Who Really Has the Power in a DS Relationship?

[BDSM_Tourguide]

The nature of the DS relationship is one of power exchange, but what does power exchanged mean? Who are the people and who is really giving, taking, and holding the power?

Many dominants will answer this question and say that the dominant is the one in the position of power in the DS relationship. The dominant holds the control in the relationship and, therefore, must be the one with the power. That is, in fact, one myth that should be dispelled quickly. The dominant partner does not control the relationship. It is not the dominant’s position to assume, take, or seize control of anything. The dominant may set rules, may enforce discipline, and may suggest activities and assignments, but the knowledgeable dominant never takes control. It’s not his to take anyway. Taking control from a person is a form of manipulation and is, therefore, abuse. Since the DS relationship should be one of caring and understanding, and not one of manipulation and force, the taking away of control is contrary to the nature of that relationship.

If the dominant is the one that sets the rules, enforces the discipline, and suggests activities and assignments, then that indicates he is the one with the power, though, right? Not exactly. The dominant does all these things, but he does them in cooperation with the submissive. In most DS relationships, the dominant and submissive partners negotiate a set of rules, a set of limits, what disciplinary actions will be used, and the nature of the assignments and activities given by the dominant to the submissive. The submissive is allowed to say no to anything she feels uncomfortable doing, and should be allowed to set limits based on her comfort. The entire process is one of compromise. Each partner in the relationship must give some and they must take some from the other partner. Limits must be respected, as should the rules once they are negotiated.

The true holder of the actual power in the DS relationship is the submissive. This truth shocks a lot of dominants and even more submissives, because this is not the way people tend to commonly think of DS relationships. Rest assured, though, the power in the relationship rests with the submissive. In a DS relationship, the submissive gives up her control to the dominant; he does not take it from her. It is not his to take, and never will be his unless she gives it to him. The submissive does not give her power away as a gift, however, because she expects things in return for it; things like trust, honesty, safety, and communication. If her dominant fails to provide her with these things, then she is free to take back her control and move on to someone that will provide her with these things.

Other things, too, indicate that the submissive holds the true power in the DS relationship. For instance, a submissive may set her own limits. She cannot be forced to do anything she says no to doing. Any dominant that persists in coercing a submissive into performing an activity that is on her list of limits ceases being a dominant at that moment and becomes an abuser, because he has stopped respecting her right to be happy and her expectations of safety and trust. A submissive also has the right to negotiate a set of rules, with the dominant, that is acceptable for her. The rules should be a compromise, but in instances where a rule may violate the submissive’s safety, limits, or sense of security, then the benefit of the doubt should go to the submissive and her wished respected. Finally, and most importantly, the submissive may end any scene with her safe word. Upon utterance of the safe word, a scene stops immediately, any corporal punishment, bondage, humiliation, etc. stops at once. The partners may discuss the reason the safe word was used and may choose to resume the scene once the submissive is made more comfortable with whatever situation caused her to use her safe word, but the scene should not be continued once the safe word has been spoken.

The most important thing to remember, though, is that the submissive holds the real power in the relationship, because she chooses to give up her control of herself and she allows her dominant partner to have that control with the understanding that she will be respected by the dominant, as will her safety, her trust, and her security. She always has the right to leave the relationship if any of those details are ignored or are not respected. And she always has the right to take back her control whenever she chooses.

The true dynamic of the DS relationship is not one that is often considered by many people, because many assume that the dominant is in control over the submissive and that the submissive gives up her freedom with the understanding that she will do as the dominant tells her to do. That is not the true nature of power exchange; that is misinformation.

[Ranai]

Thank you for this thoughtful and thought-provoking essay.
If I may, I would like to take the argument a step further.

Nobody has any power in a DS relationship.

Whatever is done is done in agreement. The relationship and interaction is based on the freedom of both partners. It is possible to enter into a free agreement because none of the participants has power over the other. Power and free consent are incompatible.

A submissive person does not 'have the power to' negotiate, set limits, refuse, stop a scene, leave.
A submissive person is free to negotiate, set limits, refuse, stop a scene, leave.


Power can work as an aphrodisiac or be an object of desire in itself.
Seeking power in reality has rewards, and great perils.

Power as an ingredient in erotic fiction and fantasy provides the thrill without the drawbacks.
An erotic story with the power ingredient must do without free consent.


In a real DS relationship based on free consent, the partners can for mutual benefit and pleasure evoke the signs, symbols, demonstrations, taste of power. The mysterious luck is that they work, even though nobody holds any power.

[ProjectEuropa]

Nobody has any power in a DS relationship.

Hmm I think many D/s relationships are just an extreme of any male/female relationship in so far that the female chooses. The male might decline her, the male might make the approach but it is the female who has the real power. She sends out the signals to the males that she is looking for a partner. It is her that is the prize all the males want and she tends to know it. Anthropologists have recognized this for a long time. It is the exception that tends to prove the rule. Look at the personal ads, it is almost always the males that are on the hunt, the female just has to sit, wait and choose. I suspect when a female sub puts an ad in the personals she is inundated with would be suitors. One can't take the biological imperartive out of the equation. Getting back on subject with D/s relationships, it is far easier for a female sub to find a male Dom than it is for a male Dom to find a female sub. The female sub gives away her power in the understanding the male Dom keeps his part of the bargain, should he stray over the boundary his prize is took away. In that situation the power might appear to be shared because of the consensus involved but the real power is held by one or the other and that is the one less committed which according to antropologists is usually the childless female. It is becoming recognized now that women are more likely to infidelities than men. It is women that control the amount of hetrosexual sex that goes on, if it was men that controled sex you wouldn't be able to go on a bus without witnessing some fornicating going on.

Antropologists also a recognize a power exchange between males and females as the female passes child bearing age. The female becoming less attractive to the male but the older male would need to be successful enough to attract the younger female so it's ones social position and success is also important. I remember my ex talking about this once at her work where the older females (hmm I'm talking about women approaching 40 ish here. Still young to me I admit) who had careers and wanting children finding it particularly difficult to find commited male partners willing to make the investment in them. The males prefering to find a woman a generation younger. I'm sure this all translates into BDSM relationships somehow since we do not exist in isolation but I'm starting to lose track of my thoughts.

I suspect it is even something similar between male subs and female Doms. As for gay and lesbian relationships I am completely ignorant.

I think there is something in there of value but I'm not sure anymore now I've written it. Maybe those evening lectures I attended at the City Uni were a waste of time after all.

[GaryWilcox]

Nobody has any power in a DS relationship.

Seems to me that consensual sex is defined by the passive member. While the aggressor might initate the encounter, all sex is validated as consensual by the passive participant.

It's not a question of power; it's a dance, and while someone leads it, two parties have to agree to dance for it to work right. It's a cooperation of roles that compliment each other.

[learningtopleez]

Finally...thank you TG Sir, for explaining all this! I already knew most of it, but seeing it written down and explained in detail,....well it just sort of makes things so much more clear! It also lets me know that the man I have thought of as my Dom is anything but! Communication you say?? Hah! He doesn't know the meaning of the word! He and I never talk anymore. We talked alot in the beginning and we talk when I am with him, but that's it! I get an occasional text message and that's all. The last time we had a scene where sex was actually involved was November...yes...No-fricking-vember!! I saw him once in December, but that was for his pleasure, which I don't have a problem with....if I'm going to be called soon for more play time! But he puts me off with his excuse of work. I very much admire his work ethic, and right now he is opening up a new business in another state and he will move there, so he has been very busy. And I have been very patient. He finally wanted me to come to him about two weeks ago. He asked late in the evening, and I had a class the next morning and then 12 hours of work after that. So I declined. I didn't want to, but I knew most of my time would be spent driving to and back from his home. Maybe I'm selfish, but school and my job are important to me! He was angry or dissapointed (who knows which as all we did was text message each other!!!). Now it has been two more weeks and I got one lousy text message from him Saturday evening. I have written him e-mails and told him I feel that we should end this. I told him that I come here to learn and he was totally pissed over that. He feels that other Doms will try to "pick me up"! LOL Yea right! Anyway he said thats why people come to these forums and that pissed me off...I have made friends here that I think the world of and he thinks I'm screwing around! So TG Sir, what do you think?? After reading your article I feel it is time to let go....although it will be very difficult as he is my first r/l Dom. I don't even want to think about looking for someone else though...not right now. I guess I will be celibate for a while longer!!

[Mobius]

I have also always felt that the submisive has the power. First she has to be willing. She sets how much she is willing to take.

It is up to her wether it is sexual play or abuse and rape.

[Ranai]

I guess we will have to differentiate.

1. Have the power to do something
2. Have power over someone


In a consensual relationship...

1. Both parties have the 'power' to make decisions. I prefer to call it: the freedom to make decisions.
2. None has power over the other.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

Nobody has any power in a DS relationship.

Whatever is done is done in agreement. The relationship and interaction is based on the freedom of both partners.

Yes, but it is the submissive that ultimately has the final decision in every process of each phase of the relationship. Without the consent of the submissive, the contract is not negotiated. On her safeword, the scene stops. Etc.

It is the submissive that has the power to effect the relationship the most.

And yes, whatever is done is done with the agreemewnt of both partners. But as long as the submissive has the final say-so in matters which require her consent, then the ultimate "power" lies with her. For without her agreement and consent, nothing the dominant dreams up, whether it be rules, discipline, or scene ideas, comes to life.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

After reading your article I feel it is time to let go....

That decision is completely up to you. If you'd like to open a thread on the merits and flaws behind your relationship, then I'm sure that myself and others would be only too glad to help you with the final decision.

I think everyone deserves someone that will take time with them, though.

[Nightstriker]

This was one of the first things that I learned when I first began to get into the life. I came accross various sites that had a good explination of their relationships and what I can see in them is that is like what TG said it is a power exchange relationship. Though it is a good thing to have written down so that it can be refrenced later.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

I'm describing one dynamic of a BDSM relationship. All I'm offering os some material for thought. If someone reads what I've written and perhaps realizes that dynamic is not present in their relationship, or presented incorrectly, then that might help them in some small way. I could cite ltp's situation as an example.

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?

So because you have had a bad relationship, then my information is inaccurate?

The simple answer to your question is that you don't know. But if people only comitted their emotions conditionally, then the world would prbably be a sadder place than it already is. If she was able to push you farther than you've ever been pushed, then that's a good thing (in my opinion) and you might want to focus on that instead of the bitterness that you still hold.

I'm not certain what lack of trust has to do with the topic of this thread, though. Perhaps you would consider opening your own thread to discuss your failed relationship and its effects on you, rather than implying that because someone you have had a relationship with in the past has had trust issues, that simply invalidates the balance of power in BDSM relationships.

Subs are willingly submissive but not necessarily so...

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.

Submissives are willingly submissive. A relationship based on non-consensuality is not a relationship at all. it's a crime. If a submissive does not consent to being submissive, then she is not a submissive, she is a victim. Don't confuse BDSM with abuse or crime.

A BDSM relationship may become abusive, as may any vanilla relationship. When a BDSM relationship becomes abusive, then it ceases to be BDSM and becomes an abusive relationship. BDSM revolves around one of two things: Either a safe, sane and consensual relationship or risk-aware and consensual kink. A relationship formulated on, or affected by, abuse is not safe. And since no one really consents to abuse anyway, then the relationship is also not a consensual one. So, while a an abusive situation may evolve under the pretense of BDSM, the reality is that situation is just an abusive relationship.

Still, all of this is off-topic for this discussion. If you want to discuss the differences between abuse and BDSM, there is a thread for that. If you want to discuss who holds the actual power in the BDSM relationship, then please post your thoughts on that here.

[ProjectEuropa]

I'm not certain what lack of trust has to do with the topic of this thread, though. Perhaps you would consider opening your own thread to discuss your failed relationship and its effects on you, rather than implying that because someone you have had a relationship with in the past has had trust issues, that simply invalidates the balance of power in BDSM relationships.

[/COLOR][/FONT]

I think power and trust has everything to do with a dynamic relationship and if everything you have said can't be expanded on or what you say is de facto intellectually correct. Then why have an interactive site? I have never noticed another thread being whipped back into place because it has strayed off topic.

Subs have power in a dynamic BDSM relationship. There. I've said it.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

I think power and trust has everything to do with a dynamic relationship and if everything you have said can't be expanded on or what you say is de facto intellectually correct. Then why have an interactive site? I have never noticed another thread being whipped back into place because it has strayed off topic.

Subs have power in a dynamic BDSM relationship. There. I've said it.

Don't pout. It's not really a becoming trait.

I openly encourage my articles and topics to be debated. Read Ranai's posts in this thread. She has a very opposing view to mine, but her points are still on topic.

And if you've never seen a thread steered back on topic in these forums, then you should probably take a better look around. In fact, some of the threads that exist here now were originally parts of other threads that went off topic.

Even this thread was steered back on topic once already. That was why ltp opened her own thread to talk about her relationship.

[ProjectEuropa]

Don't pout. It's not really a becoming trait.

Hmm You mean like the need to be right all the time?

[Donatien]

[QUOTE] BDSM revolves around one of two things: Either a safe, sane and consensual relationship or risk-aware and consensual kink. A relationship formulated on, or affected by, abuse is not safe. And since no one really consents to abuse anyway, then the relationship is also not a consensual one.
QUOTE] all of this is off-topic for this discussion. If you want to discuss the differences between abuse and BDSM, there is a thread for that. If you want to discuss who holds the actual power in the BDSM relationship, then please post your thoughts on that here

TG The tendentiousness of these opinions, suggests to me , a desire to get your pennyworth in and then foreclose discussion on the basis that as moderator you have the power. Since this is a discussion on who has the power in bdsm relationships. I contend that since all participants in this forums bring a bdsm perspective to these discussions, such a desire could be construed as abuse; which I do not consent to.! YOU have just said that abuse is not safe, and nobody consents to abuse, so that an abusive relationship is therefore not consensual . My recent post was attempting to point out , as has ProjectEuropa that matters are not as cut and dried as that. For some in these forums who engage in consensual bdsm at modest levels, the more extreme practices, of say needle play, or toothed clamps, ,or electricity, other than in fantasy, may be thought of as abuse , for others abuse is defined not by the degree of pain , and /or degradation , but by the presence or absense of consent. ( in the UK a case some years ago , the courts decided that any infliction on another, for the purposes of sexual gratification, leaving more than very transient marks , constituted assault , even between consenting adults in private. So body piercings are ok as long as they not intended to for purposes of sexual gratification, and of course boxing , which can kill is exempt!!). My point here is that there are such a wide range of activities within real life bdsm, that continued debate is needed over not just who has the power, but how that power is exercised; and I wonder whether any of existing definitioins of power, or consent actually are adequate to describe the case I propounded.
I agreed with TG that that case would be regarded by most people as abusive even though the sub was actively complicite in that relationship; yet in the presence of active consent , on what grounds can it be declared abusive. Could it be that the sub because of her own needs, fantasies, and desires, has been willing to concede too much of her 'power' to a master who is happy to then take full advantage of the situation. I.e the central problem there is the degree of power imbalance, thus removing most of the checks and balances that keep other relationships, even ones with extreme practices, or bordering on non consent , nevetheless stable. But the supposing the postulated case were stable, what then?
So the discussion IS still about who has the power ( and who hasn't).

finally:-
[QUOTE] if people only committed their emotions conditionally, then the world would probably be a sadder place than it already is.

TG surely if relationships are considered to be of a CONTRACTUAL nature
then it is only natural that every aspect of the commitiments involved, would subject to defined conditions, and the consequences are beside the point.
( which is my point , although I will concede that this is not relevent to this thread; mia culpa!)

[BDSM_Tourguide]

TG The tendentiousness of these opinions, suggests to me , a desire to get your pennyworth in and then foreclose discussion on the basis that as moderator you have the power. Since this is a discussion on who has the power in bdsm relationships. I contend that since all participants in this forums bring a bdsm perspective to these discussions, such a desire could be construed as abuse; which I do not consent to.!

Okay...

YOU have just said that abuse is not safe, and nobody consents to abuse, so that an abusive relationship is therefore not consensual . My recent post was attempting to point out , as has ProjectEuropa that matters are not as cut and dried as that. For some in these forums who engage in consensual bdsm at modest levels, the more extreme practices, of say needle play, or toothed clamps, ,or electricity, other than in fantasy, may be thought of as abuse , for others abuse is defined not by the degree of pain , and /or degradation , but by the presence or absense of consent. ( in the UK a case some years ago , the courts decided that any infliction on another, for the purposes of sexual gratification, leaving more than very transient marks , constituted assault , even between consenting adults in private. So body piercings are ok as long as they not intended to for purposes of sexual gratification, and of course boxing , which can kill is exempt!!).

Legally speaking, assault is any verbal threat uttered by one person to another. Therefore, legally telling your submissive that you are going to beat her ass is illegal and abusive. So, if you want to go down that road, then pretty much everything we do as practitioners of BDSM is illegal in the yes of the law.

If consent is the issue, and no one can consent to abuse, and everything we do is abuse, then I suppose we have a connundrum, don't we?

Now, if you want to put aside the legal terms for a bit and focus on the purely relationship aspects of BDSM, then the consent is the most important matter. No BDSM can happen without consent. Also, no BDSM can happen without awareness of risk, communication, honesty, and safety. In a relationship where abuse occurs, at least one of those things is missing. Even in the case of one partner manipulating the other partner into performing activities that the other partner might be unwilling to perform, risk awareness, safety, and honesty are all compromised. When a perosn compromises all those things, they take the power away from the person. And when that happens, those people are no longer practicing BDSM. It is that cut and dry. There doesn't have to be a big neon sign proclaiming that you've quit BDSM and stepped into abuse for it to actually happen. But when the line is crossed, it does happen.

My point here is that there are such a wide range of activities within real life bdsm, that continued debate is needed over not just who has the power, but how that power is exercised; and I wonder whether any of existing definitioins of power, or consent actually are adequate to describe the case I propounded.

Indeed. In most BDSM relationships, the issue of who has the power and so on never comes up, because in many relationships the partners understand some basics that were touched on in the article. It's just sort of an unspoken thing. Things flow smoothly.

It's when you venture into the not-so-understanding relationships that you start to see the flaws. The 'dom' that yells at the top of his voice that his submissive will do "what he says when he says to do it, without complaint, or she will get her ass beaten" is probably not being very realistic and he's not putting power in the proper places in his relationship.

I agreed with TG that that case would be regarded by most people as abusive even though the sub was actively complicite in that relationship; yet in the presence of active consent , on what grounds can it be declared abusive. Could it be that the sub because of her own needs, fantasies, and desires, has been willing to concede too much of her 'power' to a master who is happy to then take full advantage of the situation. I.e the central problem there is the degree of power imbalance, thus removing most of the checks and balances that keep other relationships, even ones with extreme practices, or bordering on non consent , nevetheless stable. But the supposing the postulated case were stable, what then?

So the discussion IS still about who has the power ( and who hasn't).

A relationship can become abusive in a variety of ways. It doesn't take a domestic violence type of situation to make a relationship abusive. Anytime a partner moves beyond the defined limits of the relationship without prior negotiation and consent, then abuse occurs.

For example, if you call your submissive a big, fat pig, but she's mentioned to you on previous occasions that she's fine with her body image and she enjoys remarks like that, then that is informed consent. If you say that and she has mentioned to you, or not discussed with you, that she is not happy with her weight, then you are degrading and abusing her with those words. The line is fine, but it is drawn firmly.

Again, if you slap your submissive in the face, but you have an activity checklist that has a check by the yes box beside face-slapping, then that is informed consent. If you slap your submissive in the face because she's done something to piss you off, then that is abuse. That's not the practice of BDSM.

A submissive or slave may concede as much of her power as she wishes to her dominant partner, and as long as she is conceding it and it is not taken from her by manipulation or force, then there is nothing at all wrong with it. That's why I still completely believe that power does, always has, and always will lie with the submissive in any DS relationship.

[Ruby]

No BDSM can happen without consent. Also, no BDSM can happen without awareness of risk, communication, honesty, and safety. In a relationship where abuse occurs, at least one of those things is missing. Even in the case of one partner manipulating the other partner into performing activities that the other partner might be unwilling to perform, risk awareness, safety, and honesty are all compromised. When a perosn compromises all those things, they take the power away from the person. And when that happens, those people are no longer practicing BDSM.

A submissive or slave may concede as much of her power as she wishes to her dominant partner, and as long as she is conceding it and it is not taken from her by manipulation or force, then there is nothing at all wrong with it. That's why I still completely believe that power does, always has, and always will lie with the submissive in any DS relationship.

Been reading, reading, reading, and I still have an issue with many of the statements made in this thread.

I disagree on how these concepts are being bantied about without any qualifiers. BDSM in itself does not imply consent - if it did, we wouldn't have the number of NC stories in the library or elsewhere.

SS&C is a philosophy and a practice.

When you say - No BDSM can happen without consent, I say qualify that.

If you were to say -

No healthy BDSM relationship between two or more individuals should ever remove consent, giving all parties the right to refuse each other's requests.

or

No healthy BDSM relationship between two or more individuals should ever operate without practicing SS&C.

Hey, then I'm with you.

What about the power? Again let's qualify that:

In a healthy BDSM relationship practicing the SS&C philosphy, a submissive or slave may concede as much of her power as she wishes to her dominant partner, and as long as she is conceding it and it is not taken from her by manipulation or force, then there is nothing at all wrong with it. Ultimately, that power then remains with the submissive.

[slavelucy]

i don't wish to take sides, but i will say this. Regardless of whether or not he's a moderator, this IS BDSM_Tourguide's thread, and as such, he has the same rights as all members to ask for it not to be taken off track...it is, in this respect, his property, and he could even ask for it to be locked, if he wanted, as anyone could. To this end, whilst issues of trust and abuse are constantly interesting in the realm in which we all operate, i am not convinced they are relevant here. This is to say that the fact remains that TG WAS talking about functional Ds relationships, not one's wherein one person consistantly lied to another (although that would, i'm sure, make an interesting thread in it's own right), or one that is actually tantamount to abuse as they are not even purebred, SSC Ds relationships, they are abusive ones, whatever guise they choose to veil themselves in. In my view, it seems that TG has presented a model and others have essentially said "Yes, but what if they WEREN'T in a Ds relationship?" (i.e. were lying to each other or being abused)..interesting, if veiled in DS, for sure..but if they wern't, then it isn't the point of the thread.

i think Ruby has it about right when she says...

No healthy BDSM relationship between two or more individuals should ever remove consent, giving all parties the right to refuse each other's requests.

...and i think we can safely assume this pretty much WAS what TG said, other than any BDSM relationship that isn't 'healthy' in the above described way, is not BDSM at all but is something entirely different, and i have to say, i agree with him.

No BDSM can happen without consent. Also, no BDSM can happen without awareness of risk, communication, honesty, and safety.

TG's point is that if these conditions aren't fulfilled they're not DOING BDSM, and if they're not doing it, then surely issues of abuse and trust are not relevant to this particular thread.

i see where the trust and abuse come into it on a minutiae level but i truely believe they would be more at home in other threads.

Don't pout. It's not really a becoming trait

Hmm You mean like the need to be right all the time?

(And numerous other unecessarily abrasive parts of posts from most people concerned...)

....either way, if we could ALL keep the fight clean, it'd be much appreciated.

sl

[Donatien]

No healthy BDSM relationship between two or more individuals should ever remove consent, giving all parties the right to refuse each other's requests.

No healthy BDSM relationship between two or more individuals should ever operate without practicing SS&C. ...........

in a healthy BDSM relationship practicing the SS&C philosphy, a submissive or slave may concede as much of her power as she wishes to her dominant partner, and as long as she is conceding it and it is not taken from her by manipulation or force, then there is nothing at all wrong with it. Ultimately, that power then remains with the submissive.

To remove any possible misunderstanding of my position, may I say that I fully support the aspirations, for healthy BDSM relationships that TG is cogently propounding, and as defined in Rubys thread. on rereading my post i realise that it came across as harder hitting, and without any of the light ironic quality, that I intended.As I read it now it comes across as bad tempered and rude. PLease all accept my apologies for that. ( lucy you are wise as always! ......But it wasn't me that said "hmm, the need to be right allthe time".really it wasn't)

My only slight caveat and reason for writing, (apart from what I only intended as a light hearted nit pic at TG, who is more than capable of looking after himself) being the question of situations, of power imbalance, when even apparently whole hearted consent is not what it seems. ( e.g stockholm syndrome). I do not believe that enough recognition is given to the presence of hypnotic trance phenomena , in particular the post hypnotic suggestion, in every day life, without any formal trance being induced. Most false , confessions, 'miraculous healings', conversions,and even anxiety attacks, panic attacks, and phobias, probably involve this mechanism. Since only a minority of the population are succeptable to this phenomenon, (perhaps only 10-15%) , the possibility of its existence is not even considered. In BDSM a consensual shift in the power balance is common, and it is my impression that there are a higher percentage of highly imaginative individuals in the bdsm sub world than the normal population, and a strong imagination is one of the prerequisites for this capability.
Finally please forgive my ignorance as a new comer, but what does SSC or SS & C stand for?