Clarification - Dominance and submission

I sometimes take verbal flak about my self-described Dom personality. It seems that the external face of my lifestyle doesn't fit the preconceptions the complainers hold about D/s; and they persist in pointing out that I don't own a dungeon, don't make a regular practise of hurting anyone, and rarely even tie anyone up. They are obviously confused and/or ignorant about the meaning of terms used in the lifestyle.

Even given the unlikely chance that they will ever read it, I'm going to try and correct that here, to the extent that it is feasible.

D/s and BDSM are not the same thing. Sometimes it is convenient to lump them all together though, and that creates a lot of the confusion.

D/s is shorthand for Dominance and submission, which phrase describes a kind of relationship between people. BDSM is shorthand for Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism, which is a collection of practises, in which some people may engage at times (some will also insist that the "DS" in the middle is for Dominance and Submission). For example, one is much more likely to know people involved in a 24/7 D/s relationship (even though you are probably unaware of it) than one is to know anyone who regularly practises Sadism by flogging someone. Let's put this one to bed.

Dominance and Submission

As I said, D/s describes a kind of relationship. A relationship exists only between members of a pair of individuals; and is usually, but not necessarily, different from any relationship that exists between either member of the pair, and another individual, outside the pair. A D/s relationship may be only one of several kinds of relationships that exist between members of the same pair.

Like any relationship, a D/s relationship is driven by the roles played by the participants in the relationship. In this type of relationship, only two roles are of any real importance: the Dominant (or Top, or Dom/me or sometimes, Master/Mistress) role, and the submissive (or bottom, or sub, or sometimes, slave) role.

A dictionary is often useful in understanding terms. The Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary (2002) lists one definition of the noun dominant as follows:

"a dominant individual in a social hierarchy."

Since this is a recursive definition, using the same word as an adjective to define the noun, we need to look a little further. The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary (2002) lists a definition of the adjective dominant as:

"exercising the most influence or control."

So, to expand and clarify the first definition, we can define a Dominant as:

"the individual who excercises the most influence or control in a social hierarchy."

There isn't as much dictionary support to define the noun submissive, the way we use it,so our efforts will require a little more of a stretch. Experience with the lifestyle would support another recursive definition: i.e.:

"a submissive individual in a social hierarchy."

Again, we use a term as an adjective, to define the same term as a noun. There is no shortage of definitions for the adjective, submissive, however, and the one which seems to fit best, comes from the Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary (2002):

"characterized by tendencies to yield to the will or authority of others."

Expanding and clarifying then, we define a submissive as:

"an individual who tends to yield to the will or authority of others in a social hierarchy."

These definitions fit into social hierarchies of any size, even one that contains only two people - a relationship! More specifically, a D/s relationship.

Any specific relationship, and thus any D/s relationship, may be said to exist in a continuum of such relationships of the same kind, and the location of the relationship between any two particular people within the continuum, may be described by expressing the amplitude (intensity) of one or more characteristics of the relationship.

In his stories, one of my favorite online authors (MWTB) describes Dominance and submission as aspects of a single quantity: a number line, if you will, with submission at one end of the scale and dominance at the other. In his view, then, where you fall on the line determines which role you normally play.

I actually believe that Dominance and submission are two separate characteristics, and that everyone has both characteristics, in different quantities. As separate characteristics, Dominance and submission can be described in a Cartesion two-space (plane). In this view, the D/s relationship between any two people can be described by where they fall on the plane.

The so called vanilla relationship, for instance, is not a different kind of relationship at all. It is just a situation that happens when two people assume that they are at more or less the same place on the plane. When a person's entire lifestyle is characterized as vanilla, it simply means that he/she habitually treats the people around him/her as social equals. It usually signals a lack of awareness on his/her part, about where on the D/s plane the people surrounding him/her are, leading to the (sometimes) erroneous assumption that everyone is about where he/she is on the plane.

As you can see, being a Dominant doesn't necessarily require that you tie anyone up, or flog them, or in any way be cruel or rude to them, and being submissive doesn't have to mean that you have any of these things done to you. Bottom line: being a Dominant requires that you make most of the important decisions about the relationship, and being submissive requires that you accept, and when expected to, implement, those decisions.

Well, I've rambled on and avoided my other responsibilities long enough, for now, so I'm going to close this blog. Sometime soon, I'll probably add a post with some opinions about the practises of BDSM, and maybe another comparing the characteristics of Dominants, submissives, sadists, and masochists.

Sayonara

QM