EC, the things that annoy you annoy me, too. I really wonder if there are folks out there with good, working 24/7 D/s relationships. It seems to hard to do and preserve the submissive’s sense of self.

You mention doing things in scene that the submissive doesn’t like, and as you recognize, that’s a different story. In my relationship, the scenes have clear boundaries, and my wife and I can talk on even footing about what we’ve done and what we may do while we’re not playing. Against that backdrop, she can do things to me in scene that I really don’t like. I particularly hate ball torture after I’ve climaxed, but when we do orgasm denial play, if I come without permission, I’m going to get my balls beaten. I know that, and the credible threat of punishment keeps me honest and makes me really resist argasm without permission, which is what makes those scenes work. I think as long as folks can have clear communication about what they do in scene, without the power dynamics of the scene interfering, there’s not much of an issue. That’s part of what makes me so skeptical of 24/7: even if there’s a designated opportunity to speak freely, if someone is walking around and living within a submissive mindset all the time, how can they just turn on a dime and step out of it?

One thing that disturbs me in online BDSM venues are the 24/7 subs who laud their masters as better than themselves. Participants generally come down hard (and rightly so) on those who claim men or women are inherently superior, but I worry about subs who talk disparagingly about themselves in comparison with their masters, particularly when it’s in conjunction with limits they’ve since discarded — for example, when subs thank their masters for being so patient with their cowardice after they’ve been coaxed past a limit. Ditto for any variant on “I’d be lost without my master” or “I’m only glad that someone like me found someone like him/her to guide me.” An almost desparate-sounding “I’d do anything for you!” attitude on the part of 24/7 subs strikes me as fairly common in the BDSM forums I’ve read, and it doesn’t seem to raise red flags, at least not in the common discussion space. I see that sort of attitude expressed in vanilla society as well (and find it just as disturbing there), but the vanillas I respect find it problematic.

This reminds me of something else that bothers me: situations where the sub’s duty is to please his/her master, and to do otherwise is grounds for punishment — not pleasurable “punishment,” but actual correction. I’ve seen subs write to BDSM advice forums with a problem they’re having with their dom, generally cases where they’re upset about something the dom is asking them to do. “Have you told him/her about the problem?” comes the response. “I can’t bring myself to,” says the sub. “You owe it to him/her to be honest,” say the responders. But when a couple cultivates a dynamic where one party is supposed to be hypervigilant about pleasing the other, it makes me wonder how much room the sub has, emotionally speaking, to even admit to him or herself, much less the dom, when he or she really hates something and wishes it wasn’t happening. Especially given the idea I’ve seen expressed, with little controversy, that 24/7 submissives should be expected to engage in activities they dislike or even hate. So many people, particularly women, are socialized as people-pleasers, and I know from experience that it can be difficult to admit except in retrospect that you really despised a particular activity. (I particularly worry when somebody tries to get their vanilla spouse to sub to them, which is why I really appreciate some of what Charles has articulated in this thread.) Now, I understand that there are subs who specifically want to be forced to do things they hate — on a meta level it turns them on, and I have a hard time viewing that as nonconsensual however much it disturbs me on an emotional level — but I’d been reading BDSM fora for a long time before I saw it conceptualized that way.

I’ve seen couples who really seem to think through the ethical issues involved in this type of relationship, but to me it looks like a mighty fine tightrope to walk.

Also, and this might must be my biased perception, it seems like the “men/women are inherently superior” nonsense is more prevalent among folks who do 24/7 relationships. I wonder how much people are simply attracted to the idea of it and have not yet accepted that the reality is tough to execute.

There’s a long history of persistent D/s relationships, especially in the old-guard gay men’s leather community, so I’m not tossing around condemnations, but especially in opposite sex couples, it really does raise major issues.

*”Your Kink Is Not Okay”

I also wonder whether there are sub culture groups that are more feminist friendly and some that think that men = DOM (usually with beards, big belt buckles and black leather trousers) and women = sub. For example, i have had several older men tell me that either i would be happy if i would just accept that i a sub (i am not), or better, that i am not a true sub because i wouldn’;t play or have sex with him (i never claimed i was!). whereas the people i play with, there is no hard rules re. women and men’s tendancies. I also think that this seems to be more common in the US, but i am totally basing this on my experiences on one particular web board, so this is not a survey!

Also, there seems to be a major fantasy / reality problem with some people - for example in my mind some 24/7 is deluded and needs therapy, as well as being disrespectful to those around the couple (as they are basically being included in their sex life, without consent).

But then, i think i can be judgement based on my own preferances for S/M (i.e. My kink is OK, your kink is not ok.).

Charles said:
To my mind, eroticization of power dynamics is a near constant in our culture, including D/s gender play (particularly for hets), D/s Romance seduction, dating as a form of barter prostitution, sexual fetishization of military and uniforms, s/m valorization of penile-vaginal penetrative sex, and light B&D as the basic form of sexual exploration. I think these forms of insane,unsafe, non-consensual unthinking BDSM sexuality (most of which are much the definition of mainstream vanilla het sexuality) are directly harmful to the participants (disproportionately so to female participants), and indirectly harmful to everyone else, participant or not. I think the culture-wide eroticization of entrenched power dynamics is a major tool in the maintenance of patriarchy.

I totally agree. To expand on these point: many types of “normal” heterosexual flirting actually have D/s dynamics (though some don’t, such as the “I think you’re cute” …”I think you are cute too!” dynamic, which is an example of the eroticization of mutual attraction that you are talking about, rather than the eroticization of power dynamics). The most common example of D/s flirting I know of is teasing and “verbal sparring.” Teasing someone is often a way of establishing yourself as higher status than someone else (comedians and improvisors often talk about “status-based humor,” which is based on one person putting down another in some way). When the other person teases back, you end up with what is often called “verbal sparring.” Note also the metaphorical violence of the term “verbal sparring.”

In romance, this kind of verbal sparring becomes a symbolic “fight” that the male must win to prove his worth and masculinity (which are defined here by establishing dominance over the female), culminating in the surrender and arousal of the female. It is the verbal analog of physically play-fighting and horsing around before sex. Those behaviors should not be put on the same continuum as actual violence, but like violence, they are based on power dynamics and power struggles which can often be unhealthy, especially when people do not understand what is going on.

This kind of romance isn’t limited to our culture. I recently watched some Bollywood movies (Indian cinema), and I saw the same verbal sparring, female-fights-back-but-loses-in-the-end-and-surrenders-to-male scripts being run. I wonder to what extent these scripts were originally part of Indian culture, or to what extent they were acquired from Western romance and melded with Indian gender structure already in place.

I’ve been noticing these D/s dynamics in supposedly “normal” or “natural” heterosexual interaction since around 7th grade. I wouldn’t be surprised if you, and many other people here, noticed the same thing (and that is one of the reasons why we are all here: feminist analysis offers one of the only vocabularies to even talk about this issue and suggest that there may be problems with it). I think that these dynamics became glaringly obvious to me because I don’t really have any strong sexually dominant desires (I actually have a lot of submissive tendencies, and I may have some masochistic ones, though I don’t know if I had these in 7th grade or developed them later).

Since the rules for male-female interaction are based on male dominance and female submission, my lack of dominant desires left me unable to join in or comprehend the game that the majority of people seemed to be playing. Any kind of dominant behavior felt extremely unnatural to me, because I didn’t have the “right” desires to motivate it. So I was constantly wondering “why are the guys treating girls this way, and why do so many of the girls seem to be liking it???”

But yes, there are lots of issues with sex that there aren’t with, say, visiting the relatives. Asking your partner who doesn’t like dealing with your parents to please come visit them anyway is very different than asking someone to do things sexually that they don’t like to do.

Tangentially:
But, extending that idea outside of the sexual realm… does that always hold true? If not, why is it more valid outside of sex?

My eight cents are that, first, sex is a physical interaction and needs to be subgrouped with other physical actions/interactions (as opposed to, say, asking your partner to pick up the take out order) where significant pleasure or injury is a possibility. Secondly, sex is an area full of significant emotions & tension & embarrasment in our culture, whereas picking up take-out food is not. But I really need to think more about that.

If your partner knows you are not comfortable with something, asking you to do it is not okay. If they don’t know that, asking is certainly okay. Cajoling, however, probably isn’t. I was over-broad in my language.

This confuses me:
That is very different from one of your partners demanding that you switch. Asking you to switch would be like asking a non-BDSM interested partner to do pain-play. Not okay.

I agree that demanding is not okay. But asking is not okay? Why? How would one know that one’s partner would be willing to switch if you don’t ask? Isn’t that part of communication?

Am I misreading?

Myca, you are essentially correct. I’m a switch to an extent, but I’m really a bottom, and specifically a submissive. In fact, I would top less, but my wife* also likes to bottom, and specifically requests that I do my fair share of topping.

*Every time I use this word, I’m aware of the privilege I have. That’s another thread, or more precisely, several threads on this blog.

I see the conteccst in your last post now. I posted huuriedly this morning , that’s my eccuse for the error..;) Stream of sub-consciousness perhaps.

quoting myself,

About twelve years ago, I actually went to a seccs therapist because I’d become single again in a time when my seccsuality was being challenged politically, and feminist women had no qualms or sensitiivties around it.

Just wanted to announce that this is not a general feminist bash. I had some eccsperienes with a number of particular feminist women over time, some of which were personal interactions, some more distant but which affected me, in a political climate that granted those women permission to be less sensitive than they might otherwise have been. I used to consider myself a radical feminist during the 70’s and into the late eighties, before this issue impacted on me. (Somehow I ‘missed’ seeing these issues unfolding in that time.) My own break from RF began because I wanted to distance myself specifically from particular RF and lesbian-feminist politics around seccs and seccsual identity, including transeccsuality. Some might still consider me ‘a’ relaltively radical feminist. I’m probably radical/liberal/cultural/thirdwave feminist soup.

We almost cross-posted, Charles.

Cicely,

Also, fulfilling your partners desires, if it isn’t at all onerous, is courtesy. Being required to do things for your partner that you don’t like doing is abuse.

Thomas strongly prefers to bottom, but he doesn’t seem to dislike topping (correct me if I’m wrong, Thomas), so he tops because his wife likes to bottom sometimes. That is very different from one of your partners demanding that you switch. Asking you to switch would be like asking a non-BDSM interested partner to do pain-play. Not okay.

Agreed. This is why good communication is so important. There is a very big difference between ‘won’t’ as in ‘I can’t be bothered’, and ‘can’t’ as in ‘without feeling ecstremely uncomfortable’.

Also, fulfilling your partners desires, if it isn’t at all onerous, is courtesy. Being required to do things for your partner that you don’t like doing is abuse.

Thomas strongly prefers to bottom, but he doesn’t seem to dislike topping (correct me if I’m wrong, Thomas), so he tops because his wife likes to bottom sometimes. That is very different from one of your partners demanding that you switch. Asking you to switch would be like asking a non-BDSM interested partner to do pain-play. Not okay.

Also, the more technical aspects of BDSM raise skill issues for folks that top exclusively, and that’s why I said some tops bottom just for the learning experience: how physically taxing is it to be in certain bondage positions? How harsh is that cane? It’s much more difficult to extrapolate these things from bottoms’ reactions if one has no experience on the business end of them.

Anyways, I was about to repeat it kind of myself so it fits in quite well…:)

Thomas, when you say that out of a sense of ‘fairness’, you will switch from a bottom to a top, I have a little bit of a bristle. I identify as a Diamond Stone Femme Lesbian, which means that I don’t switch from the non- BDSM ‘bottom’ position, if you like. I have attempted to do so, and had it demanded of me in the interests of ‘fairness’, by lovers who are not perfectly compatible for me .-.My starting point for compatibility is my opposite - a Stone Butch - in lesbian language. I have achieved succesful long term relationships around this, with non-stone lovers, one a polyamorous relationship where my partner had multiple lovers (I didn’t and didn’t want to), the other was one in which we negotiated wordlessly and found a comfortable place. When we broke up, this aspect of our relationship had no part in the reasons for the break-up.

I imagine there are many couples of all persuasions who deal with this issue, but don’t get to talk about it and may feel some shame around it. It’s hard to hear the wordss ’selfish’ or ‘lazy’ applied to you about something so sensitive. And if you’re not being ‘fair’, you must be being selfish - right? It’s about physical and emotional seccsual boundaries, and these are different for different people. I know now that I am a member of a significant minority within a minority, and I am able to communicate with others like me via the net. This was a long time coming. (I am 51.)

About twelve years ago, I actually went to a seccs therapist because I’d become single again in a time when my seccsuality was being challenged politically, and feminist women had no qualms or sensitiivties around it. (This was after a good few years of singledom in that climate.) I thought it might be necessary to change, though I had no faith that I could. I haven’t, and won’t, but at least now I can be upfront about it were I seeking a relationship, from a place of open-ness, strength and clarity.

Thanks for the thanks O.o

Also, Thomas, thanks for the remarks about “bleed-through”. I think you touched on one of the problems I have with BDSM, which is that unless someone is meticulous in their comprehension of “power dynamics” and fully recognizes that they can be harmful when inappropriately used, BDSM can — in my opinion — create situations in which women and other disadvantaged folks (racial minorites, religious minorities, queers …) are harmed. Y’all are, of course, free to disagree (as many of you have, and so politely, I must acknowledge), but I’ll note that we’re on a feminist blog where most of us have a better than average working knowledge of “power” and it’s ill-effects.

yesterday I came from somone cropping my cunt.

(Hot.)

I do genitorture, too, as a bottom and sometimes as a top. I get very, very aroused when I am kicked or slapped on the testicles, and once under rather unusual circumstances I came from ball torture alone. Again, sensation is easy to understand, and it doesn’t import issues of control the way restraint and D/s do.

(I have a male partner and we both switch - does this make it more feminist?)

I switch, though with a bias towards bottoming. Maybe this isn’t fair, but I have something of a bias against exclusive tops. I’m willing to give women who play exclusively with men a pass on this because, as BritGirl pointed out, a woman who bottoms to a man may find that the patriarchal power dynamics are getting reenacted in her scene. Lots of folks who really prefer topping also bottom sometimes because they find the learning experience valuable.

it may be sexual to me by the fetishisation of violence in our society

Now this is a sub-issue within S/M. Lots of hard S/M can be characterized as painful, but not really violent: not an expression of anger of loss of control, but an application of sensation, however, extreme. Some folks are turned on by violence, however. Some folks like an angry top, and like shoving and slapping, etc. That dynamic raises more issues than the pain, IMO. A lot of that can be explained by the adrenaline: this stuff generally triggers the fight-or-flight response, which some people find fun. But I think that’s not the whole of the dynamic, and I’d love to hear your thoughts.