Who Really Has the Power in a DS Relationship?

[Sean Malone]

BDSM Tourguide, I agree. We have had some great and thought-provoking discussions on this site, but in the end, even though the idea infuriates some, the submissive is always actually in control, because otherwise all you have is abuse.

Individually we are suited for a particular role, whatever that is, but what is our incentive to surrender our idea about that role is, and submit to another person's ideas about how we might be useful to them, without any compensating personal satisfaction in our own terms? This is a difficult and complex issue, but it is at the heart of who and what we are.

Most people want a relationship to go some way towards indulging their own personal fantasies. That would really work. Indulging another person's fantasies without that compensation is not the same thing at all.

If you really love a woman, what turns you on more than anything is doing what turns her on. Any amount of 'what's in this for me' can never match up to the awesome success of pleasing her. Whether she wants pain, pleasure or just to be pregnant doesn't matter. It's all in there somewhere.

So really, both partners need to be unselfish in pleasing the other, or they fail to achieve the ultimate compensation for that sacrifice.

[Ranai]

It seems that we agree on the rules, and disagree on how to describe the abstract principles these rules are based on.
(Where are the lawyers when we need them? Smartass kitten? Do you perhaps have a definition of power in a social relationship to hand?)


Anyway, the opening article in this thread has the great merit of pointing out what deplorably enough too often goes unnoticed: What the submissive party can decide and do.
Perhaps it does the discussion no harm to point out the complementary facts. They are less intriguing, because they are rather obvious: What the dominant party can decide and do.

The submissive has to be willing.
The dominant, too.
Story of all those experimenting people who asked someone to tie them up for sexual play and got a refusal, and went on looking for someone who would.

The submissive is allowed to say no, and set limits.
The dominant, too.
If, for example, the submissive wants to try out a type of play the dominant is too uncomfortable with, the dominant is not under an obligation to do it.

The submissive can interrupt or stop a scene.
The dominant, too.
If the dominant party feels that a time-out is needed, or the scene is going into an unfortunate direction, the dominant can call a hold, too. Just does not use a safeword for it.

The submissive is always free to end the relationship and move on.
The dominant, too.
Though some seem to choose the rather cowardly option of withdrawing into silence, or provoking an unpleasant scene, and leave it to the other to formally state that the relationship is over! :yuck:

So I agree that it is all based on compromise and free agreement between free people.
From my point of view, that is so because there is no power involved.


Sources of power
Factual power in a social relationship can come from various different sources.
Legal power. Political power. Economic power. Status difference in an authoritarian, hierarchical context. Fear. Structural violence. Physical violence. Threats. Blackmail. And lots of other things. Frequently exploited for sexual gain in reality.
We also find these alluring power themes in erotic fiction, along with various fantasy power sources such as mind control.
What they all have in common is that, as soon as there is a power difference between real people or between fictional characters, there can be no free consent between them. If one party has power over the other, it is not consent, it is coercion.


Something that has not really been discussed in this thread yet:

'I need you' as a 'source of power'
It may seem appealing to bring the power factor 'I need you so much, I can not be happy without you' into play. It may be an intoxicating sensation to feel desperately needed. Someone who thinks 'I can not be happy without you, but you could be happy without me' might perceive the other's option to leave as a factual source of power. Does this occur in reality? Does someone believe, or remember believing in earnest 'I can not be happy without you'? Then this 'power factor' might be worth further discussion.

In my opinion, being part of a happy relationship is being one of someone's causes of happiness of choice. Not someone's only chance of happiness. Personally, I would not believe someone who in earnest tried to convince me that he/she could not be happy without me. I can't make anyone happy. I can offer sources of happiness. In specific terms, I believe that my partner could be happy without me, and I could be happy without him.

But if someone believes that their happiness depends on the other, the option to leave might be interpreted as a power factor.

Separation hurts terribly, but the hurt does not last forever. If there is a very serious compatibility problem between two people, they can not have a happy relationship anyway, try as they might. And, as mentioned above, de facto both parties always have the option to leave. So personally, I do not see the option to end a relationship as a factual source of power of one party over the other.

Perhaps there is some food for discussion here?


Practical relevance?
It does not seem to make that much practical difference how one formulates the abstract basis of the rules. (Though I really wish someone could help the discussion with a definition of 'power'.)
'Everything is always subject to the submissive's agreement, because the submissive ultimately holds the power in our relationship.'

I would formulate it like this:
'Everything is always subject to the submissive's agreement, because nobody holds any power in our relationship.'

[ProjectEuropa]

Though I really wish someone could help the discussion with a definition of 'power'.

There are many definitions of power but the one required for this discussion I would put forward as 'A person of great influence, force or authority'

'Everything is always subject to the submissive's agreement, because nobody holds any power in our relationship.'

Maybe in your relationship but I would imagine in many relationships one party or the other has more power than the other, should people analyse their position. The fact that a relationship is consensual means in theory no one holds power but I wonder how true that is for most couples in reality. One can always walk out of a relationship but when? If you give up a relationship too easily you will never have one of any consequence or you could hold onto a relationship so long it eats you up. A relationship is a balancing act and to succeed has to be to mutual benefit but one party can become more dependent on the other but the relationship still functions. You are defining a model relationship, not an actual relationship. How many people have been distraught as their partner has walked out on them? The very fact that happens so often means that many relationships have been struggling with consensus and one has had more power than the other, the power to walk away which the distraught partner probably felt they didn't have that power.

What they all have in common is that, as soon as there is a power difference between real people or between fictional characters, there can be no free consent between them. If one party has power over the other, it is not consent, it is coercion.

Very little fiction survives without conflict of one sort or another because it is the conflict whether actual or perceived, whether external or internal that drives the characters in the plot. I have read very little fiction that is satisfying where there is no conflict. I have read several in the library with no conflict and felt a lack of satisfaction, primarily I think because the prose was not poetic enough for me to find fulfilling without the driving force of conflict. But why do we like conflict in our fiction? I think it is because we recognize the conflict and we are looking in on ourselves.

[Ranai]

Very little fiction survives without conflict of one sort or another...

Yes, I agree. What's a plot without a conflict? Maybe we can try a separate thread on power themes in erotic fiction at some point...

Just a brief clarification on my own predilections, in case you overlooked it in my posts. In this very thread I wrote: 'Power as an ingredient in erotic fiction and fantasy provides the thrill without the drawbacks' and 'We also find these alluring power themes in erotic fiction...' By which I mean, personally I like power themes and coercion in erotic fiction.

OK, sorry about the interruption, back to the real world and the 'Knowledge Base' discussion...

[slavelucy]

i'll keep this brief; i think the sub has the power to say where it doesn't go...the dom, from there, says where it does go; the rest of the autonomy in a scene or a lifestyle is theirs.

sl

[GaryWilcox]

i'll keep this brief; i think the sub has the power to say where it doesn't go...the dom, from there, says where it does go; the rest of the autonomy in a scene or a lifestyle is theirs.

Yeah-- what she said!

[Donatien]

[QUOTE=ProjectEuropa]There are many definitions of power but the one required for this discussion I would put forward as 'A person of great influence, force or authority'
........I would imagine in many relationships one party or the other has more power than the other, should people analyse their position. The fact that a relationship is consensual means in theory no one holds power but I wonder how true that is for most couples in reality. One can always walk out of a relationship but when? If you give up a relationship too easily you will never have one of any consequence or you could hold onto a relationship so long it eats you up. A relationship is a balancing act and to succeed has to be to mutual benefit but one party can become more dependent on the other but the relationship still functions. You are defining a model relationship, not an actual relationship.

Once again, I find myself in absolute agreement with you PE, reality is murkier and more complicated than TG's excellent but slightly idealistic essay implies.
Suppose for example , a young natural submissive, with extreme fantasies of an abusive nature , meets and is taken off her feet, by an older dominant sadist, who starts moulding her to his tastes. AT this point the relationship may indeed be mutually consensual; but does that consent, therefore make it not 'abusive', even though her need for degradation , being matched by his need to degrade, results in no safe words and no limits to her abuse. It could be that the implicit imbalance between their ages, maturity of mind, experience of the world, the differential power balance in their external world ( e.g teacher/pupil, doctor/patient, boss/ employee) , compounded by her own psychological needs, removes any of the normal checks and balances, so that over time a form of of brain washing occurs, such as occurs in the stockholm syndrome ( like occurred to patty hearst), or in many abusive relationships, with the result that though the sub still fervently believing that she is fulfilling her own needs and desires in agreeing to escalating abuse, has in fact lost perspective and has effectively become brain washed, albeit to some extent of her own volition.

Now this may seem extreme, but psychologically it is all too possible , and it blurs the outlines of consent. In these borderline areas, considerable responsibility resides with the dom; if he succumbs to his impulses the situation will spiral into abuse, just as it not infrequently does in non bdsm relationships with similar unequal power balances. This situation is a particular risk where the dominant partner has a rigid unbending personality, that comes across a 'strong', but is often defensive and full of anger. In psychiatry there is a condition called 'folie a deu', where it appears that a couple ( siblings, parent/offspring, whatever) in a house are both psychotic with the same delusions; but after a spell in hospital with them separated it becomes clear that only the dominant partner is psychotic, the other has has no illness at all , but over time has adapted to the dominant partners belief systems as a psychological survival trick.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

Once again, I find myself in absolute agreement with you PE, reality is murkier and more complicated than TG's excellent but slightly idealistic essay implies.

Suppose for example , a young natural submissive, with extreme fantasies of an abusive nature , meets and is taken off her feet, by an older dominant sadist, who starts moulding her to his tastes. AT this point the relationship may indeed be mutually consensual; but does that consent, therefore make it not 'abusive', even though her need for degradation , being matched by his need to degrade, results in no safe words and no limits to her abuse. It could be that the implicit imbalance between their ages, maturity of mind, experience of the world, the differential power balance in their external world ( e.g teacher/pupil, doctor/patient, boss/ employee) , compounded by her own psychological needs, removes any of the normal checks and balances, so that over time a form of of brain washing occurs, such as occurs in the stockholm syndrome ( like occurred to patty hearst), or in many abusive relationships, with the result that though the sub still fervently believing that she is fulfilling her own needs and desires in agreeing to escalating abuse, has in fact lost perspective and has effectively become brain washed, albeit to some extent of her own volition.

Idealistic? :hmmm:

What you are describing isn't BDSM, though. It doesn't fall into the area of an SSC relationshp at all, because neither of them are safe or sane. It's also doesn't fall into the areas of a RACK relationship either, since the submissive partner is obviously not aware of the risk.

BDSM implies much, much more than consent. It implies a healthy commitment, a safe environment, and an agreement of mutual respect from each partner. The situation you describe in your example is none of those things. It's just simply pshychological and physical abuse disguised behind the banner of a supposed BDSM relationship.

In your example, both parties need therapy, not each other.

[Donatien]

Idealistic? :hmmm:

What you are describing isn't BDSM, though. It doesn't fall into the area of an SSC relationshp at all, because neither of them are safe or sane. It's also doesn't fall into the areas of a RACK relationship either, since the submissive partner is obviously not aware of the risk.

BDSM implies much, much more than consent. It implies a healthy commitment, a safe environment, and an agreement of mutual respect from each partner. The situation you describe in your example is none of those things. It's just simply pshychological and physical abuse disguised behind the banner of a supposed BDSM relationship.

In your example, both parties need therapy, not each other.

Thank you TG , for your forceful, and cogent response to my comments. I thought that "idealistic" would provoke one, and am very pleased with the result because I totally agree with you; but don't think that everybody out there realises the fundamental truth of what you say. Its needed to be said and to be repeated from time to time.

[ProjectEuropa]

Thank you TG , for your forceful, and cogent response to my comments. I thought that "idealistic" would provoke one, and am very pleased with the result because I totally agree with you; but don't think that everybody out there realises the fundamental truth of what you say. Its needed to be said and to be repeated from time to time.

You give up too easily Donatien. TG is describing what a model BDSM relationship should be like not what an actual BDSM relationship might be like. It's a little like the Pope saying, that crimes committed by Christians are not crimes committed by the church. The church can't deny its congregation's crimes and keep its credibilty.

People are not static, the human mind is like shifting sand, we constantly drift from one psychological landscape into another and so do not conform happily to model relationships. We all know or should know, what BDSM relationships are about but how many relationships actually conform to that model? Just as few vanilla relationships conform to a so called norm, without rigid conservative values that tend to warp and restrict the people who hold them.

The woman who intellectually articulated BDSM to me, constantly talked of trust and the importance of trust. I have never had a relationship with a woman who has talked about trust as much as she did. I ended trusting her implicitly so much so I gave up more for her than I would have given up for anyone else (what fools men are!). She was the one woman I have had a relationship with that I shouldn't have trusted because she herself was incapable of trust. But how does one know that until it is too late?

Yes, we can define model relationships and what we should aspire to but we have to be realistic about the human condition with its frailties. Subs are willingly submissive but not necessarily so. Doms might be invited to be dominant but not necessarily so. We can't look into people's minds and say whether they are following the code or not. Because a BDSM relationship might become actual abuse or because of manipulation it becomes dishonest we can't actually turn round in horror and say that is not BDSM. We can show our disapproval but to become a Pope denying christian crimes is not an option if one wants to remain credible.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

The submissive has to be willing.
The dominant, too.
Story of all those experimenting people who asked someone to tie them up for sexual play and got a refusal, and went on looking for someone who would.

This is true. Consent on either side is required. Refusal to play with someone doesn't alter any power in a relationship aspect that never existed in the first place. Everyone has the right to say no.

The submissive is allowed to say no, and set limits.
The dominant, too.
If, for example, the submissive wants to try out a type of play the dominant is too uncomfortable with, the dominant is not under an obligation to do it.

Indeed. The difference is choice. The dominant may choose to set his limits apart from his submissives and not perform activities of which he is ignorant or unsure. The dominant is required to not perform any activities which the submissive has named as limits without first discussing and negotiating a change in those limits. Often, with a couple of practice runs to see how the activity is received by the submissive and whether she wishes to continue to a more serious level.

The submissive can interrupt or stop a scene.
The dominant, too.
If the dominant party feels that a time-out is needed, or the scene is going into an unfortunate direction, the dominant can call a hold, too. Just does not use a safeword for it.

Yes, but again, the operative word is choice. The dominant may choose to stop a scene if he feels a break is needed, or if he feels something about the scene is wrong or if there may be a safety issue. That is the mark of a responsible dominant. The dominant is rerquired to end a scene once the submissive uses her safeword. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. The scene ends, the parties talk about why it ended, and if the submissive is willing to continue, the scene may again be started.

A dominant stopping a scene on his own choice shows responsibility to the submissive. Caring, respect, safety and communication from both parties should be expected, not a pleasant surprise.

The submissive is always free to end the relationship and move on.
The dominant, too.
Though some seem to choose the rather cowardly option of withdrawing into silence, or provoking an unpleasant scene, and leave it to the other to formally state that the relationship is over! :yuck:

Yes, but this is true of any relationship, not just DS ones. They have a word for forcing someone to maintain a relationship with you even after they've asked to leave. It's called kidnapping.

So I agree that it is all based on compromise and free agreement between free people.
From my point of view, that is so because there is no power involved.

Even though I pointed out counterpoints to your "no power" arguement, I will still agree with you. I have always maintained that a BDSM relationship is still a relationship. It's no different from a vanilla relationship in the expectations of caring, respect, trust, honesty, and communication. When it comes to the actual DS element, however, I will still say the ultimate control of what does or does not happen rests with the submissive for the reasons I gave above.

[Hunter]

This is true. Consent on either side is required. Refusal to play with someone doesn't alter any power in a relationship aspect that never existed in the first place. Everyone has the right to say no.

I have always maintained that a BDSM relationship is still a relationship. It's no different from a vanilla relationship in the expectations of caring, respect, trust, honesty, and communication. When it comes to the actual DS element, however, I will still say the ultimate control of what does or does not happen rests with the submissive for the reasons I gave above.

This is one of the few things on this site that I've read so far that makes sense to me. Some of the other arguments listed here are ones I've heard many times, usually between the snap of the cuffs and the words duck your head and get in the back seat. They didn't impress me then and they don't now.

I don't think it has to be a mile worth of words. For either person it boils down to who do you trust and are they trustworthy. If they are great. If they're not, get out before the paramedics are called.