Are Dom's villians?

[Licia]

Heady sexual overtones fall into sadomasochism. A sadist enjoys dishing out pain; a masochist, the reception. The hubs and I play this way often, and it has nothing to do with one reprimanding the other.

My experience with the domme sub dynamic regarding punishment is different: neither fully enjoy punishment, but that's what one gets when emotions are involved. (Pain and punishment are seperate creatures.) Normally an issue is handled with implied punishment first, so he has a chance to decide if he wants to modify his behavior. An example which occured last night...

The hubs was home after an outing and feeling surly. Going through his evening ritual, he foraged for a light, sugary snack. Recognizing the event, I called him over.

Everyone is in a bad mood sometimes.

"What's the matter?"

"Nothing to eat in this house!"

Was that a mini-tantrum?

I chuckled and rose to my feet. Hand moving up his midsection, my fingernail tapped his sternum. "Say that tomorrow when supper is missing."

Full bodied laugh, he appeared taller than his six-foot-one. "Gah, no! Not that." His face transformed into an apology, and a 'sorry' met my lips.

I thought for a minute. "Actually, what I may do is tie you down and force feed you bits of squash until ya could hold no more. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcJjMnHoIBI"Eat It[/URL] as a musical backdrop, I'd kick your arse! *sings/dances* Have some more turkey. Have some more pie. It doesn't matter...if it's baked or fried. Just eat it! Woo!"

We had a fantastic laugh, and there is no subject above satire in my world. Still, he knows that implication could become a reality.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Licia, is that an example of a dom being a villain in fiction?

 

[Licia]

Dunno, Stella. My perception is skewed towards the sadistic, and language *can* hurt much more than the whip. Humiliation aspect present in the refered post, the entire snipped scene from last night is one of our basic flirt techniques.

The reality: I do not care to be confronted by frustration due to outside events and subsequently blamed for "no sugary snacks".

He appreciates the fact that I care about the condition of his stomach and does not want me to take that away.

We both know he's quite capable of feeding himself.

I would never try to starve him to death, nor do I wish for such. I can, though, solve a problem while demonstrating my own frustrations.

We had a happy ending because we understand one another. The transition from bad mood into ready to interact was near seamless.

Without context it probably is a good example of a dom being a villian in fiction. Frankly, I find villifying a sadist quite easy.

Headline for the newsreport might read Sadist's Seven.

 

[BiBunny]

I don't think subs are often thinking about how much they enjoy their service while they're being punished. They're way more likely to be focusing on how absolutely much they hate being punished, instead of off in la-la land fantasizing about how packing Mr. Dom's lunch is so personally fulfilling. Sorry if that sounds snarky, I just don't see how a sub can be thinking about enjoying service while being punished. That seems a little far out in Fantasy BDSM Book Land.

Also, on a somewhat related tangent, in my experience, people who have a service-for-the-sake-of-service kink are REALLY rare. It's often more about making one or more person(s) in particular happy, rather than "ZOMG, I just LOVE being told to mop floors!" If not having to mop floors makes the dom/me(s) happy (or at least less stressed out), then the sub does so for that reason. The service is a means to an end, i.e., the happiness of the dominant(s), rather than an end in and of itself.

 

[Stella_Omega]

it probably is a good example of a dom being a villian in fiction. Frankly, I find villifying a sadist quite easy.

If "a scene with a character making joking threats s/h never intends to carry out" equals "villain" to you then yeah.

But in a work of fiction, a villain is a function of the plot. The bad guy might never make a threat at all. Might not be a sadist either. Just do bad things, or cause bad things to happen. Maybe the sadist is the good guy. Maybe a sub is the villain, although I am trying unsuccessfully to think of anything I've read with that.

 

[FurryFury]

I'm not fond of the "classic" BDSM novels or books generally.

Tried to read The Story of O. Just couldn't get into it. Also tried to read deSade, also couldn't get into it.

The first Beauty book not only didn't turn me on it creeped me out on quite a few counts, including underage characters, constant spanking, no story, things that would break the "toys" and things which could not be done, no decent characters or story lines, and no one actually running the Queendom. Ugh.

 

[AdjectiveNounVerb]

I don't believe a BDSM relationship is an abusive relationship, whether it's a 24/7 lifestyle or occasional play. I do believe most vanillas can't wrap their head around that simple concept.

I hope we (vanillas, that is) can wrap our heads around that concept. I mean, accepting that the consent in SSC is actual consent really isn't (or shouldn't be) difficult. Believing that a BDSM relationship is an abusive relationship, I think that's the same level of repugnant and stupid as believing all gay men are pedophiles or all heterosexual sex is rape or something else both ludicrous and insulting. So if we vanillas can't understand that abuse and BDSM aren't the same, well, that says something pretty awful about us if you ask me.

Now, I admit that I can't wrap my head around the why behind the consent, and I'm guessing that that's actually what most vanillas can't do, but catalina_francisco was entirely right that it's none of our business. Not that some of us don't wish we could wrap our heads around it anyway.

 

[BiBunny]

I hope we (vanillas, that is) can wrap our heads around that concept. I mean, accepting that the consent in SSC is actual consent really isn't (or shouldn't be) difficult. Believing that a BDSM relationship is an abusive relationship, I think that's the same level of repugnant and stupid as believing all gay men are pedophiles or all heterosexual sex is rape or something else both ludicrous and insulting. So if we vanillas can't understand that abuse and BDSM aren't the same, well, that says something pretty awful about us if you ask me.

Now, I admit that I can't wrap my head around the why behind the consent, and I'm guessing that that's actually what most vanillas can't do, but catalina_francisco was entirely right that it's none of our business. Not that some of us don't wish we could wrap our heads around it anyway.

I like you.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

I find so many of the comments this thread has received interesting. For the record, let's not confuse being a self-admitting lightweight as being ignorant.

As a writer, I feel often find myself gazing into the abyss of ignorance that separates most of us. Every character's action or reaction is colored first by "what would I do?" fighting against "what would this character do?" And when we read, we're hopefully sucked into the realities of the characters so we might explore choices we wouldn't have made or we're given the opportunity to perceive the world through eyes different than ours.

I don't think books like "Fifty Shades" necessarily get it wrong. After all, it's a fantasy designed to entertain, like so much of fiction. I'm intrigued by my understanding of Stella's question - can a sub be a villain? Are they any examples? And it makes me wonder if a sub can be a villain without topping from the bottom.

When I write, I try to create momentum behind my characters that compels them to act a certain way. I write and re-write entire passages trying to get that part right. Do I succeed or fail? Fuck, I don't know. Sometimes? Most of the time? Some readers like what I write, some don't.

Sometimes, I think writing is a bit like putting together a superhero movie, say "The Avengers." Will it satisfy the fan-boys (thereby creating buzz) and still appeal to the casual movie goer?

Which brings me back to the original question, however clumsy my question was, are Doms automatically villains? Do they terrorize? I believe they motivate change, a key component in being the "versus" part of a story. But I don't know that it makes them the villain of a story. Yes, I'm talking about "in literature" and I'm leaning more towards mainstream literature than community lit.

You see, the magic of mainstream entertainment is that it can create change. Where would gay marriage be without someone like Ellen? Or Kurt in "Glee" or... The world of BDSM isn't a cartoon, I respect that, and as someone with bigger aspirations, I hope to get it right.

Thank you community for your comments, corrections, and challenges.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

It is quite common for the Dom/mes or one of them, to be a murderer or villain. I run two BDSM Book of the Month clubs one here in the cafe and one at Fetlife.

Most BDSM novels are crap.

Yes, often the subs are confused or reluctant but I kind of like to see a struggle that resonates for me. Sadly too many characters are thin as the paper they are written on.

Very few BDSM novels have stories that matter independent of the D/s dynamic.

Very few BDSM have deep, multilayer-ed characters.

Too many have "perfect" looking characters.

Too many have Doms that are rich and a society of rich kinky folk.

FF

And this is true of much popular fiction, as well. Substitute the word "thrillers" for "BDSM novels" and "world-ending catastrophe/political juggernaut" for "D/s dynamic" and you get the same results.

But I'll admit, audio books that are all popcorn plot sure make the time go by on long drives better than the transcendentalists.

 

[njlauren]

I think part of the problem is confusing D/s with BD/SM or simply a relationship where the main character is dominant over another character. The problem with 50 shades of Gray isn't whether or not what he does is BD/SM (it is in the clinical sense, he does thing via contract, the subs negotiate what they will do/won't do, they have safe words, all of which are traditional bd/sm) it is in the character of Christian Gray himself, he is someone who is screwed up, because of his past, and because of that he uses BD/SM to have any kind of relationship. Could someone take that to mean all bd/sm people are screwed up, that they do this because they have been traumatized? Sure, the same way that some people believe gay women are that way because they were abused by a man, gay men are that way because of a wimpy dad and a dominant mom, and so forth...... what the 50 shades books are is really more a romance story that flirts around BD/SM and the story is Anna bringing Christian out of his shell (my reading of the tale is it doesn't mean their relationship won't be without kink, it just means Anna brings out in Christian the ability to express actual love during sex, touching and being touched, rather then using a sub for sex...).

Some dominants can be villains, others are shades of gray. There is a romance author I like who wrote some books where the main male characters are not typical in a romance novel and she took crap from her fans because they are kind of dark. In one (I believe the title was Knight) the girl falls for a dominant man who loves her, but he also is dark (he runs a trendy nightclub, but is compromised in that he will use strong arm tactics, for example, to get the landlord to fix broken locks and lights in her building, or he makes a deal with drug dealers that they can make contact on site but no selling there or that he runs an escort business..and she is willing to deal with that, that for example with the escort business the women working for it are well paid and treated well); in another one the main male character is a security expert to the stars kind of thing, lives in this Indiana town and falls for this woman who is the widow of a cop with two teen daughters..but he can be very not nice in some ways, has some other shadows (has some mob connections in the family), and again she took crap from some of her base about how these men are not perfect, and yet the women go for them. They aren't villains really, but have shadows and such but in the end love the main female character....

Unfortunately the stereotype is out there, the man hating bitch of a domme, the male dom as abuser/rapist and you aren't going to shake that easily. A rather famous ADA in NYC, someone who made a career out of protecting women in prosecuting sex crimes, basically made it a point that with BD/SM play that a dominant was guilty of abuse no matter the facts, that in her eyes a submissive could not consent to scene play scenarios, and if they had regrets later in her eyes it was automatically a case of abuse, even if it had been consensually negotiated (look up the Janovic (sp) case in NYC from several years ago to see what I am talking about; the prosecutor and a judge got a conviction by railroading a dominant into jail, thank God for the appeals court and also the head DA who realized the ADA had gone gaga with this one...).

 

[BuckyDuckman]

...Unfortunately the stereotype is out there, ... A rather famous ADA in NYC, someone who made a career out of protecting women in prosecuting sex crimes, basically made it a point that with BD/SM play that a dominant was guilty of abuse no matter the facts, that in her eyes a submissive could not consent to scene play scenarios, and if they had regrets later in her eyes it was automatically a case of abuse, even if it had been consensually negotiated (look up the Janovic (sp) case in NYC from several years ago to see what I am talking about; the prosecutor and a judge got a conviction by railroading a dominant into jail, thank God for the appeals court and also the head DA who realized the ADA had gone gaga with this one...).

This, to me, is why it's important to get a good message to the mainstream world. Thanks also for your analysis of "50 Shades."

 

[AdjectiveNounVerb]

Unfortunately the stereotype is out there, the man hating bitch of a domme, the male dom as abuser/rapist and you aren't going to shake that easily. A rather famous ADA in NYC, someone who made a career out of protecting women in prosecuting sex crimes, basically made it a point that with BD/SM play that a dominant was guilty of abuse no matter the facts, that in her eyes a submissive could not consent to scene play scenarios, and if they had regrets later in her eyes it was automatically a case of abuse, even if it had been consensually negotiated (look up the Janovic (sp) case in NYC from several years ago to see what I am talking about; the prosecutor and a judge got a conviction by railroading a dominant into jail, thank God for the appeals court and also the head DA who realized the ADA had gone gaga with this one...).

The case was Jovanovic.

I like you.

Well thank-you!

 

[Stella_Omega]

The case was Jovanovic.

And here we have a perfect example of a sub being the villain.

Wow!