The article is from 2012, but since it appeared in the BDSM group my slave and I admin online, I thought I would give it a review.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201206/loving-introduction-bdsm
The article starts out saying that BDSM is similar to the child's game, "Trust Me", where one person stands behind the other, the person in front falls, and that person has to trust that the person standing behind will catch him or her. I don't want to nitpick, and this isn't really a criticism of the article (more of a side note), but I've only seen this game appear in sitcoms, where a "trust exercise" appeared in a motivational seminar or work-related meeting. Anyway, the article isn't wrong: there is an element of danger, and one person has to trust the other to keep her or him safe, even when they're playing dangerously.
I applaud the article for saying BDSM is not abusive, which it does right off the bat. It elaborates into something my slave and I have said to each other, but I've heard from many in the BDSM community: there is a special bond in lifestyle BDSM, because the rules are laid down in advance of play, and there's always explicit communication about the most intimate details. We've called our bond "stronger than marriage," and we firmly assert that it's the case: we have a commitment based on complete trust, where she has given herself to me completely, mind and body. Not every BDSM relationship is between a loving, committed couple, however; the sexual relationship is based on trust if it's done correctly, but not all BDSM involves 24/7 observance of rules and roles. People get together for one-time encounters. They have casual partners. They bring in a third in their couple's play. There are all kinds of ways to do BDSM, but whatever the case, there should be up-front negotiation of limits and rules. Whether that negotiation leads to the kind of commitment described in the article depends on whether the relationship extends beyond sex.
The article briefly touches on the history of BDSM, but really only touches on sadomasochism's origins, not domination and submission. A D/s relationship does not necessarily involve pain, so only mentioning sadomasochism narrows the focus of BDSM play to eroticism that involves a sadist and a masochist. A day interacting with people in the lifestyle reveals that it's not the full picture. My relationship involves a sadistic Master and a masochistic slave, but our way isn't the only way to play--not by a long shot. Domination also involves seduction, forcefulness, firmness, tone, confidence, and nurturing, and not all punishments for rule-breaking involve pain, either. Isolation, performance of tasks, humiliation, and special favors outside of the norm can be punishment.
The author proceeds to tell us about the prevalence of BDSM, saying two to three percent play with the lifestyle. I agree with that number. Some say that it's become mainstream, but I think that's only because more people are coming into it with unrealistic expectations that come from a popular book series, not because people are truly entering the lifestyle permanently.
I have a bone of contention with the ideas given as examples of how "..BDSM imagery pervades society." Political and economic power do not involve trust; they are more in line with examples of abusive relationships. They involve manipulation and malfeasance sometimes, as well as a show of force with a lack of consent. A true example would be representative government; the people give power over to representatives, whom they trust to handle the running of society. Elections represent the safe word, along with special elections and impeachment. The desire to control doesn't represent BDSM in any true sense; the gift of power and the ability to influence the will of the people without betraying their trust is a far better ideal, I think, and a far more accurate representative of the lifestyle as it exists today.
Enough of my political soapbox; let's move on to the idea that BDSM is never abusive, an idea that the article addresses well. It's true that a BDSM relationship necessitates consent, if limits and safe words are observed, but to say that BDSM is more theatrical than real strikes me as a bit odd. The sensations are very real. The seduction: real. The control: real. It's not just an act; it's sex, and the role of submissive and dominant are not just parts played by 24/7 lifestyle couples. The submissive lives to please her dominant, and the dominant has a responsibility to keep her safe during play and care for her afterwards.
I wish the next part didn't appear in the article, because it's been positive toward BDSM overall--but this statement told me that the author definitely doesn't participate in BDSM and didn't observe it very well. It reiterates the statement, "BDSM is more theatrical than real," then goes on to say that "...participants carefully choreograph their moves in advance." This "choreography" might occur with some scene players, but it's certainly not true of me and my slave, nor are we a rare exception. I could see professionals doing it for their submissive clients, or porn actors doing it on film, but in a relationship? No. What we do often unfolds organically. I think constant choreography of scenes would seem forced and contrived.
The article starts going wildly off the mark at this point, unfortunately, but with a common misconception that persists even in the BDSM community. The notion that subs are ultimately in charge of play because of the use of safe words both ignores what would happen if a safe word gets abused and sweeps aside the skill, knowledge, and confidence of the dominant. A submissive abusing a safe word betrays trust, too, and if it's used flippantly, the sub destroys the relationship. Also, a good dominant knows how to persuade, how to push soft limits, and how to read the body language of the submissive. He knows how to maintain control and flow of play. The safe word does not exist to control play, but only to stop sensation that goes beyond the limit the submissive can take. To say that this puts the submissive in charge not only ignores that fact that submissives (unless they're topping from the bottom) are eager to please the dominant, but also reveals ignorance of how domination works. Most submissives will not simply submit to anyone; dominants must seduce them into it. They must make activity that might be unpleasant under normal circumstances reasonable, pleasurable, and desirable to the submissive (of course, masochists enjoy the pain--but it's still about context, as the article points out).
I don't disagree with how the article suggests getting into BDSM; I've given similar advice, and it's far better than the advice the professional dominatrix gave in the article I reviewed several weeks ago. However, in the next section, there's some woefully inadequate information on how to begin playing. I literally face-palmed at "If the latter, blindfolding the sub can be fun," in relation to B&D. Discipline is the "D" in "B&D", which implies that some sort of discipline is involved in the play. What could qualify as discipline...oh, I don't know...maybe spanking? Anyway, take the advice in the "Learning the Ropes" section: visit websites, clubs, or classes. Read a book--not fiction! Fiction is great for fantasy, but artistic license or ignorance of the lifestyle can lead a person new to it down an unsafe path. In any case, while you are learning about how people play, figure out what sounds hot to you, and start with those things.
The article ends on a reasonable and positive note, making a case for BDSM necessitating intimacy, which is healthy for relationships. I definitely agree. Although the author has limited understanding of how people play and how BDSM relationships work, his understand was good enough to recognize that it's not abuse, it's built on trust, it's not dehumanizing, and that it is fulfilling, intimate, and healthy. Although I have some disagreements with the author, the article is a positive for BDSM overall. It counteracts outdated notions about how mental disorders are responsible for why people participate in this kind of play. It separates cruelty from the sadism that exists in the lifestyle. Finally, it's nice to see someone who is clearly an outsider recognize that strong, loving bonds exist in the BDSM community, and that it's the nature of BDSM that is--at least partially-responsible.
No comments:
Post a Comment