sir Tony, Sir Dwight, Sir RB, and of course Tasdron -- you have a lot to teach the world about good mental health and I thank you for being such positive role models in the world.)  But what about if the roles were reversed?  What about submissives who drain the resources of a dominant?  Can a dominant personality recognize it and distance from it when it is happening, without feeling like a failure?

Just as a submissive might think, "I am a failed sub because I cannot obey every single thing he asks for..." when he is asking for too much, so can a dominant think, "I am a failed dom because I cannot govern her wild moods and incredible emotional outbursts, no matter how I try..." when she is asking for too much (time, attention, solitude, life-force, punishment, discipline, sex, whatever).

Finding the proper balance -- meeting the needs of others and meeting one's own regimen of personal care -- is the key, of course.  It is something to strive for daily.  It means dominating one's environment and one's life: it means a dom is really, through and through, a dom.  Of course there will be imbalanced days when one gives more than is restored, or when one takes more than one has given.  If this is a chronic, persistent state then the imbalance is unhealthy, obviously.  If this is acute and rare, on the other hand, it falls within the range of human experience that can reasonably be expected of people to handle.  We all have bad days, even bad weeks, right?  We bounce back and give back, later.

When the honeymoon between sub and dom is over and when the reality of day to day living comes into focus, the balance of power had also better come into focus.  And this touches on issues of compatibility: during the honeymoon everybody is on their best behaviour and high as a kite from all those happy oxytocin and seratonin bursts from cuddles and undivided attention.  But does that mean you both are compatible?  No; it just means you feel good together, physically.  Other elements such as common interests, common habits, common routines that take you both out of the house for a while, common friends, or common desires to keep separate spaces (for example) will determine overall compatibility which will, in turn, determine regular and healthy doses of oxytocin and seratonin.  Not to put too fine a point on it.  Time will tell, in other words, and so patience... patience... patience.

And what can go wrong?  Someone gets stuck in the honeymoon while the other moves on to more realistic living.  Or, someone's best behaviour becomes too exhausting to maintain.  Or, someone failed to spell out a few key expectations during the negotiation period.  Or, someone failed to negotiate at all.  So much can go wrong and that smile turns upside down.  How will the submissive react?  How will the dominant control the situation?  Is this a problem of communication within the relationship, or is this a mental health issue?  Is the dominant behaving according to his own code, and is the submissive deteriorating into an unmanageable mess regardless?  Are the two partners simply not finding their compatibility anymore, and is either one of them really to blame?

I would like to let both parties off the hook and propose that a) Domination works only when the submissive gives her power to be dominated; b) Submission works only when the dominant actively seeks to understand the wonderful complexities of that offering; c) Compatibility works only when both parties want it to; and d) If either one tries to suck the emotional blood of the other, there is no harm in cutting loose if that is what will save your life.  It is neither a failure of domination nor of submission if you must cut loose someone who drains you.  And there is nobody to blame, either: there is learning, and then there is flowing onward as the sun shines over the next hill.

* * *

Also, I really like this 10 quick tips to boost your seratonin.  This relates to physical and mental wellness, and frankly I do not trust a dominant (or a submissive!) who does not strive for perfect wellness.  (Nobody can achieve perfect wellness, but we can strive!  And keep striving.  It is a discipline that demonstrates the right attitude.)

Violence and Safety

There is a newspaper article that talks about ten things to end the rape culture -- a culture that we, as a human species, take as granted.  This is a topic that is important to keep top of mind when discussing BDSM and, even more, the fantasy of force.  Often, BDSM and "force fantasy" and "Gorean fantasy" are all conflated in the online gaming community, and it is sometimes difficult to separate the three ideas when such a sexually-charged atmosphere governs each one without apology.

Indeed, often a new submissive will stroll into the community, freshly-decked in 'the right clothes' to attract 'like-minded kinksters' and, as surely as a brand new uniform identifies the young and impressionable in any population, 'She' becomes precisely the target 'He' has been waiting for.  "She wears leather and studs, and she shows a lot of leg and cleavage.  Surely, she must want to be captured, humiliated, and raped," says the unscrupulous predator to himself, and he springs into action.

It is regrettable, actually, that the acronym "BDSM" contributes to this kind of thinking: it is, otherwise, such a handy acronym.  Unfortunately, guilt-by-association:  the B and the D and the S and M are so close together that people conveniently assume consent-for-one means consent-for-all.  In fact, that is not true at all: simply because a person is interested in the B, it does not follow that the person is also interested in the S/m.  And, simply because a person might be interested in some light  or strict or exploratory or conditional S/m, it does not follow that she is interested also in the idea of humiliation -- something not even represented in the acronym at all but, for some reason, people just inflict at will.  (A person can explore masochism without feeling humiliated.  It is faulty thinking to assume one equals the other.)  And, simply because a person might be interested in humiliation, it does not follow that she is necessarily interested in ROPE bondage as opposed to, say, cages or chains or cupcakes.  And ultimately, it is a bad assumption to make about a woman definitely wanting a punishing rape because of what she's wearing that day.  Bad, bad assumption.  Brain-damaged assumption.

Force-fantasy, slavery, humiliation... these are ideas that a very specific few people cherish appropriately, relegated as they may be to the darker side of sexual exploration.  These are ideas that, until one has enthusiastically consented to them (not just an absence of "no" but, rather, an enthusiastic and resounding "Yes, I am positively sure!") there is no consent.  And if there is no consent, there is no earthly reason to practice these things.  There is no right.

I wondered, when I began my journey over a year ago, why "consent" was such a big deal for the BDSM community -- and thank God, it is a big deal.  It was so unlike Gor to require the consent of another person before inflicting dark fantasy upon her.  Gor is, after all, a gender-based force-fantasy: women are weaker and submissive because of their gender, goes the argument.  There is no reason to seek consent from someone naturally weaker and naturally available to rape, goes the thinking.  They do not ask the cow its consent before slaughtering it for food: why ask the woman her consent before violating her?

The reason, I have long since discovered, consent is such a big deal in the BDSM community is because we live in a rape-culture that we take as granted.  We naturally assume it will be dangerous for women to walk alone at night, and that women do not enjoy the safety in public as they do in their own home (we hope, anyway, that a woman's home is a safe haven).  We also know that there are women in the world for whom violence and force are fantasies, and that there are partners in the world for whom indulging such fantasies is pleasurable.  And these people, when they are allowed to come together in safety, sanity, and consent, may live out their fantasies (a permission that all intelligent, free-minded people ought to enjoy) without inflicting trauma as a consequence.