Who Really Has the Power in a DS Relationship?

[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?

[slavelucy]

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)

Ah, you're right, it was not, my apologies, i shall change that quote forthwith. Although, i'd agree that what was probably intended as dryly ironic and wise came across as bad tempered and rude. *grins*

(apart from what I only intended as a light hearted nit pic at TG, who is more than capable of looking after himself)

Heh! Oh yes, TG sure is more than capable of looking after himself, but it's difficult for him to be involved in the..heated debate, whilst attempting to keep order in it as a mod, so being as i mod the forum, lucy stepped in and asked ya all to tone it down.

Finally please forgive my ignorance as a new comer, but what does SSC or SS & C stand for?

You're forgiven. SSC stands for 'Safe, Sane and Consensual', a phrase/concept/notion/idea/ethos adhered to and put into practice by all those in a healthy BDSM relationship.

sl