Unhappy with my sex life... What should I do?

[bakedbeams]

I can only speak for me, and that is to say it is my nature to be submissive inside and outside the bedroom. I look for naturally dominant men, dominant in all aspects of their lives.

My SO 'naturally' tells me what to wear, to cook, he likes to bite, if I say he's hurt me, he tells me to stop whinging and enjoy it. He says he knows whatever he asks of me, I will do, and that makes me his 'Special One'. He 'naturally' chooses what I will eat/drink when we go out. I 'naturally' want only to make him happy whether thats sitting at his feet massaging them, rubbing his back, cooking, whatever he wants in bed, reading poems/books he wants to discuss.

I 'naturally' ask permission to call him at work, to wipe my face after a facial, give him head .. whatever. I have told him I like to be tied up and disciplined, he does this when he feels like it. He says its not the 'act' he enjoys but the way my eyes light up.

We dont have safe words, he just does what he wants at any given time, and I happily do it, if it brings him pleasure, his being happy inevitably 'gets me off'.

When I've been in relationships with men who aren't naturally dominant, it doesnt work. Submissive is who I am, I feel secure/loved/fulfilled when my partner takes the reigns and knows that their pleasure/happiness is paramount to my pleasure/happiness.

 

[neci]

Do you ID as submissive? I didn't know that.

Read posts 1, 3, and 4 above. Those have nothing to do with obedience or deference, and everything to do with a stated desire for rougher, kinkier sex. Nothing to do with what the partner wants or needs, and everything to do with the desires of the self-identified "sub."

These posts are far from unique. People come here and write this stuff over and over and over. I'd say this thread was a classic.

I'm not arguing semantics here. I was responding to HM's post about who's really calling the shots, with a general (but not universal) observation.

I've never been to the website Marquis mentioned, but just the name makes me laugh. "Collar me." Think about that for a second.

not every one is blessed to discover parts of themselves - such as a yearning for pleasing someone else, while being used by them for their satisfaction - in the beginning of a relationship. i believe that in a relationships, and in life, we are not stagnant people who stay the same forever. sometimes one discovers truths about them self - after a long time of thinking (or wishing) they were another way. for me this does not mean, get a divorce from the man i love, so i can go out to find my perfect sexually compatible partner - that is a selfish desire - to throw away something precious - in search of your own needs - call it what ever you want. no. i don't run my husband to kinky clubs, asking him to put a collar on me and hit me when he doesn't want me to hurt. i do look for ways to explain to him how i want him to make me feel, just as i look for what makes him happy - how i can learn something new to bring him pleasure. sure - when he decides to use me like a whore, fucking my mouth so hard that i can not breathe - i feel like i am on cloud nine. when he comes on me and falls over, spent with exhaustion, i don't sit there saying, Hey! my turn! come and beat me a little now! i lay next to him, and smile that i could make him feel complete. it is give and take. learning, falling, getting up and discovering together where the two of you will end up - it may be strapped to a bed - it may be them laying in your arms - if you find someone worth walking hand in hand with - for the rest of your life - the small and large discoveries - are just a part of the ride.

 

[Primalex]

not every one is blessed to discover parts of themselves - such as a yearning for pleasing someone else, while being used by them for their satisfaction - in the beginning of a relationship. i believe that in a relationships, and in life, we are not stagnant people who stay the same forever. sometimes one discovers truths about them self - after a long time of thinking (or wishing) they were another way. for me this does not mean, get a divorce from the man i love, so i can go out to find my perfect sexually compatible partner - that is a selfish desire - to throw away something precious - in search of your own needs - call it what ever you want. no. i don't run my husband to kinky clubs, asking him to put a collar on me and hit me when he doesn't want me to hurt. i do look for ways to explain to him how i want him to make me feel, just as i look for what makes him happy - how i can learn something new to bring him pleasure. sure - when he decides to use me like a whore, fucking my mouth so hard that i can not breathe - i feel like i am on cloud nine. when he comes on me and falls over, spent with exhaustion, i don't sit there saying, Hey! my turn! come and beat me a little now! i lay next to him, and smile that i could make him feel complete. it is give and take. learning, falling, getting up and discovering together where the two of you will end up - it may be strapped to a bed - it may be them laying in your arms - if you find someone worth walking hand in hand with - for the rest of your life - the small and large discoveries - are just a part of the ride.

God gave you paragraphs. Use them.

 

[Adakgirl]

Read carefully what most self-identified subs write.

What they want is a virile, aggressive mate. Someone who will toss them around in the bedroom, tie them up and tease them, do naughty things to their bodies, provide them with earth-shattering orgasms. Pay them a whole hell of a lot of sexual attention.

There's nothing wrong with any of that, obviously. But it has zip to do with obedience or deference.

JM I take a bit of offense at your blatant generalization of what "most" self-identified subs write. For one thing, if submissives do not identify for themselves that they are indeed a submissive, then please tell me who is responsible for identifying them as so?

There are different levels of submission and some include only sexual submission to the kind of men you describe above. That does not mean they are not submissive women, it just means they only submit and obey sexually. You are right in saying that has nothing to do with obedience and deference. But it really doesn't have to for them does it?

In your opinion and mine and "most" others A good submissive is one who possesses the strong desire to please, a need to defer , a willingness to obey and a has mindset that always places her dominants desires before her own.

That is what I see in MOst self-identified sub's writing here. I do not understand how you came to a conclusion that groups most of us into a general overall
sexual slut-only-in-it-for-their- own pleasure category. If you came to it by reading threads like you linked...then you are not seeing the forest for the trees. In all due respect.

 

[algimore]

Remember to talk

I was in a relationship with a submissive that would not tell me what she liked or disliked. I did not know which way she wanted things to go. Finally, after sensing that she was not happy with what was going on, I sat down with her outside of the bedroom and we talked. She was not happy with the role of submissive any more. We stopped the scene and were together for many years. The point is that unless you talk to your partner they will not know what you want. Remember just because you play a submissive sexually does not mean that you have no control over what happens to you. Many of my friends in the scene who have submissive partners in the sexual arenas are themselves submissive in the financial arena or the spousal arena. you may like something for a while and then change. change is okay in life when you become stagnate that is when problems occur.

 

[CutieMouse]

Read carefully what most self-identified subs write.

What they want is a virile, aggressive mate. Someone who will toss them around in the bedroom, tie them up and tease them, do naughty things to their bodies, provide them with earth-shattering orgasms. Pay them a whole hell of a lot of sexual attention.

There's nothing wrong with any of that, obviously. But it has zip to do with obedience or deference.

JM I take a bit of offense at your blatant generalization of what "most" self-identified subs write. For one thing, if submissives do not identify for themselves that they are indeed a submissive, then please tell me who is responsible for identifying them as so?

There are different levels of submission and some include only sexual submission to the kind of men you describe above. That does not mean they are not submissive women, it just means they only submit and obey sexually. You are right in saying that has nothing to do with obedience and deference. But it really doesn't have to for them does it?

In your opinion and mine and "most" others A good submissive is one who possesses the strong desire to please, a need to defer , a willingness to obey and a has mindset that always places her dominants desires before her own.

That is what I see in Most self-identified sub's writing here. I do not understand how you came to a conclusion that groups most of us into a general overall
sexual slut-only-in-it-for-their- own pleasure category. If you came to it by reading threads like you linked...then you are not seeing the forest for the trees. In all due respect.

I've gotta back JM on this one... IMO the number who fit JM's description slightly outnumber the ones who fit your description.

It has very little to do with "bedroom" vs. "full timers" and much more to do with attitude.

 

[Adakgirl]

Do you identify yourself as a submissive Cutie? Perhaps you take a different view of the word "most" than I do.

 

[BiBunny]

I've gotta back JM on this one... IMO the number who fit JM's description slightly outnumber the ones who fit your description.

It has very little to do with "bedroom" vs. "full timers" and much more to do with attitude.

Ditto.

 

[johnnieblue44]

Ditto.

Now to the task at hand.

I will take it very slowly and gently with you..until you don't want me to be gentle any more..and not only will you tell me, I will intuitively know, taking my cues from your body and your audible reactions.

I have told you that I have an oral fixation. It is very true, as you will discover. There is nothing that turns me on more than giving pleasure, and the excitement of exploring and learning your body, your desires, your favorite, forbidden spots.

I will tease you at first by slowly working my way down your body..from your neck, to your shoulders, to your beautiful breasts, tweaking your nipples taut with my knowing fingers. I'm leaking pre-cum. Then, I ease my soft lips onto your stomach, your navel, my hands gently pulling your legs apart, kissing the mound right around your pussy next, working my way teasingly onto your inner thighs, my breath warm and comforting, sending slight tremors through you simply from the anticipation, as you know how wonderfully you are about to be made love to orally, and manually, and finally, with my big cock splitting you wide open.

First, though, my fingers gently pry your lips apart, your intoxicating scent now inches in front of me, your clit visibly pulsating, your lips soaked with juices, and I liltingly insert a finger slooowly into your hot cunt. I get rock hard myself from watching you shiver, hearing you moan, and my mouth lingers directly over your wonderful forbidden treasure, and I look directly into your eyes as you watch my tongue flick towards the nub of your clit, and I lick and tease around the outside of your clit, my eyes never leaving yours, watching you mesmerized, your eyes half closing in ecstasy from the mastery of my tongue on you.

My mouth wanders lower down, exploring your labia, my fingers still forming a "V" on your outside walls, spreading your lips apart wide, accessing you fully, my tongue lying flat, uncurling, and darting swiftly into your pussy, literally fucking you tenderly with my tongue, and my thumb now dances on top of your clit. I'm pre-cumming again. I pull my tongue out from between your lips, and glide it, ease it down, down, tasting and licking and slurping on your whole entire pussy now, your juices cascading onto my lips, your sweet nectar, and I take my free hand and insert into you and wipe your thighs, and then raise it to your own mouth. You suck hungrily on my finger, savoring the incredible taste that is your own. Then I lower my finger and plunge it into your walls at the same time that I accelerate the motion and hasten the cadence of the rhythm of my mouth, my lips now sucking wholly on your clit, another finger now presses into you, sliding into the tip of your g-spot, and you heave and shudder with the first of countless mini-orgasms, your beautiful body completely surrendering to me, helpless and losing control, a third finger you feel now teasing and tickling your anus, circling the crack of your ass, as the two fingers inside you pound relentlessly but lovingly within you, hitting JUST the perfect spots, and then, you flash, you moan, you heave.

The 'explosion', ooooh Godddddd, your body on fire, stomach heaving, your mound pressing wantigly, uncontrollably onto my mouth, your legs twitching.

So many women ask to stop after their first orgasm, probably because they haven't had a man talented enough to know how to prolong and extend their orgasms again and again, waiting just the right amount of time after your first explosion, releasing the contact with the clit directly, but keeping my tongue nuzzled and softly kissing your inner thighs, oh soooo gently flat-tonguing your lips without direct insertion into your cunt, then running my mouth down, slowly, to lick that tender and erotic spot between your pussy and your anus, and then running my lips back up again, softly, rhythmically, inserting a finger into your pussy, and then curling it upward and now teasing the on-fire nerve endings of your g-spot, and the, only then, running my mouth and lips back to the hood of your clit and sucking on it gently, feeling you cunt again pulsate and tremble and your juices flow into my mouth, for minutes, hours, dozens and dozens of times, driving you crazy and blind and insatiable with lust and desire and passion, running my other hand up and tweaking your nipples one at a time while the other hand lifts your ass gently into the air and teases first and then eases into your ass.

I roll you on your side, listening to go moan excitedly now in anticipation, wondering where I will I take you now, and hoping that our plans are the same.

They are.

I enter your ass from a spooning position. Your ass having already been well lubricated from the tonguing I had provided for you, I will reach around with one hand and place two fingers deep inside of your cunt, one flickering downward and the other vibrating against your upper, inner wall, while my other hand alternates pinching and tweaking your nipples, feeling them grow taut in my hand, as I kiss your mouth and lips deeply and passionately. Every 'touchpoint' on your body is being stimulated and pleasured as it feels as though multiple men are taking you at once. Yet it's all me, only me. Your mouth, your tits, your inner cunt, your clit, and your ass all being filled or rubbed or licked or fucked. All at once.

The next explosion emanates from deep with your cunt, rumbling northward from your toes, rushing through your thighs, juices now oozing out onto your legs, coating your ass and my cock, buried deep within your sphincter.

Stay tuned. Do you want to be fucked like this?

 

[CutieMouse]

Do you identify yourself as a submissive Cutie? Perhaps you take a different view of the word "most" than I do.

I don't identify myself as anything, anymore; at least not publicly.

 

[BiBunny]

What the fuck was that shit?

ETA: Cutie, that wasn't directed at your response, LOL.

 

[CutieMouse]

Now to the task at hand.

<snip>

Stay tuned. Do you want to be fucked like this?

*raises eyebrow*

 

[Homburg]

I've gotta back JM on this one... IMO the number who fit JM's description slightly outnumber the ones who fit your description.

It has very little to do with "bedroom" vs. "full timers" and much more to do with attitude.

People are conflating "submissive" with "bottom", methinks. I've said before that "submissive" seems to be the term du jour for anything even vaguely on the receiving end. "Service" submission is utterly foreign to the mindset that does this, and the concept of service in general is a bit arcane. But, for whatever reason, it just ain't cool to call yourself a "bottom".

Personally, I think it has to do with the internet. People read erotica, research on website, etc, and see "submissive" splayed all over the things they find mentally sexy. Yet when faced with the idea of something beyond bottoming in real life, it ain't so hot any more.

Personally, I don't give a damn if it turns her on to fetch me a glass of water. I just care that she does it. I hope that she wants to do it to please me, but honestly don't worry myself over whether or not it is a furtive sexual thrill. And the woman that is compatible with me will get this too. It's not all about sex. It's about service too.

 

[BiBunny]

People are conflating "submissive" with "bottom", methinks. I've said before that "submissive" seems to be the term du jour for anything even vaguely on the receiving end. "Service" submission is utterly foreign to the mindset that does this, and the concept of service in general is a bit arcane. But, for whatever reason, it just ain't cool to call yourself a "bottom".

Personally, I think it has to do with the internet. People read erotica, research on website, etc, and see "submissive" splayed all over the things they find mentally sexy. Yet when faced with the idea of something beyond bottoming in real life, it ain't so hot any more.

Personally, I don't give a damn if it turns her on to fetch me a glass of water. I just care that she does it. I hope that she wants to do it to please me, but honestly don't worry myself over whether or not it is a furtive sexual thrill. And the woman that is compatible with me will get this too. It's not all about sex. It's about service too.

I think this would make an interesting thread, even though I'm sure it'd be more just a tiny bit controversial.

 

[intothewoods]

What the fuck was that shit?

ETA: Cutie, that wasn't directed at your response, LOL.

I think it was the way you said ditto.

 

[intothewoods]

People are conflating "submissive" with "bottom", methinks. I've said before that "submissive" seems to be the term du jour for anything even vaguely on the receiving end. "Service" submission is utterly foreign to the mindset that does this, and the concept of service in general is a bit arcane. But, for whatever reason, it just ain't cool to call yourself a "bottom".

Personally, I think it has to do with the internet. People read erotica, research on website, etc, and see "submissive" splayed all over the things they find mentally sexy. Yet when faced with the idea of something beyond bottoming in real life, it ain't so hot any more.

Personally, I don't give a damn if it turns her on to fetch me a glass of water. I just care that she does it. I hope that she wants to do it to please me, but honestly don't worry myself over whether or not it is a furtive sexual thrill. And the woman that is compatible with me will get this too. It's not all about sex. It's about service too.

Service is definitely one category or aspect of submission, but kind of separate from whether someone has decision making authority in your relationship. Although I think I said I'm not a service sub a zillion times around here, I actually became much more service-oriented around the time we started making domestic plans together. I think the decision making stuff is definitely more of a gray area though and it really seems to be evolving.

 

[Homburg]

I think this would make an interesting thread, even though I'm sure it'd be more just a tiny bit controversial.

*shrug* My post above was all personal opinion dealing with how I see those terms. If it's controversial, so be it. The only controversy is likely to be someone getting butthurt because they feel like I am somehow impugning their submission by saying that some people might just be bottoms, not submissives. Whatever. I'm pointing no fingers, so anyone getting the aforementioned case of butthurt over my statements is probably just projecting their own insecurities onto my words.

And, at this moment, I have not even a trifling amount of sympathy for such things.

--

Service is definitely one category or aspect of submission

It is one of the big delineators for my personal definition of "submissive" vs "bottom". It's easy to go along with authority if you're bent that way, and even easier when that authority is your SO. Cleaning the bath tub because they said so is not so easy.

And, no, before the recriminations start, I'm not saying that service is a must to be submission. Whatever. Just that service is a litmus test when looking at the submissive/bottom continuum.

In-scene and out-of-scene is likewise a litmus test, but people are apparently trying to avoid the bedroom/lifestyler dichotomy. Meh.

I like labels. They are a handy starting point in providing possible perspective. I don't like them when they are diluted, and applied willy-nilly. JM said it perfectly with the phrase "self-identified submissives." It was a phrase rich with meaning.

 

[BiBunny]

*shrug* My post above was all personal opinion dealing with how I see those terms. If it's controversial, so be it. The only controversy is likely to be someone getting butthurt because they feel like I am somehow impugning their submission by saying that some people might just be bottoms, not submissives. Whatever. I'm pointing no fingers, so anyone getting the aforementioned case of butthurt over my statements is probably just projecting their own insecurities onto my words.

And, at this moment, I have not even a trifling amount of sympathy for such things.

Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I just know that people tend to get their panties in a wad over certain things, and I'm pretty sure that'd be one of them.

I have no sympathy, either.

 

[intothewoods]

*shrug* My post above was all personal opinion dealing with how I see those terms. If it's controversial, so be it. The only controversy is likely to be someone getting butthurt because they feel like I am somehow impugning their submission by saying that some people might just be bottoms, not submissives. Whatever. I'm pointing no fingers, so anyone getting the aforementioned case of butthurt over my statements is probably just projecting their own insecurities onto my words.

And, at this moment, I have not even a trifling amount of sympathy for such things.

--



It is one of the big delineators for my personal definition of "submissive" vs "bottom". It's easy to go along with authority if you're bent that way, and even easier when that authority is your SO. Cleaning the bath tub because they said so is not so easy.

And, no, before the recriminations start, I'm not saying that service is a must to be submission. Whatever. Just that service is a litmus test when looking at the submissive/bottom continuum.

In-scene and out-of-scene is likewise a litmus test, but people are apparently trying to avoid the bedroom/lifestyler dichotomy. Meh.

I like labels. They are a handy starting point in providing possible perspective. I don't like them when they are diluted, and applied willy-nilly. JM said it perfectly with the phrase "self-identified submissives." It was a phrase rich with meaning.

Sure, but service is also easier if you're bent that way. All of this is easier if you're bent that way. Some people get a lot of satisfaction out of service, but that isn't the same as deferring to authority. If your definition centers around service more than a desire to defer, that's fine by me. Some around here have said that only natural deference to everyone is submission. Labels are useful, but I think we're all more likely to find agreement on what's not submissive rather than what is.

 

[Homburg]

Sure, but service is also easier if you're bent that way. All of this is easier if you're bent that way. Some people get a lot of satisfaction out of service, but that isn't the same as deferring to authority. If your definition centers around service more than a desire to defer, that's fine by me. Some around here have said that only natural deference to everyone is submission. Labels are useful, but I think we're all more likely to find agreement on what's not submissive rather than what is.

"litmus test" =/= "definition centers around service"

Deference to sexual/romantic authority is pretty common throughout the spectrum of bottom-submissive-slave. Less common on the bottom end perhaps, but it is still way more common than it is with the dominant side of the line. This is what I was referring to when I said "bent that way".

 

[ZRT]

Now to the task at hand.

lots of words

I started to write a parody of this, but I stalled out at 'Now to the task in my hand.'

Perhaps it's lack of coffee, or my usual fortitude is failing me right now.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I am as turned off by the owned property, using of car, lifestyle thing as I am by the "do me" thing.

Women whom I've found appealing as mates are women with an intense desire to please. The capacity to choose, and the willingness to choose, pleasing me - just because it's me, the individual.

I don't give a fuck about the label.

Well good for you. I fail to see why you're being quite so combative.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

Thanks for explaining for me (everyone). But with regards to your car metaphore, being owned like a piece of property or an object, am I correct in assuming if you weren't happy in the relationship that you would leave? And if your master said "Hold on a second, you can't leave, I own you." You would still leave. So as far as being "owned" it's really just a fantasy that goes only as far as you're happy. So in reality you call the shots as much as him. Would that be right?

I'm not trying to make any kind of point, I'm just curious and want to understand. That's why I read this board. It's fascinating.

I know that if I truly wanted to leave L, he would be unable to make me stay. That however, is as far as my authority in the relationship extends and we both know it. Slavery is my day-to-day reality, my life. I do everything with him foremost in my mind and put his interests before my own. I am not micro-managed or some child-like chattel he has to care for, I have my own business, friends and a social life. Master has the authority to become involved in those aspects of my life if he feels it's necessary but by and large, he has no need or wish to interfere. My slavery pertains specifically to my dynamic with him and his authority over my life and my/our future. It's a mindset that I carry everywhere I go and affects every choice I make independently of him. I may not like every decision he makes on my behalf but I honour it and honour him with equanimity, supporting him even if it is against my better judgement at the time.

People view slavery as oppressive and restrictive but they have no comprehension of how Master and I operate as a couple. Many friends' relationships are conflicted and volatile because there's on ongoing power tug-of-war where both parties want to call the shots to an equal degree. Master and I are free of all that because I am his first-mate, not a co-captain. He values my views and expects me to voice them. He allows my views to hold more sway in areas where my knowledge is greater than his own. He makes the final call on important decisions however and I do not regret giving myself to him.

This is my experience of slavery, which as you have no doubt read is a very personal thing. Many who identify as subs have a similar dynamic and many who identify as slaves have very different ground rules. Our relationship works for us however and it's really the only frame of reference from which I can speak.

 

[Homburg]

Thanks for explaining for me (everyone). But with regards to your car metaphore, being owned like a piece of property or an object, am I correct in assuming if you weren't happy in the relationship that you would leave? And if your master said "Hold on a second, you can't leave, I own you." You would still leave. So as far as being "owned" it's really just a fantasy that goes only as far as you're happy. So in reality you call the shots as much as him. Would that be right?

I'm not trying to make any kind of point, I'm just curious and want to understand. That's why I read this board. It's fascinating.

What is your relationship to your government? You are given a set of rules to follow by your local/state/national/whatever govt, and expected to follow them. You give up your freedom to go against these rules for the benefits you reap as a member of society (military protection, law enforcement, fire depts, libraries, etc). This is the Social Contract in a nutshell. You give up certain activities/choices so as to gain the benefit of membership in society.

In a BDSM relationship, the same thing happens. The submissive side of the relationship gives up certain choices so as to gain the benefits of a relationship to the dominant side of the dynamic.

Let's say you did not agree with the rules your govt has set forth. What do you do? Well, you can attempt to change them, you can simply break them (and deal with the consequences), or you can leave.

The same parallel exists in a BDSM relationship. If the submissive party dislikes the rules set, that person can attempt to change the rules, break them (and deal with the consequences), or leave.

Government is "real" only because we collectively agree to it. When enough people decide that the government is bad, change occurs (be it by electoral pressure, evolution, or revolution). BDSM relationships, and consensual slavery are "real" in the same context. They exist because the parties involved agree with the idea, and cooperate with it.

If you agree that government is "real" and not a fantasy, by extension, concensual slavery is as "real". No, the slavery agreements are not legally binding in the eyes of government. And? Many actual governments are not recognised by other governments. Whatever. For those involved, the governance is plenty "real".

As to who is calling the shots, I invite you to look again at the comparison to government. Are you "calling the shots"? No. All you have is either activism or disobedience, should you disagree with the laws as written. The submissive party is calling the shots in the same way. He or she can resort to the same measures as well. And, in either case, you can always choose to leave, but, in doing so, you leave behind the positives of existence within that structure.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

What is your relationship to your government? You are given a set of rules to follow by your local/state/national/whatever govt, and expected to follow them. You give up your freedom to go against these rules for the benefits you reap as a member of society (military protection, law enforcement, fire depts, libraries, etc). This is the Social Contract in a nutshell. You give up certain activities/choices so as to gain the benefit of membership in society.

In a BDSM relationship, the same thing happens. The submissive side of the relationship gives up certain choices so as to gain the benefits of a relationship to the dominant side of the dynamic.

Let's say you did not agree with the rules your govt has set forth. What do you do? Well, you can attempt to change them, you can simply break them (and deal with the consequences), or you can leave.

The same parallel exists in a BDSM relationship. If the submissive party dislikes the rules set, that person can attempt to change the rules, break them (and deal with the consequences), or leave.

Government is "real" only because we collectively agree to it. When enough people decide that the government is bad, change occurs (be it by electoral pressure, evolution, or revolution). BDSM relationships, and consensual slavery are "real" in the same context. They exist because the parties involved agree with the idea, and cooperate with it.

If you agree that government is "real" and not a fantasy, by extension, concensual slavery is as "real". No, the slavery agreements are not legally binding in the eyes of government. And? Many actual governments are not recognised by other governments. Whatever. For those involved, the governance is plenty "real".

As to who is calling the shots, I invite you to look again at the comparison to government. Are you "calling the shots"? No. All you have is either activism or disobedience, should you disagree with the laws as written. The submissive party is calling the shots in the same way. He or she can resort to the same measures as well. And, in either case, you can always choose to leave, but, in doing so, you leave behind the positives of existence within that structure.

Yeah! What he said.

*hides behind Homburg*