By Belasarius and curvy bottom, a British BDSM couple
Author: Belasarius
I possess the submission of curvy_bottom, we have a medium protocol, D/s relationship - based on the feeling that we are equa and opposite and that we love each other.
“Dominance in BDSM is present when one individual, has the informed consent of another to be in control of that person within agreed limits and at agreed times as long as that informed consent persists”.•
This is the third of my BDSM definition blogs. I’m trying to produce these on the basis of inviting comment and criticism from the BDSM community, especially from the site I take part in most, the UK’s Informed Consent.
The debate on this definition (actually a slightly different version of it – I’ve re-edited it to be
Please vote on the poll below to tell me what you think of this definition, and do comment here if you wish – I am really interested in people’s views, for or against!
*NB – I am assuming agreed limits and times could extent to “no limits” and “always”, as in a master/slave relationship.
There is huge respect between us. We value each other as people, we see the world through different eyes and we argue our corners.
But we are opposite too. She doesn’t want to be the leader and I won’t do as I’m told. And in our dominant/submissive relationship we have found a way to make that oppositeness create energy and strength.
She submits. I don’t: She strives to please me. Pleasing me pleases her.
It’s not about pain
I adore her. I push, pull, mould her to make her more of herself – the self I see, that she has wanted to be all her life but has not had the chance to be. The self that pleases me (which is what she wants to do).
It’s not about pain. It’s not about bondage. It’s about her service and my loving respect for that.
Equal. Yes. Opposite – definitely. Putting the other first – absolutely.
After nearly two years of getting to know each other she did put flowers in her hair, kneel and tell me her submission was mine. But, it did take that long to establish that trust. And, in the three years since, that trust has increased and, willingly, she’s given me more.
There are things I wish I could do to her and I can’t – because she has not gifted them to me. These things are few and far between – but they exist. So, how can her submission be mine?
The best she can be – for me
It’s this. We are creating a life for ourselves where she strives to be the best she can be for me: Her submission, she says, is her best sense of self expression.
Hang on – let me correct that: Ourbest sense of self-expression.
I express myself by using her gift of submission to bring the constantly new, constantly changing “my girl” into being. We create delight in each other.
We have both had BDSM relationships before. But before, her submission has been optional – hers to give and take back as she chose. We did not want that.
Thats is why – for us – it is vital that submission is her gift:
A gift is something given without expectation of reward. A gift is never taken back. A gift is given for the joy of it.
I ask for nothing. I take nothing not freely given. I cherish the gifts I am given – and use them as I see fit.
This I do for her.
She keeps only that with which she cannot yet trust me. I strive to be worthy of her next gift, because each one is harder. I desire to use what she has given wisely. Nothing can be given that can be used without responsibility.
We do these things to exalt each other.
Dominance – a gift?
My domination of her is not a gift. Or, no more a gift than the air we breathe. My domination is the tool we use to shape the gifts she gives. It is the storehouse for those gifts. It is the stone on which those gifts are sharpened. But it isn’t a gift: It is a given. It is absolute, with nothing of choice about it.
The only gift is her submission – anything given simply becomes part of the fabric of our life together – and my choice to use. Together we are building a gilded cage she is thrilled to inhabit.
It isn’t pure, of course, Thankfully it is tarnished by love.
“it’s sooooooo hard. And it seems sooooo false….” (she thinks she can wheedle almost anything out of me by playing the slightly pouty, slightly sultry card).
“But Darling” I said “I’ll be able to introduce you to the Princess Royal” (not that I’m on nodding terms with the aforementioned royal personage).
“Really Dahling, there are some things you ask that just aren’t me” (stamp of silken trotter).
So she got the lecture. Did she want to please me? “Yes”. Did she want to try to belong to me? “Yes”. So why not indulge me in the things that please me? “Err.. OK, but…”
Did the things I require of her make her feel good – did they in fact make her feel more like the person she wanted to be? “Yes – but it isn’t always easy – sometimes it’s hard” (telephonic arched eyebrow from the domly end of the line) “OK” she said.
The topic we were mostly talking about: language. She has done so well in removing “I” from written communication and is trying very hard orally too (I think I’ve mentioned this before). Ah yes, I mean verbally in this context.
All I’d done was mention that she should now consider abandoning “me” too. And all I got was “But how can I construct a sentence without ‘I’ or ‘me’ in it?”
But she thought about it and tried… and out came: “But one thinks…” at which point I grinned and made the Princess Royal comment – but you could tell that there was still much rankling going on at the other end of the line.
So, I am writing this to let her into a little secret.
Darling. You flog well. I can drip wax onto your beautiful titties until both cats come home. Restrictive bondage is a challenge you relish.
You see the value of our rules regarding dress, grooming and deportment and you find them difficult – because they change the public you and require you to spend time on yourself. But again you try – and you achieve: And you make me proud.
But, do any of these things challenge you intellectually. No, other than in focus and endurance, not at all.
And, what have you found most tricky? Certainly not curtseying, nor your more recent bow. But “Please Sir”? Hmmmm.
Despite my protestations otherwise you are not a bear of little brain. And I see no reason why I should not engage that enormous organ in the service of our holy dynamic.
Set aside for a moment your humanity, empathy, imagination, tenderness, thoughtfulness and all the other qualities that make me love you and ask why I should not challenge your intelligence?
Of course I should. And this does – doing without ‘I’ and ‘me’ is tricky I admit, but I can’t go much further, can I, in focussing you on me, even in my absence, than by asking you to moderate your language.
I have stopped taking answers to the first poll on this definition today (145 people voted), but you can see the results below – they show:
72% thought the definition was accurate and appropriate
26% thought it required further work
3% thought it inaccurate or inappropriate
No-one has commented said why they think the original definition (see below) needed further work. I’d really welcome people’s views. But here is a go at a revised definition anyway:
“A BDSM slave is a person who has given informed consent to continuing voluntary submission, without limit, to another. The person owning the slave has all the rights of ownership whilst that consent exists”
I realise that this definition is controversial because many say that BDSM slavery is different to continuing voluntary submission and that, through internal enslavement, a state is reached where a person is so in thrall to another that not only do limits not exist, but the person’s ability to leave their state of slavery is lost too. But I am putting it forward as a discussion point and, I guess it is closer to my idea of consensual BDSM slavery too – please tell me what you think by using the poll immediately below – and by commenting if you can. Thank you.
Original post
I started a thread on “Informed consent“, to discuss this. It got a little distracted by discussion of whether trying to define anything was at all useful, but hey ho!
At the start of the debate, this was the definition I proposed:
“A person who has freely consented to defer to the will of another, without limit, within a relationship that is intended to last as long as free consent exists between the persons’ involved.”
Kuntzler slave sale (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
This differed from my view of submission principally in that it’s my belief that a slave gives submission without limits.
By the end of the thread, my views had been changed and the definition I am happy with for now is as follows:
“.A BDSM slave is a person who has given informed consent to being owned by another. The slave is only such whilst owned and the person owning the slave is entitled to all the rights of ownership whilst that consent exists.
I don’t think this is bottomed out yet. But, I think I now understand why a lot of the Ownership and Possession (O&P) manifesto seems so very appropriate for this kind of relationship.
Have you any further thoughts – please do comment if you do! I promise not to hide anything (except spam)
Helpful Links
The following links may be helpful if you are thinking of responding to this thread:
I can’t really remember how it started except that, as you do, there she was bouncing up and down and I told her she was good enough to eat (as you do). She expressed the view she’d ike to remain intact and I think I said something like “well, there is always black pudding“. I wasn’t serious. Really – I wasn’t.
But, we decided a collaring wasn’t right for us (because she is shared) and that eating each other could be a great celebration of our commitment.
I am posting this (it was formerly on Informed Consent), on 5 September 2012, the third anniversary of our black pudding day.
25g barley, boiled in spring water for 30 minutes and cooled
pinch each of salt, ground coriander, black pepper and ground mace
Soften the onion in a little of the suet – make sure it does not colour. Add the rest of the suet and slowly sweat for 10 minutes.
Take the blood you need at this point. Keep it moving if you can – or it will coagulate.
Add the oatmeal and cream and cook for a few minutes – then add the rest of the ingredients and stir over a gentle heat for 5 minutes. Don’t stop stirring, be gentle. When the mixture thickens (like scrambled egg) you are ready to make the puds. It catches easily (you are making a tiny amount) so DON’T stop stirring!
Bake the puddings in ovenproof containers (we used ramekins), standing them in a larger ovenproof container half filled with water) in a low oven (150 degrees or gas mark 2) for about 60-90 minutes. The top turns black quickly – the key is that it should feel firm.
You can then cut slices and fry or bake. We fried. A picture of the finished product is on my profile.
My partner’s view
It was an amazing project, long in the planning and execution (but that was because the blood wouldn’t come out!) and yet it made a difference.
We are “blood bound” – though we sort of were already, as we’ve signed our rule book in blood and he has tasted mine after the diabetic pricker session – but I digress…
It appears that there is something quite strange about wanting to eat one another – even though we made it a bit about protocol and a bit about friends and even a bit about the recipe. We were careful and considered lots of information about the likely risks.
It was a special evening – but the breakfast was amazing. Waking to the warmth of his body, then pottering in the kitchen helping prepare mushrooms, and all the while feeling slightly floaty. It was fun, watching him – it looked like black pudding, it smelled like black pudding, it cut like black pudding (complete with little cubes of fat – though it was a healthy eating recipe!) and it tasted like a fine black pudding!
My first (pre – curvy_bottom) D/s (maybe M/s) relationship ended more than twenty years ago, and happened many years PI (pre-internet), so it thrived despite almost no external support.We were both undoubtedly kinky people but the lifestyle side of was definitely the most important part. In constructing the regime by which we lived I found huge help in the musings of a Roman Emperor and Stoic – Marcus Aurelius.
Below, I’ve put some of his thoughts accompanied by my take on them. I do this because they really worked for us and to encourage debate about the development of dominant and submissive natures in D/s, M/s and O&P relationships, and in creating the framework that controls interactions between partners in these types of relationships. Please, all, do add your thoughts to this:
Marcus Aurelius: “If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment”.
For the submissive there’s obvious meaning; you can learn to take what’s dished out. But, at a more pervasive level, this is a reminder to both partners that they can control their feelings toward others attitudes and react logically and calmly. This is especially important for the dominant.
Marcus Aurelius: “Look well into thyself; there is a source of strength which will always spring up if thou wilt always look there”.
The strength of a power exchange relationship comes from the inner strength of both parties. Selfish encouragement of your own specific nature is a human trait that can flourish in D/s – each partner’s interests are opposite to the other’s and few compromises need be made.
Marcus Aurelius: “Whatever is in any way beautiful hath its source of beauty in itself, and is complete in itself; praise forms no part of it. So it is none the worse nor the better for being praised”.
So much of a power exchange relationship is about duty – you need to feel good about it yourself and not expect reward or praise. Understand the intrinsic beauty of what you do for another.
Bust of Marcus Aurelius (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Marcus Aurelius: “By a tranquil mind I mean nothing else than a mind well ordered”.
For both dominant and submissive knowing exactly where you stand and precisely what your duties and responsibilities are frees you both to be creative, mischievous and fun. Like a train – staying on the railway track keeps the passengers safe to do whatever they want on the journey. It’s not for nothing we say relationships and people go “off the rails”.
Marcus Aurelius “Nothing happens to any thing which that thing is not made by nature to bear”.
A useful maxim when limits are tested. This is not carte blanche for doms. Rather, for the submissive the question should be: does my nature truly preclude me from complying with this new requirement? For the dominant it is “Is it in her nature? Will I harm her by insisting?”
Marcus Aurelius: “Never esteem anything as of advantage to you that will make you break your word or lose your self-respect”.
For both dominant and submissive this is an injunction to transparency and truth and a warning not to play mind game to get what you want. A useful reminder for those who top from the bottom. And for dominants? Well, I love mind games, but, you can easily trap yourself into using, tricks, falsehoods, aggression, etc in ways that should be shaming.
Marcus Aurelius: “How much time he gains who does not look to see what his neighbour says or does or thinks, but only at what he does himself, to make it just and holy”. Also, “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane”.
I don’t think a D/s or similar relationship can exist completely independently of the wider world: It will have public dimensions. Yes one must not frighten the horses, scare the children nor lose uncomprehending vanilla friends but, you must have the strength to make sure the true nature of your relationship is not compromised when out in the world. At the same time, whilst not acquiescing to the views of ‘the majority” don’t flaunt yourself to the point of being unacceptable in polite society.
Marcus Aurelius: “Remember this-that there is a proper dignity and proportion to be observed in the performance of every act of life”. And, “You will find rest from vain fancies if you perform every act in life as though it were your last”.
For both dominants and submissives this is nothing less than Baden-Powell’s maxim: “do your best”. But it also in finding satisfaction in yourself from doing everything well. It implies zero tolerance of sloppy pursuit of goals.
Marcus Aurelius: “How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it”.
Anger is always inappropriate in a TPE relationship. It is also always inevitable. D/s couples can formalise responsibilities for decision-making and dispute resolution. We should use the rules we make and never respond til anger has left us. Passion – now that’s a different thing.
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Marcus Aurelius “A man does not sin by commission only, but often by omission”.
It’s alright having rules and rituals, but what about the spaces between them – a relationship can be ruined by failure to see a need and meet it.
A subject that gets discussed from time to time on BDSM forums is control of a submissive’s finances. Money is very important to most people and controlling access to it is an incredibly touchy subject for most. It isn’t part of my current dynamic with the gorgeous curvy_bottom but it was important in my first long-term D/s relationship, which took place in the days before electronic banking and the internet. But, in that once-upon-a-time, taking control of her money made me fully aware of my responsibilities as a master and confirmed my girl’s need to be more and more submissive.
I knew her as a student for two years, and then for a year or so after she started training as a lawyer.
We never lost touch, but I spent a period of years working abroad, during which she found several someones and nearly settled down with a chap who was less man than mouse – something with which, curiously, they both seemed content.
Thank goodness (well, from my point of view), that failed. And, some six months later, things were back roughly where they’d started – except I now had a highly successful and deeply bouncy junior corporate lawyer crowding out my one-bedroom flat in Clapham.
In the first few months we had huge fun turning our lives into a beautiful mass of M/s rituals – something we both deeply desired… and soon she wanted me to start to subtly effect her behaviour at work too (not in a way that affected her career, she was a highly professional professional – and deeply ambitious too). We found ways.
But she wasn’t as content as I hoped I hoped I could make her. In fact, she was deeply unsettled and nowhere near happy. It took a while to establish why – basically, thrusting (pardon the unfeminine notion) corporate lawyers earn a lot more than middle-ranking marketing people. She hated it… But she was also damn sure it was her money!
Her money – under my control
The solution – which took a while to get to – came from me and was this: Her salary was paid into a building society account to which she was the only signatory, but I locked away the passbook. Monthly she transferred funds to deal with her living expenses, share of mortgage, holiday, etc, etc, to my account, plus an amount to be used to clothe her, groom her, buy knick-nacks and sundries, etc.
Money – Black and White Money (Photo credit: @Doug88888)
From then on she only ever had emergency taxi-fare in her purse and a small amount for daily living. Anything she bought she explained to me and presented a receipt. Meanwhile the surplus in her BS account grew and grew (years later, when the divorce happened – it was an annoyingly large amount).
The only rule was that any money of hers in my account had to be used for her benefit (which usually actually meant it benefited both of us).
Her whole attitude changed. She was spectacularly happy that she had given over control of her purse and felt secure that her money would remain hers. And, this prompted the biggest change in me: I realised once and for all that the choice this woman had made was not to have choice in her life. Finally I had the courage, if not the experience, nor yet the patience, to be a master.
“submission in BDSM is present when one individual, within agreed limits and having given informed consent, defers to the will of another”.
I get involved in debates on forums like Informed Consent where people often talk around terms like dominance and submission. Some even say “Xxxxx can mean whatever you want it to mean!”: This is a red rag to me. I like people to make themselves clear. Saying you can use a word to represent your particular definition of it and not explain this to your readers encourages misunderstanding. It’s a pet peeve too that it seems to me that many of the people who say “you can use a word to mean what you want it to mean” are also those that say “Oh, I don’t use labels – you can’t label me” when they go on to use a label that everyone should understand but insist it has their own special meaning.
People are different and there are probably as many ways of running a BDSM relationship or dynamic as there are people in them. And its wrong to say anyone’s way of doing it is any less valid than anyone else’s. But, you can’t explain what is true and real for you unless you use terms that others clearly understand.
I recently took part in two threads on Informed Consent that discussed this, very helpfully. They are here:
Is submission real (1)
Is submission real (2)
I suggested that the debate should use Wikipedia’s definitions of submission to ensure a common understanding of the term.
From that document, these seem most relevant:
Submission is the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the power of one’s superior or superiors.
Sexual submission, the practice of deferring to the will of another in a sexual context.
From those debates and a bit of solitary thinking, I’ve come to this definition:
“submission in BDSM is present when one individual, within agreed limits and having given informed consent, defers to the will of another”.
It seems to me, that if, within agreed limits, a submissive does as required,then submission exists, at that point, regardless of the submissive’s motivation (i.e. whether s/he is pleased to be doing as required or not). If s/he does not, then submission does not exist.
Do you agree that this definition is useful, right or appropriate?
The need for informed consent
Informed consent is fundamental to this definition and this (taken from Wikipedia – but edited for brevity), helps explain what that means:
(Photo credit: PinkMoose)
“Informed consent is a phrase that indicates that the consent a person gives meets certain minimum standards. Informed consent can be said to have been given based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and future consequences of an action. In order to give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given.”
It assumes no fraud – ie that both parties have been truthful to each other. The Informed Consent BDSM website also recently discussed this topic and it’s usefulness in explaining how we live to the wider world. For interest, these are the links:
It is probably selfish but I do sort of expect to be able to come wherever I want. Oral sex all the way wasn’t on offer at the beginning of our relationship and I am glad to say I was man enough not to get whiny about it: she just took the decision that putting her mouth on the menu was part of being the best she could be. For me.
Four years on she still doesn’t enjoy the act. But she does enjoy my moment of ecstasy in her mouth as a service to me and an achievement fo her When I choose that orifice I know I impose something she would rather not do, so it creates a moment of responsibility for me and a moment of genuine service for her.
So, on the whole, it is probably good for our dynamic that she doesn’t enjoy it.
“Dominance in BDSM is present when one individual, has the informed consent of another to be in control of that person within agreed limits and at agreed times as long as that informed consent persists”.•
A dominant and submissive life 