Strickly online D/s relationships...discuss, share advise

[Eva_Star]

When you're the passenger in a moving vehicle, you have no control over the driver's reactions. You chose to get in the car, but that choice gave someone else control. If it were someone you don't know well (a cab driver, bus driver, first date) you might be nervous or uncomfortable with that loss of control. If it's someone you know and trust, have ridden with many times before, it's easier to feel safe in their hands...more certain they know what they're doing, trust they will take you where you want to go without going too fast or taking dangerous detours. That's the closest analogy I can give to fit my view of a D/s relationship. As a submissive you can choose to 'get in the car' but the person behind the wheel (the Dom) is the one in control. The sub might be an 'active passenger'...hold the map, give some helpful directions that help the driver navigate, but ultimately how you get from point A to point B is up to the driver. There are some drivers I would consider dangerous and never even get in the car with them. Sometimes you might find it to be a bumpy ride. But with the perfect traveling companion, it can be a fun, scenic, enjoyable, exciting but smooth ride...even when the destination is unknown. In the same way, the 'driver' is responsible for your safety, and should have the best route planned out so the trip is still eventful...not boring, maybe seeing or exploring new places but not outside your comfort zone. A long road trip holds many possibilities, but is most enjoyable with the right partner.

Thank you! I've started a hundred replies to this thread but never posted them because none seemed right...none seemed to capture my feelings into words. I struggle to describe this...it's like asking me to describe my soul. It's too precious to get wrong with clumsy words.

I LOVE this analogy. It perfectly captures it.

 

[Gotham_Central]

I had the benefit of a mentor and a strong, closed group in which to come into my own as a PYL;something I didn't realize was a rare exception, rather than the rule, until years later.

I was taught that BDSM is theater, an idea that was not well received by the "true Dom" crowd that made up most of Lit when I first joined years ago. The idea that the manly, controlling PYL is subservient to the pyl was heresy in Lit's hallowed halls.

Pick any scene you like, absent the consent of the sub, the PYL is instantly a criminal. Instantly.

The true power is and always has been in the hands of the pyl in that they are freed to experience something they seek. The role of the PYL is not to be in charge, but to present an experience that allows their partner to suspend disbelief and believe that harm will be done to them, or that the have no choice or whatever experience they seek, all the while confident that they are safe.

Every time I hear some meathead extolling the glorious nature of their unchallenged manly dominance I seriously laugh out loud.

 

[MeekMe]

If I have all the control in my relationship I've seriously fucked up somewhere. Thinking of my relationship as theatre is really sickening. I don't subscribe to a lot of the romantic ideals that are vomited everywhere about d/s, so chalk this up to one more thing on that list.

 

[Eva_Star]

I
I was taught that BDSM is theater, an idea that was not well received by the "true Dom" crowd that made up most of Lit when I first joined years ago..

Could you explain this comment more? Theater is an act. It's not real It is false, fake. There is nothing pretend about my dom/sub relationship. It's the opposite of theater. There is nothing truer...nothing more real.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point of view...

 

[Gotham_Central]

If I have all the control in my relationship I've seriously fucked up somewhere. Thinking of my relationship as theatre is really sickening. I don't subscribe to a lot of the romantic ideals that are vomited everywhere about d/s, so chalk this up to one more thing on that list.

There is a difference between a relationship and the singular aspect of that relationship that is BDSM. Unless, and I've this be the case, your relationship is solely about BDSM. Which I in turn find sickening. Likewise if the play -the play, not the relationship- engaged in is not merely theater, if you know you will be harmed, rather than being presented with the chance to suspend your disbelief and pretend you will be harmed, there's something wrong there as well.

There's no denying that only a fraction minority would want a relationship in which they are in complete control. However, the mere existence of a safeword places ultimate power, and thus control, in the hands of the pyl. Anything that continues after the use of that word calls for it to cease, stops being either play or a relationship, and becomes abuse.

But to your point, everything up to that point is consensual, with power shared to the comfort of both and with the PYL as free to say no as the pyl.

 

[Eva_Star]

There is a difference between a relationship and the singular aspect of that relationship that is BDSM. Unless, and I've this be the case, your relationship is solely about BDSM. Which I in turn find sickening.

No relationship is based solely on one thing. The bdsm aspect of my relationship is not some separate entity to be placed in a box on a shelf when not in use. It's interwoven into the relationship, encompassing all parts...not the whole but ingrained into the whole.

To some bdsm is play, to some it's a lifestyle...regardless...sickening is a strong word.

 

[Gotham_Central]

No relationship is based solely on one thing. The bdsm aspect of my relationship is not some separate entity to be placed in a box on a shelf when not in use. It's interwoven into the relationship, encompassing all parts...not the whole but ingrained into the whole.

To some bdsm is play, to some it's a lifestyle...regardless...sickening is a strong word.

That's fair. My response was stronger than intended.

And I do think that there is a spectrum along which BDSM is intertwined into the numerous aspects of any relationship. some things can be sustained day in and day out, others not so much.

 

[MeekMe]

It's odd that it always comes down to being harmed for you. You realize that "play" doesn't always include being beaten, right? He says, I do. :shrugs: I also don't have a safeword. Oh the horror!

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Nzerxx]

I didn't know we were going to get all philosophical here. I don't know if I'm up to that challenge as I prefer to simplify things as much as I can. Usually the how and why, while sometimes important on a basic level, can make things more complicated than it needs to be when your look into it too deeply.

I understand the concept of not really being in control of yourself due to outside influences, circumstances and limitations, habitual behavior, emotions, morals, some higher power, etc. But I also still believe in free will...whether you exercise that freedom is more difficult to determine.

Most of the things we do are controlled in some way by the things mentioned above, but ultimately we are not bound by them. We can choose to ignore everything, including the consequences of our choice, and act/react without concern for those things. I think that's a pretty rare occurrence though.

We are controlled by laws. I might want to go to the store naked. I could, but I would most likely be arrested for indecent exposure. I don't want to get arrested, so I wear clothes. It was my choice to obey that law, but who was really in control there?

I might want to do something but choose not to because it would hurt someone's feelings...or get me fired from my job...or I can't financially afford it...etc.

When you're the passenger in a moving vehicle, you have no control over the driver's reactions. You chose to get in the car, but that choice gave someone else control. If it were someone you don't know well (a cab driver, bus driver, first date) you might be nervous or uncomfortable with that loss of control. If it's someone you know and trust, have ridden with many times before, it's easier to feel safe in their hands...more certain they know what they're doing, trust they will take you where you want to go without going too fast or taking dangerous detours. That's the closest analogy I can give to fit my view of a D/s relationship. As a submissive you can choose to 'get in the car' but the person behind the wheel (the Dom) is the one in control. The sub might be an 'active passenger'...hold the map, give some helpful directions that help the driver navigate, but ultimately how you get from point A to point B is up to the driver. There are some drivers I would consider dangerous and never even get in the car with them. Sometimes you might find it to be a bumpy ride. But with the perfect traveling companion, it can be a fun, scenic, enjoyable, exciting but smooth ride...even when the destination is unknown. In the same way, the 'driver' is responsible for your safety, and should have the best route planned out so the trip is still eventful...not boring, maybe seeing or exploring new places but not outside your comfort zone. A long road trip holds many possibilities, but is most enjoyable with the right partner.

IAS

 

[Blue]

[...]

I think your perspective on relationships is irrationally warped by a romanticized lens of bdsm.

You really think that the existence of a safeword gives one party some sort of inherent, apparently absolute, power over the other? What stops a jackass dom from murdering/raping/otherwise abusing an immobile partner because they don't care about safewords?

Do you really think that meaningless BDSM one-night-stands are "sickening"? Why? Because BDSM is supposed to contain some sort of connection component?

How can you not see the blatant contradiction in saying that this boards predecessors were wrong to have a strict definition of a Dom/Sub and then dictate what you consider to be the proper expected role of a dom?

Here's a potential scene where the pyl is the criminal: Somebody with masochistic tendencies is in a position of power over another (whether they're a boss's-boss's-boss, some sort of academic, their landlord, etc) and so when they locate somebody sexually compatible with them they coerce and extort sex acts out of them.

Who made you the arbiter of reality and why are you extolling such an immensely black/white view of it?

 

[purplerosecrab]

Regarding a pyl's level of power in the dynamic, there's a quote I love from a book I love called The Heart of Dominance.

There's a common idea in kinky communities called the Gift of Submission, and it goes something like this: the submissive partner is the one who holds the real power in D/s, because they are the ones who set the limits in which the dominant partner can play, and because they have the ultimate power to revoke their consent and end the dynamic at any time. Submission is a generous gift given for nothing in return, and we can only be grateful and strive to remain worthy of our partners' largesse.

The Gift of Submission can be a comforting idea for some of us who feel more secure not being ultimately responsible for power in our relationships. If it feels good for you, then by all means subscribe to it. I hear from many of us (and many of our partners), however, who accept the dogma of the Gift of Submission only reluctantly. It feels limiting. It seems to trivialize our passions and the realities we strive to create. It puts power where neither of us want power to sit. The logic of the Gift of Submission seems inescapable if and only if we ignore submissive desire. If we think of dominance as something that we make our partners do and that they only passively accept, and as being all about our payoff and our needs, then the Gift of Submission is truly inescapable. But if we center submissive desire, insist that our partners admit their own needs for the dance we do together, and seduce them into begging for the opportunity to submit to us, then the Gift of Submission is not so one-sided. Submission is something that our partners do as much for themselves as for our benefit. Certainly our partners have the unquestionable power to set limits and end our D/s dynamics, but so do we. If we understand D/s as a mutually fulfilling dance that is serving both of our needs, then it's nonsensical to say that the nuclear option of ending the dynamic gives ultimate power to our partners. It's a power that we both share equally, and we both stand to lose something valuable if we have to exercise it.

 

[Iamsubmissive]

I was taught that BDSM is theater, an idea that was not well received by the "true Dom" crowd that made up most of Lit when I first joined years ago. The idea that the manly, controlling PYL is subservient to the pyl was heresy in Lit's hallowed halls.

Pick any scene you like, absent the consent of the sub, the PYL is instantly a criminal. Instantly.

The true power is and always has been in the hands of the pyl in that they are freed to experience something they seek. The role of the PYL is not to be in charge, but to present an experience that allows their partner to suspend disbelief and believe that harm will be done to them, or that the have no choice or whatever experience they seek, all the while confident that they are safe.

I can accept that certain BDSM activities...rp or specific 'play scenes' might contain some theatrical elements that heighten the experience. I also acknowledge that some people do treat D/s like a game...which is fine if you're just looking for some kinky fun. But to many, the reference to it being theatre is offensive. And quite disrespectful to those relationships. It does suggest it is all a game, an illusion. I don't agree with that at all. A deep connection and understanding, unending and earned trust, or real power exchange isn't needed if its just to 'play a game' with rules.

And the pyl being freed to experience something they seek isn't a power...it's a gift, a reward, a benefit, or a result of the D/s relationship, in my opinion. I don't have the 'power' to free myself in that way...I can choose to submit and open myself up to all the possibilities my Dom can offer, but being 'free' in those experiences is something I need my Dom to unlock.

(I already gave my opinion on 'control'...just wanted to comment on this pov.)

 

[yossi]

Regarding a pyl's level of power in the dynamic, there's a quote I love from a book I love called The Heart of Dominance.

Thank you for posting that quote. I'll have to grab a copy of the book to peruse.

 

[KimGordon67]

I think your perspective on relationships is irrationally warped by a romanticized lens of bdsm.

You really think that the existence of a safeword gives one party some sort of inherent, apparently absolute, power over the other? What stops a jackass dom from murdering/raping/otherwise abusing an immobile partner because they don't care about safewords?

Do you really think that meaningless BDSM one-night-stands are "sickening"? Why? Because BDSM is supposed to contain some sort of connection component?

How can you not see the blatant contradiction in saying that this boards predecessors were wrong to have a strict definition of a Dom/Sub and then dictate what you consider to be the proper expected role of a dom?

Here's a potential scene where the pyl is the criminal: Somebody with masochistic tendencies is in a position of power over another (whether they're a boss's-boss's-boss, some sort of academic, their landlord, etc) and so when they locate somebody sexually compatible with them they coerce and extort sex acts out of them.

Who made you the arbiter of reality and why are you extolling such an immensely black/white view of it?

This. I think the power/control dynamic means different things to different people. Certainly, aspects of it can appear to be theatre, and maybe they are - that seems to work for those people. Sex as a 'game' certainly isn't unique to this particular context. For me, when I play in this area some parts of it have a 'game like' aspect to it - for example, the notion of 'consensual non-consent' has an internal illogic to it that means it has to be, to some extent, not 'real'. But, underlying most of the power/control sex I have is trust, and with the person I do that with, that's a really important thing for both of us, and would difficult to express in any other way. To begin with, I thought it was wrapped up with the 'Gift of Submission' thing, and there are some aspects of that trope that resonate for me, and others that don't. However, a while into the relationship we talked about how the trust has to go both ways - he has to trust that ... well, that I will submit when I'm at the edge. Recognising when we've reached that edge isn't just his responsibility. And partly, for that reason, I've never had a safe word either - I trust that one or the other of us will know. (However, I also have a phobia about being gagged, so possibly that circumvents the needs for a safe word. 'Stop that right fucking NOW!' seemed to suffice.)
So the dynamic might, at a surface level, be something of a game, but the emotional meanings attached to those things are not.

 

[_Necrosomantic_]

I had the benefit of a mentor and a strong, closed group in which to come into my own as a PYL;something I didn't realize was a rare exception, rather than the rule, until years later.

I was taught that BDSM is theater, an idea that was not well received by the "true Dom" crowd that made up most of Lit when I first joined years ago.

While I'm sure it was rather nice to have support when you initially started out, as so few do or do in the right way, you contradict yourself right off the bat here.

Either you came into your own, or you are still subscribing to what others " taught " you. They are not the same thing.

* Looks over at join date*
Years ago? Were you originally the Riddler

Pick any scene you like, absent the consent of the sub, the PYL is instantly a criminal. Instantly.

Oh for fuck's sake ( literally ), any sex act without the willing consent of all parties involved is criminal. Instantly. That's not exclusive to any one dynamic/relationship/or just BDSM in general. That kind of broad superficiality does no one any favors.

The idea that the manly, controlling PYL is subservient to the pyl was heresy in Lit's hallowed halls.

The true power is and always has been in the hands of the pyl in that they are freed to experience something they seek. The role of the PYL is not to be in charge, but to present an experience that allows their partner to suspend disbelief and believe that harm will be done to them, or that the have no choice or whatever experience they seek, all the while confident that they are safe.

Every time I hear some meathead extolling the glorious nature of their unchallenged manly dominance I seriously laugh out loud.

Your vainglorious and half cocked ideas about roles and labels are disturbing. Underneath it all, we are talking about a relationship here.

( Ree-Lay-Shun-Ship )

The " true power " is that it's a shared experience facilitated by all involved. One does not hold any sway over the other that isn't granted willingly and ( should be ) earned. That's not an ideal, that's not an exception, that's the definition. One cannot exist without the other. That is why so many people struggle with their own nature and labels even exist in the first place. The idea of any dynamic, and really all relationships in general, is give and take.
All you're doing here is taking one side of two extremes. All or nothing. Black or white. You're self righteous and pompous stance in contrast to those " meatheads " mirrors their ignorance in its close mindedness. Stop posturing.

 

[Gotham_Central]

I've never had a safe word either - I trust that one or the other of us will know. (However, I also have a phobia about being gagged, so possibly that circumvents the needs for a safe word. 'Stop that right fucking NOW!' seemed to suffice.)
So the dynamic might, at a surface level, be something of a game, but the emotional meanings attached to those things are not.

I maintain that the perceived absence of a safe word is itself an illusion, part of the sexual theater. I maintain this for exactly the reason you have shared, the ability to signal all stop is always present.

 

[Gotham_Central]

Either you came into your own, or you are still subscribing to what others " taught " you. They are not the same thing.

I was taught that gravity works, have I not grown until I cast that knowledge aside?

* Looks over at join date*
Years ago? Were you originally the Riddler

I keep forgetting, the value of an individual's experience is in someway linked to the date under their avatar...

That is why so many people struggle with their own nature and labels even exist in the first place. The idea of any dynamic, and really all relationships in general, is give and take.

On this much, we agree.


All you're doing here is taking one side of two extremes. All or nothing. Black or white. You're self righteous and pompous stance in contrast to those " meatheads " mirrors their ignorance in its close mindedness. Stop posturing.

Wow, look at you, absent a single effort to clarify my statement, you've determined my motivation forever thing I think and say. Now who's posturing? No, I forgot, you think you've been around d this board longer than I have, you must know better.

 

[KimGordon67]

I maintain that the perceived absence of a safe word is itself an illusion, part of the sexual theater. I maintain this for exactly the reason you have shared, the ability to signal all stop is always present.

Good grief. No, the ability to stop something doesn't mean it's 'theatre'. I can apply the brakes in my car at any time I want - it doesn't mean that the fact that I could, instead, pile into the car in front of me is an 'illusion'. When I say 'stop', he could choose not to. I trust that he will. I could, equally, choose to not say 'stop', and let him push me way too far than is good for my emotional wellbeing. He trusts that I won't do that. I can only assume your assessment means you've never really been in the thick of trying to find the physical limit to something. I have NO IDEA why we both get off on that, but we obviously do. And the visceral and emotional reactions to the situation are definitely real, and not something I've found in any other context ... but our ability to go down that particular garden path is premised on a (in our case fairly loose) agreement about what we're doing.

And, as noted above, you could apply the same point to any aspect of sex. All sexual congress is premised on consent, and either party can withdraw their consent at any point. Does that mean ALL sex is theatre? That our consent is just a 'game'? Maybe it does ... but in that case, it's not something specific to the power/control dynamic at all.

 

[Gotham_Central]

Who made you the arbiter of reality and why are you extolling such an immensely black/white view of it?

The easy answer here is, who made you the arbiter of my thoughts on the issue?

That said, there is no one right way and I made no assertion to that end. There is only the right way in the relationship -strictly couple, hook up at a club, whatever- in question at the moment in question.

What none of you have yet managed, at least that I have seen, is to refute the idea that the balance of power, while generally equally, does favor the pyl even if only slightly.

 

[Gotham_Central]

Agreed. And it is possible that the use of the term theater is a stumbling block that did not serve my point we'll. The day to day acts of the D/s relationship are certainly not theater. My premise is the idea that with at least some play, there is a measure of... I can't think of another word... theatrics required to provide the greatest experience. Not in every act, hut in many.

 

[Farawyn]

Wow, look at you, absent a single effort to clarify my statement, you've determined my motivation forever thing I think and say. Now who's posturing? No, I forgot, you think you've been around d this board longer than I have, you must know better.

I see. It's easier to argue about the date on which you joined, which was pointed out an aside, than rebutting a valid counterpoint.

Or so it seems.

 

[Farawyn]

Agreed. And it is possible that the use of the term theater is a stumbling block that did not serve my point we'll. The day to day acts of the D/s relationship are certainly not theater. My premise is the idea that with at least some play, there is a measure of... I can't think of another word... theatrics required to provide the greatest experience. Not in every act, hut in many.

Can you describe the theatrics of which you speak?
Here, I thought I was in love.

I must be doing it wrong.

 

[_Necrosomantic_]

The avatar thing was a joke, hence the
I'm only going on what you say as opposed to making assumptions.

I was taught that gravity works, have I not grown until I cast that knowledge aside?

Yes, obviously that applies in this scenario, next tell me all about how God actually wrote To Kill a Mockingbird, because the paper it was printed on came from trees. That kind of logic is why aliens won't talk to us. Proven science and individual interpretation of relationships and their intricacies are not the same thing and you know it. Either answer or don't, but don't cop out with meaningless rhetoric and then act sanctimonious.

Wow, look at you, absent a single effort to clarify my statement, you've determined my motivation forever thing I think and say. Now who's posturing? No, I forgot, you think you've been around d this board longer than I have, you must know better.

Okay, step away from the keyboard/phone, take a deep breath, and simultaneously calm down/remember how to anglish good. By all means, clarify what you meant. I'm not here to do it for you, so either grow the fuck up and actually try and respond to the things I've said via counter arguments or the aforementioned clarification you seem to think I'm in desperate need of.

Or

Keep being a twat and throwing tantrums while whining about semantics. Why so serious indeed

Edit:

What none of you have yet managed, at least that I have seen, is to refute the idea that the balance of power, while generally equally, does favor the pyl even if only slightly.

Holy shit, okay I'll say it.

I REFUTE YOUR ASSERTION THAT THE BALANCE OF BLAH BLAH CONDESCENDING DUMB FUCKERY.

Now, will you stop acting like a child and give legit answers to the things people are countering with?

 

[Gotham_Central]

Can you describe the theatrics of which you speak?
Here, I thought I was in love.

I must be doing it wrong.

As I said elsewhere, it's not the relationship that is theatrics -and maybe that word is in and off itself a stumbling block to my point, but I truly can't think of another- but elements of play, sexual or otherwise, need to be presented in a way that "sells" a reality that isn't true, but which is appealing. Maybe it would be better to call it role playing rather than theater? While in other aspects, following rules or wearing a day collar or any number of others, no role playing is needed.


Also, as I said elsewhere, I'm not claiming that this or any other way is the "right", just my experience and understanding of it. And since, I believe, few people on the board believe in a right way, all that matters is that the experience work for the parties in question. That it be the right way for them.

What I do reject is the notion that anyone's "domliness" is all powerful. Every aspect of any relationship is consensual. No matter how cool a Dom/me thinks they are,you they can't compelling consent. And I do find those who haven't figured that out yet, amusing.