Who Really Has the Power in a DS Relationship?

[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.