Who Really Has the Power in a DS Relationship?

[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

[ProjectEuropa]

TG. I owe you an apology. I unreservedly apologise.

Actually the crap relationship doesn't bother me. It's the brown envelopes that keep coming because of the decisions I made without realising I was being misled that boils my blood. But that is my shit.

I apologise.

[Eraser]

With all this chatter about power and SSC etc I thought I would throw this excerpt from a lecture by my favorite author:


"LAURA, LEATHER, AND LIFE"
A LECTURE BY LAURA ANTONIOU
NOVEMBER 8, 1995
CROSSROADS LEARNING CENTER
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
SPONSORED BY THE SOCIETY FOR HUMAN SEXUALITY

Copyright © 1995 by Laura Antoniou

Full transcript http://www.sexuality.org/latrans.html
Or Laura Antoniou is the keynote speaker for the International Master & Slave Contest at South Plains LeatherFest, taking place the last weekend in February, February 25-27



Fantasies are not reality. I know, I know, I know. Except when they are. Except when you make them into reality. And fuck this. I didn't come out of years of fantasy rescuing myself from a toxic parent and guilt-tripping myself through anti-sex feminism, politically correct lesbianism, and socially programmed homosexual activism so that someone else could make my goddamn sex life into a slogan: Safe, Sane, and Consensual.

What does it mean? Assimilation, that's what. The politics of appeasement, the hope that, Gee, if we look and act just like everyone else, if we can only convince the dominant culture that we're really harmless and just like they are, except that where we put our dicks and clits and tongues, and what we like on our dicks and clits and tongues, why, we'll earn our civil rights, and everybody will live happily ever after, except for the boy-lovers, who give us all a bad name anyway.

Originally, Safe, Sane, and Consensual, hereafter referred to as SSC, came out of the mostly gay men's S/M movement, probably GMSMA, but I'm willing to hear about where else it came from. I've heard several different versions of who came up with our beloved slogan.

The first time I heard about it was in connection with the expansion of the National Leather Association in connection with a desire to create some sort of unified national network of leather persons. SSC was something everyone could stand behind. For a group of marginalized outcasts, it was supposed to be our rallying call.

A rallying call? Hello? Like Live Free Or Die? Remember The Alamo? Black Is Beautiful? Who Killed Karen Silkwood? Safe, Sane, Consensual.

Well, okay. It's as good as any, but why not Happy, Healthy, and Wise? Rational, Intelligent, and Sensitive? Open-minded, Empathic, and Cheerful? Willing, Hot, and Horny? I like that one. All these are laudable attitudes.

So some rallying cry; who's going to argue with it? I mean, what's more to the point? What social interaction should not be safe, sane, and consensual? Shouldn't all sex be like that? Shouldn't all relationships be like that?

But okay, it's just a slogan. Slogans don't mean shit. After all, what did Just Say No and Just Do It have to do with any kind of reality you understand?

Slogans give people something to chant, something to put on their banners, and something to distinguish the us from the them, and I guess SSC does beat Horny And Looking For Some Kinky Nookie Right Now; Are You A Top Or A Bottom, And What Are You Wearing?

But it's become so much more than a slogan. It's now a way of life. Every S/M organization has to include this little catchphrase into their statement of purpose, that is, if they ever get around to having one.

It has to be on every banner when they march. It has to be included in every titleholder's speech, in club banquets, on colors, and in newsletters. Every entrant into S/M, in one way or another, is assured ad nauseum that everything will be Safe, Sane, and Consensual.

The only activity we condone is SSC. Why, all good S/M is SSC. SSC is good. Isn't it good that we all practice S/M, that is, SSC?

[Eraser]

Before I step into this fray I'm going to give one of my few short preambles, just because opinions differ does not mean I am assaulting ones character or person. As you believe strongly in your opinion I do in mine.

With that said I am going to touch this topic from view from a very opposite end of the spectrum, with a short summary of, I completely disagree with the view TG has present.

This debate has raved on and on since the label of TPE has been around.

The first point I disagree with is the statement

“Taking control from a person is a form of manipulation and is, therefore, abuse”

Its not abuse, it can be many things, including abusive, but inherently its not abuse. One of the key technique’s any descent level sales person learns is, how to take control of a conversation, and manipulate it to be persuasive. Every cop around spends a good portion of there time at the academy learning how to speak to suspect and take control of the situation and the conversation. Every good teacher takes control over there students, especially younger ones. This brings the point on the ‘manipulation’ automatically being abuse. On a daily we are manipulated, by co-workers, media and marketing, perspective commentary’s of news person’s and religious leaders. Making a collective statement like that resolves the world into one of total abuse. If you were to take that that manipulation is abuse perspective, anything persuasive including this post is abusive. Look at the phrasing used; everything that the author agrees with is phrased in an absolute positive fashion and anything that goes against the view is automatically negative I.G. ‘myth’, ‘knowledgeable Dominant’. Statements like these, though persuasive also allude to the fact that if one disagrees with the view then the person is stupid or living fantasy.

To the next specifics of the statement

the knowledgeable dominant never takes control. It’s not his to take anyway.”

Well we have all heard the phrase ‘give and take’. When someone gives you something like the gift of submission, then you TAKE the gift in turn taking that control. Which brings up my argument to the statement

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.

The nature D/s relationship involves caring, understanding, manipulation, force, pain, pleasure and many many more things that I won’t site specifically. But it does involve all of them.

[FONT=Georgia][COLOR=DarkRed]
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….. For instance, a submissive may set her own limits. She cannot be forced to do anything she says no to doing.

While I will whole heartily agree with the fact there is ‘negotiation’ I don’t see to the same depth as stated. My version of ‘negotiate’ is getting to know the person slowly and carefully learning and understanding. Then a bit broader understanding, when a general overview and checklist discussion occurs. Normally before I even touch a checklist or anything similar, I already have a good understanding of the person’s desires and taste’s. But that’s really where the ‘negotiations’ end, if on the check list I see an activity that I enjoy doing or something I know I do often and is set as a limit, that’s the end of the D\s relationship in anything other then casual friendship. For me there isn’t much ‘negotiations’ rather then me coming straight out and saying ‘I’m gonna do this that and this other things take it or leave it.’

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.

This for me is MAJOR pet peeve and something I utterly hate, this concept that the submissive can just end a scene because she doesn’t like what’s going on. To this destroys the foundation of the relationship. The statement was made “she expects things in return for it; things like trust, honesty, safety, and communication” Well I expect something as well, actual submission.

To me a safeword is to be used if the submissive is being DAMAGED, not if she’s uncomfortable, or not if this hurts a little to much, or goodness sakes that last strike wrapped and stung a little more then usual. All of which I have seen, disturbs me greatly.

The explanation I give is thus:
My submissive has her nipples pierced, she’s been restrained over a spanking bench and has had weights attached to her nipple rings and is being furiously paddle that is jarring her body causing her nipples sway and slam against the bench. The jarring reaches a point that combined with the weights has cause the nipple rings to start to tear flesh.


That is the appropriate to use a safeword, but cause the submissive is being damaged and because of her position there is no way the Dom could be aware of it. The other times a safe word is used because the submissive isn’t enjoying something or doesn’t like the activity to me is just silly. The submissive is there to serve my desires not her own. If she’s not being damaged in a way that could prevent further service or availability to her Dominant or in a way that’s going to cause long term physical or mental harm.
The opposite extremity of this same type of activity is the constant prattling of a ‘dom’ and the ‘are you okay with this? Is this good for you? Are you enjoying this?’ to me is utter nonsense. The Dominant should have a good understanding of the person he is playing with and if he doesn’t know the person well enough to know if there not ‘okay with this’ then they shouldn’t be sceneing with them. I’m not here to cater to the submissive’s desires she and I are here to cater to mine.

…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.

This not misinformation, this is the foundation of what a deep D\s relationship is suppose to be hence why it’s called Dominance and submission and not ‘make me do these things I like’. Once person willing and wantonly giving themselves to someone and is owned. They have given the Dominant themselves to enjoy as they wish. The responsibility of the Dominant to do that in a manner that doesn’t damage the person. Will the Dominant at some point violate her civil rights? I am rather sure of it. Will the Dominant do things that are scary and painful and uncomfortable for the person, well hopefully.

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 concept that the submissive retains the ‘power’ of the relationship after she gives it is like saying a person joining the military has the power over there commander because they have the right to exit the service. The concept that power is retained by the person giving it up is a contradiction in and of itself. The power and the control was given willingly and with understanding, at that point the power is gone, the only power left is to end the relationship which does not give the person ‘power’ over the relationship. The Dominant has the power to end the relationship as well. If submission is not given, if the submissive try’s to control the relationship by constantly safe wording out of ‘uncomfortable’ situation and scenes. Sceneing in manners for the submissive enjoyment or has specifically and meticulously outlined; to say ‘you may beat me this many times, with these tools, on Friday’s and Saturdays, until I say stop.” Isn’t a submissive, a masochist yes, but far from a submissive they’re the dominant and the one hold the whip is the submissive.

[spirit]

i've been reading this thread and find it very interesting. Both viewpoints are very valid. When i first discovered bdsm, i completely agreed with TG in that the submissive ultimately retained control in that she could always use the safeword or set hard limits. However, i have learned about not having a say in how a scene progresses, and in the right situation, i can agree with Eraser's point of view. Personally, i think it depends upon the two who are involved and what works for them. Neither side is right or wrong, just different. For instance... if i was sceneing with someone in a club, i would NOT give up complete control. However, if it were with someone that i had a relationship with and the trust and love were there...then it would be different. The way i see it, each relationship is different, each with different levels of control.

[Donatien]

[QUOTE=eraser]
debate has raved on and on since the label of TPE has been around.

This brings the point on the ‘manipulation’ automatically being abuse. On a daily we are manipulated, by co-workers, media and marketing, perspective commentary’s of news person’s and religious leaders. Making a collective statement like that resolves the world into one of total abuse. If you were to take that that manipulation is abuse perspective, anything persuasive including this post is abusive.

we have all heard the phrase ‘give and take’. When someone gives you something like the gift of submission, then you TAKE the gift in turn taking that control. Which brings up my argument to the statement

The Dominant should have a good understanding of the person he is playing with and if he doesn’t know the person well enough to know if there not ‘okay with this’ then they shouldn’t be sceneing with them. I’m not here to cater to the submissive’s desires she and I are here to cater to mine.[QUOTE]


Congratulations eraser on a clear statement of your point of view, any submissive of yours is going to know exactly where they kneel, with no manipulation.
The only thing I wish to add to what I have said in earlier posts, and this relates to erasers comments on sales techniques, is that I would define the main difference between influence and manipulation is in the motivation of the effector. IN influencing another we are seeking for a win/win outcome, whereas in manipulation the effector is out to win, regardless of the outcome for the affected. the techniques employed are the same, albeit used in slightly different ways and certainly with different intended outcomes.

THe analogy of sales is a good one, because really good sales reps, think long term, and value and honour their customers ( like the good dom knows his sub well, and doesn't abuse their trust), bad salesmen are after a quick buck and don't care a toss about the customers needs, and hence use the same techniques differently for quick manipulative outcomes, especailly targetting vulnerable targets, as presumably will abusive doms, vanillla or bdsm. It is these types that can take subvert the freely given submission of power by a sub. I guess!

[slavelucy]

The concept that the submissive retains the ‘power’ of the relationship after she gives it is like saying a person joining the military has the power over there commander because they have the right to exit the service.

Kudos on that analogy, Eraser, i like it very much and it's extremely thought provoking.

i'm not sure about this though...

The concept that power is retained by the person giving it up is a contradiction in and of itself.

Whilst agreeing, surely if the person could take the power back, at any given time (with a safeword or whatever) then it remains with them....hmmm, but *thinks* (i'm thinking aloud here, feel free to ignore me), at the same time, i DO see what you mean when you say it's a complete contradiction to say the power is retained by the person giving it...*ponders*. i think the final conclusion, to me personally, and based on what i said much earlier on in this thread, is that the submissive is giving the dominant a huge element of autonomy and trust....in doing so, he/she is inherantly transferring a lot of 'ground level' power in terms of what the dominant can do with him/her on a physical and mental level...but some underlying power to continue giving up that power must logically lie with the submissive.

sl

[e.b.]

Okay, this thread has started to give me a headache. I like a good discussion as well as the next person, but I think that many of the posts in this thread have some truth to them and that it has now become an issue of nitpicking over semantics. So, let me offer the amazing possibility that, as with any healthy relationship, both partners share the power. The degree of power one has over the other is a matter of personal preference as long as it has been discussed and both partners are in agreement.

lucy said it best with her comment that "the sub has the power to say where it doesn't go...the dom, from there, says where it does go." That pretty accurately sums it up IMO.

Now I have another reminder to make...anyone can open a thread here...that means that any of us can write articles on aspects of the scene that we feel are worth expanding upon. The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned because I enjoy hearing what others think. For example, I have enjoyed threads Eraser has started in order to discuss issues such as old guard vs. new. I also find many of TG's discussions interesting and think they may be especially helpful to newer members of the scene.

As I said early, I tend to think many of us agree on the broad picture and then choose to nitpick over the particulars. Well, of course everyone's particulars are going to be different. We all are unique individuals with our own experiences and values to bring to a D/s relationship. Europa provides an excellent example of how our differing experiences can influence our opinions when he explains (I believe in another thread) about the unfortunate bdsm "relationship" he had when starting out in the scene. After reading that, his posts here seemed way less antagonistic and simply like he was still working through his thoughts by asking questions and making suggestions. If we could all be a bit more understanding of the intent behind some posts and try to maintain a discussion of differences in opinion instead of an argument, I know I'd be really happy to see it. Also, I think we generally do a good job of respecting the opinions of others around here...this thread just seems to have been dragged back and forth through the dirt a bit too much for somewhat minor differences.

I see valid points on all sides...the key is to make sure the relationship works for all the parties involved, not for this entire community.

eb

[naomi]

Congratulations eraser on a clear statement of your point of view, any submissive of yours is going to know exactly where they kneel, with no manipulation.
The only thing I wish to add to what I have said in earlier posts, and this relates to erasers comments on sales techniques, is that I would define the main difference between influence and manipulation is in the motivation of the effector. IN influencing another we are seeking for a win/win outcome, whereas in manipulation the effector is out to win, regardless of the outcome for the affected. the techniques employed are the same, albeit used in slightly different ways and certainly with different intended outcomes.

THe analogy of sales is a good one, because really good sales reps, think long term, and value and honour their customers ( like the good dom knows his sub well, and doesn't abuse their trust), bad salesmen are after a quick buck and don't care a toss about the customers needs, and hence use the same techniques differently for quick manipulative outcomes, especailly targetting vulnerable targets, as presumably will abusive doms, vanillla or bdsm. It is these types that can take subvert the freely given submission of power by a sub. I guess!

i've greatly enjoyed the lively exchanges in this thread. i find myself aligned most closely with the comments eraser has posted. while i do believe that the search for universal truths is a useful tool in one's path to self-discovery, it is merely that, a tool. everyone's situation is unique and may not necessarily fit into broader definitions agreed upon by the majority. one person's abuse may be another person's affection. our perceptions define our realities. each one of us can process the same stimuli in different ways. as long as the two parties involved are happy, content and fulfilled within the context of a relationship that does not harm others (who do not wish to be harmed!) i see no reason to judge their actions or the dynamics between them.

like any other relationship, power-exchange relationships evolve with time. i would think that in most cases they continue to redefine their limits as they grow. in my opinion the logical endpoint in the development of a free-spirited tpe relationship that exists in a vacuum (no interaction with society) is a situation in which the submissive has learned enough about her owner and trusts him enough to grant him all power over her. of course, most of us will never reach that state of affairs due to the nature of our everyday lives. some of us continue to seek it.

respectfully,
n.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

On a daily we are manipulated, by co-workers, media and marketing, perspective commentary’s of news person’s and religious leaders. Making a collective statement like that resolves the world into one of total abuse.

You have brought up some interesting points in your rebuttal. However, on a few issues, I disgaree very strongly.

Certainly, we are, as a species, manipulated by our government, our television, our music, our video games, etc. However, there is a distinct difference in someone manipulating a person subtely to make a sale or to put a product in that person's home and a person being manipulated into thinking they are lower than dirt, or that they are not allowed a voice, or that they do not have control over themselves and their safety, or that they are not free to leave a relationship. That is abuse. Sugar-coat it how you like, but it doesn't change the fact that it is psychological abuse through manipulation to damage a person's self-esteem and to make them believe they must set aside their own sense of self in deferrence to another's.

Well we have all heard the phrase ‘give and take’. When someone gives you something like the gift of submission, then you TAKE the gift in turn taking that control. Which brings up my argument to the statement.

I do not believe submission is a gift. It is certainly not a thing for me to take from someone else. Someone may submit to me, but I am not taking their submission from them.

In the same manner, I may wish to dominate someone, but I will not force my dominance on that person. It might be mine to give, but giving my 'gift' of dominance to someone that does not want is abusive.

This is another reason the submissive has the ultimate power in the relationship. The submissive chooses and submits to a dominant, the dominant does not simply choose a submissive, snap a collar on her neck, and call her his.

The nature D/s relationship involves caring, understanding, manipulation, force, pain, pleasure and many many more things that I won’t site specifically. But it does involve all of them.

The nature of the DS relationship may involve many of those things, as long as they are consensual things and are done in ways that are positive for both parties. It still falls to the submissive to select and elect the options she wishes to choose. If a submissive wishes to be manipulated, it's her choice; it's not a choice I, personally, would ever agree with, but it's still her choice to make.

But that’s really where the ‘negotiations’ end, if on the check list I see an activity that I enjoy doing or something I know I do often and is set as a limit, that’s the end of the D\s relationship in anything other then casual friendship. For me there isn’t much ‘negotiations’ rather then me coming straight out and saying ‘I’m gonna do this that and this other things take it or leave it.’

You are, of course, allowed to establish your relationshps and run them as you choose. No one can dispute that. However, in a give and take relationship, when one person is resolute in their stances (i.e. I’m gonna do this that and this other things take it or leave it.’), then that person really isn't giving very much, are they?

In my view, a person is far more important than a limit. Besides, limits change over time. My wife has been unable to have anal sex since she gave birth to our daughter. I very much enjoy anal sex. However, it is now a hard limit for her. By the reasoning presented here, I should now leave my wife and my daughter because she can no longer offer me that satisfaction.

I find that to be completely pompous, uncaring, and disgusting. It is for her to set her limits and for me to respect them. She has that power.

This for me is MAJOR pet peeve and something I utterly hate, this concept that the submissive can just end a scene because she doesn’t like what’s going on. To this destroys the foundation of the relationship... To me a safeword is to be used if the submissive is being DAMAGED, not if she’s uncomfortable, or not if this hurts a little to much, or goodness sakes that last strike wrapped and stung a little more then usual.

I agree with this. In the same way a dominant should not manipulate a submissive, a submissive should not manipulate a dominant by taking something that was designed for her own safety and turning it into a frivolous abuse of her power.

I think a safe word should only be used if the submissive is experiencing unsafe amounts of pain, if she has a real problem during a scene, or if she has some kind of sudden emergency. For instance, a submissive experiencing a sudden bout of diarrhea while she's tied down and being flogged should be allowed to safe word out of the scene and gotten to the toilet as quickly as possible before she makes a real mess of the bed. The scene can always progress afterward, but her need should be attended to before it does.

Again, a submissive power thing.

That is the appropriate to use a safeword, but cause the submissive is being damaged and because of her position there is no way the Dom could be aware of it. The other times a safe word is used because the submissive isn’t enjoying something or doesn’t like the activity to me is just silly.

I agree, as before.

The submissive is there to serve my desires not her own.

I disagree. The submissive is there because she enjoys what you are doing to her. Or at least she should be. Therefore, her desires are being served just as much as yours.

The opposite extremity of this same type of activity is the constant prattling of a ‘dom’ and the ‘are you okay with this? Is this good for you? Are you enjoying this?’ to me is utter nonsense. The Dominant should have a good understanding of the person he is playing with and if he doesn’t know the person well enough to know if there not ‘okay with this’ then they shouldn’t be sceneing with them. I’m not here to cater to the submissive’s desires she and I are here to cater to mine.

I have been in a relationship with my wife for over five years, but I still ask her if she's okay during a scene. I'd say I know her fairly well. It is not the person that needs to be known, it's the scene. Every scene is different. You may whip someone a thousand times, but one time the whip might hit a certain part and cause a not-so-good kind of pain. The submissive might need a second to recover from that, and should be given that opportunity. However, if the dominant is not checking the submissive's status when something like this arises, then he is not being responsible to her.

Many examples of this type of thing exist. It is the dominant's responsibility to run the scene. It is also his responsibility to make sure the scene and the people in it are safe. That whole SSC thing again.

This not misinformation, this is the foundation of what a deep D\s relationship is suppose to be hence why it’s called Dominance and submission and not ‘make me do these things I like’. Once person willing and wantonly giving themselves to someone and is owned. They have given the Dominant themselves to enjoy as they wish. The responsibility of the Dominant to do that in a manner that doesn’t damage the person. Will the Dominant at some point violate her civil rights? I am rather sure of it. Will the Dominant do things that are scary and painful and uncomfortable for the person, well hopefully.

I agree that the dominant should do things to not damage the submissive. And by that, I mean mentally, emotionally, and physically damage.

However, in the context of the original article, the point of the paragraph was to allude to the fact that control is not the dominant's to take; it is, rather, for the submissive to give.

The concept that power is retained by the person giving it up is a contradiction in and of itself. The power and the control was given willingly and with understanding, at that point the power is gone, the only power left is to end the relationship which does not give the person ‘power’ over the relationship. The Dominant has the power to end the relationship as well.

Indeed, the dominant may choose to end the relationship. That is his choice. Just as the choice for the submissive to end the relationship should be hers as well. Many submissives believe that they do not have the choice to even walk away from the relationship if it becomes something it should not be. They don't realize that they have that power.

And if they have the power at the end of the relationship, then they have had it all along. There is no contradiction. The power is the submissive's to give, to hold, and to take back.

Isn’t a submissive, a masochist yes, but far from a submissive they’re the dominant and the one hold the whip is the submissive.

I agree here, again, but this has already been covered previously. A submissive should not be allowed to manipulate a situation any more than a dominant should.

However, submissives should realize that they do hold the final word in the DS relationship. They don't have to give up their sense of security and safety.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

Personally, i think it depends upon the two who are involved and what works for them. Neither side is right or wrong, just different.

I agree with this, actually. As long as relationship elements are negotiated properly and fairly, then each person should have the relationship they want.

In writing these articles, I'm not trying to write a list of commandments on stone tablets. Rather, I am offering information from my point of view that might help those less informed and less knowledgeable. I'm all for the open negotiation and satisfactory management of any relationship, as long as the relationship is healthy, informed, and caring.

For instance... if i was sceneing with someone in a club, i would NOT give up complete control. However, if it were with someone that i had a relationship with and the trust and love were there...then it would be different. The way i see it, each relationship is different, each with different levels of control.

This is something that has not yet been discussed by any of us here. The differences between the LTR and the one-night scene at the club. Obviously, in these situations, there isn't really much time for limit negotiations and in-depth interviews, but one the same note, these scenes tend to not be as in-depth as the ones held in LTRs.

This might make another beautiful idea for a thread. I nominate spirit to type it up.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

Whilst agreeing, surely if the person could take the power back, at any given time (with a safeword or whatever) then it remains with them....hmmm, but *thinks* (i'm thinking aloud here, feel free to ignore me), at the same time, i DO see what you mean when you say it's a complete contradiction to say the power is retained by the person giving it...*ponders*. i think the final conclusion, to me personally, and based on what i said much earlier on in this thread, is that the submissive is giving the dominant a huge element of autonomy and trust....in doing so, he/she is inherantly transferring a lot of 'ground level' power in terms of what the dominant can do with him/her on a physical and mental level...but some underlying power to continue giving up that power must logically lie with the submissive.

Good point. Even though you took your time getting to it.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

Okay, this thread has started to give me a headache. I like a good discussion as well as the next person, but I think that many of the posts in this thread have some truth to them and that it has now become an issue of nitpicking over semantics.

I see valid points on all sides...the key is to make sure the relationship works for all the parties involved, not for this entire community.

I agree, and I apologize for occasionally losing site of the 'big picture.' I don't like to nitpick. I do like to debate, though. I guess sometimes my enjoyment of a challenging game of wits overwhelms my sense of better judgement.

I also agree that, as long as the relationship works for the people involved, then whatever those people choose to do is clearly the right thing. Just as long as it's all safe and legal and such.

[e.b.]

With all this chatter about power and SSC etc I thought I would throw this excerpt from a lecture by my favorite author:


"LAURA, LEATHER, AND LIFE"
A LECTURE BY LAURA ANTONIOU
NOVEMBER 8, 1995
CROSSROADS LEARNING CENTER
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
SPONSORED BY THE SOCIETY FOR HUMAN SEXUALITY

Copyright © 1995 by Laura Antoniou

Full transcript http://www.sexuality.org/latrans.html
Or Laura Antoniou is the keynote speaker for the International Master & Slave Contest at South Plains LeatherFest, taking place the last weekend in February, February 25-27

Thanks for posting this link, Eraser. Laura is my favorite bdsm author as well and awhile back I had actually considered making an all new thread for discussion of this lecture. I have loved it ever since I read it a year or so ago. I'd encourage everyone to visit the link and read the whole thing. Oh, and then go out and buy the whole Marketplace series, and read those too. Antoniou's work does an amazing job of presenting honest, insightful, and poignant thoughts on the scene in general. Even though the work is fiction, I still think everyone, doms/subs/whoever, can learn a good bit about integrity from reading her work.

eb

[slavelucy]

Good point.

Thanks. i mean it. Coming from you, that's high praise indeed.

And as for taking my time, well sure i did, i'm lucy, the proof of the point is all in the procrastination.

lucy said it best with her comment that "the sub has the power to say where it doesn't go...the dom, from there, says where it does go." That pretty accurately sums it up IMO.

Aw, thanks e.b, glad it made sense to someone!

sl

[Jadetiger]

I agree, and I apologize for occasionally losing site of the 'big picture.' I don't like to nitpick. I do like to debate, though. I guess sometimes my enjoyment of a challenging game of wits overwhelms my sense of better judgement.

I also agree that, as long as the relationship works for the people involved, then whatever those people choose to do is clearly the right thing. Just as long as it's all safe and legal and such.

I find these discussions extremely helpful. I am new to the DBSM world and hearing everyone's view point is how I learn. I will admit Eraser's view did shake me up a bit, but it also made me think about the needs of a Dom. I find your views helpful and I really appreciated the time you spend discussing these issues with us.

I also have to thank Slavelucy for making it simple and easy to understand.

[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.

[emmacd]

I agree with this entirely, It was as a sub that i learned so much about compassion and love. As Dom I was able to apply this very well. I found that I was in controll of limits from the sub. That puts it in the world of trust. Subs will convey messages to you what they want and you can read their eyes and their tenderness. You have to have a understanding at all times on what you feel and what the sub does jointly. I know it sounds corny but it is true. Emmacd

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.

[Barton]

Who has the power???

The sub, the sub, always the sub.

Control has to be given. You cannot take it. If the sub does not give over their control then what is the point.