"Zelophilia," "Stigmatophilia," but no "Obedience"

I spent some time looking at the online resource "BDSM for Dummies."  Essentially it is a glossary of terms.  Presumably, by reading the definitions of these terms, one might get a sense of what one desires when entering the realm of BDSM.

It explains a lot, albeit briefly.  Zelophilia is sexual arousal from jealousy, which I never realized is a thing.  (And of course it must be a thing given how much jealous behaviour there is in the world!) And there's Stigmatophilia, which is sexual arousal from body markings -- tats and piercings and such.  These and many other conditions are in the glossary of BDSM terms, and curiously enough, what's missing?  Obedience!

This is one of the most important words in the BDSM lifestyle, is it not?  Obedience.

Consider words like "control," and "domination," and "mastery," and "sadism."  These words would describe illegal, unconstitutional behaviour without the consenting "obedience" from the other side of that relationship.  Mastery without obedience is just, well, abuse.  Obedience is such an important word!

Consider words like "submission," and "safe words," and "hand cuffs," and "hypophilia" (sexual arousal from breath play):  these words would lack the willing participation of a sub without the inherent desire to obey.  Submission, like obedience, can be forced -- yes it is true.  Forced by another word called "duress" and yet another, "coercion."  However, submission without obedience is the difference between "brat" and "beloved."  Submission without obedience is not how I imagine my submission.  And, obedience without submission is like the Story of O -- obeying a chateau full of men one has not submitted to, intimately and wholly.

Still, the word "obedience" is a crucially-important word: it implies choice.  It says that the submissive has chosen (on some level, even if far removed from the present time and place) to give her power away so that others may use it.  People ask, "Where is the submissive's power? I thought Domination took away all the power."  That power, friends, is in the consent.  Is in the obedience.  Is in the day after day obedience.  Is in the repeated vows of submission that, still, to this day, hold true.  That power is in the consent.  Because without that consent, there is no power surrendered.  Without understanding her dedication to obedience, no Master can dominate the mind and soul and heart of a submissive.

The BDSM glossary has lots of arrows pointed towards sexual stimulation.  I suppose it is a common understanding that the BDSM lifestyle is a sexually-charged lifestyle... but I still maintain that for me it is not.  My submission means other things.

 

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.

Needs, Part Three

My mentor asks, "What is trust? Do we need it? Can we have a relationship without it?"

On a large scale, I believe civilization's fundamental bedrock is trust: therefore, we cannot have relationships without trust.  I believe, for myself, that I could not cross at a green light, board a high-speed train, or eat food purchased at a local market without trusting all manner of people whom I've never met but who, nevertheless, preserve my life for another day with their predictable and benevolent behaviour.  We need to be able to trust even on an unconscious level, or else we remain paralyzed and afraid of our own shadow.

On a more intimate scale (since intimacy and need are my focus right now), I believe that someone can trust me who has learned to depend on my judgment; who has learned to rely on my priorities and my ability to prioritize someone's sensitive issues; who has learned to read and understand my behaviours which consistently provide a "no-surprise" environment where sensitive issues are concerned.

To do otherwise would be a "surprise" environment -- or, in other words, it would be shocking, an emotional violence.  The extent of the violence depends on the extent of the betrayal.  Part of the trust a person places in me, however, is how terribly I would feel if I were to cause another to be so shocked by betrayal.

On the most intimate scale (since we get to the heart of the matter now) I need trust.  I need to be able to rely upon someone as readily as I offer my own reliability.  I need a "no-surprise" environment.  I need to take for granted that someone will behave in such a way.  Needs, part three:  I need safety from shocks and emotional violence.  Even accidental.

Wants, part one:  I would like to play.  I would like to play with physical boundaries. I would like to play with someone I would never doubt.  I would like to play with someone who takes play seriously; someone who flirts with the physical but who never, ever betrays the emotional.  Side effect of this learning:  As I become more honest, I require more honest.