D/s and Selflessness

Vanilla people often have misconceptions of what bdsm is about; for that we can thank people like this, who take this totalitarian approach to bdsm.

It makes D/s into something monstrous without connection to sexuality or humanity.

For some reason I’m reminded of psychologist Jean Piaget’s stages of psycho-social development, and corresponding theories of ethical development that came along later.

Essentially, simple and immature reasoning takes only the basic facts in evidence and rates the actions according to how they fit into the assumed order. For example, if Becca was ordered to eat from a dog dish and she had some issues about this type of humiliation, then performing the act - from an immature perspective - is simply about obeying orders. For some reason, so many people in the BDSM culture never seem to get beyond this kind of reasoning. I suspect that they are so enamored of the idea that people will obey orders that they never question the underlying mechanisms.

A Dom on a more mature level would appreciate that Becca is doing something that stretches her own limits. Hell, even animals seem to enjoy learning new tricks; should we expect any less from humans?

As stupid as Becca’s detractors seemed to be, it would seem more appropriate to look upon them with pity, seeing that they simply haven’t grown or progressed in their emotional maturity.

Tom Allen
The Edge of Vanilla

It’s an odd circular problem: if the power relationship is consensual, then the dom knows that the sub is enjoying it on some level. Even non-erotic punishments add to the sense of erotic danger.

So, you could argue that an S&M role - rather than a strictly owner/slave one - can never be one’s true self; masochist pretends unwillingness, “sadist” pretends blindness to masochist’s pleasure.

Wow, well said, all of you. I don’t have much to add right now except the fact that I emphatically concur.

Giles,

These folks aren’t arguing about consensuality, which would be a worthless topic at least in real life relationships since it isn’t legally possible to give up your freedom or to take another’s.

This crazy view that someone should engage in power exchange without some sort of emotional reward is just too damned daft for there to be much to say about it. If the motivation isn’t satisfaction what can it possibly it?

The roles of owner and slave even if they aren’t “real” in a very simple sense are perfectly valid as a symbolic recreation of personal identity. My impression is that this discussion is most fascinating to people who have never experienced really deep, moving D/s.