Submissives Do Not Have All The Power

[ey****]

there's an old blog I really like from Lola Ruin : 2016, my, it did have an impact on me. It's entitled 'Control (and paying for the illusion of giving it up)...' and it's kinda like a musing on the topic.

She had posed a question on twitter, speaking wholly about Pro Domme sessions, who is in control.

The foot note is that the best experiences are a joint effort.

Most people fell into the "the submissive is the one in control" But that even in a paid scenario, the sub can list their fetishes, request an outfit, provide trigger phrases, so on - and of course can stop any time with a safeword.

However; excluding struggle workers, naive newcomers, or some US 'houses', the Dominants can and will decline sessions.  That sure, the sub can put in requests and so forth, but these are usually from a defined list on her website.

let's be honest; particularly when it comes to guys if the subs were the ones in control, there'd be less whiny single guys since they have all the control

[CopperKnob]

1 hour ago, Kitanya said:

That’s not what I said. However I’m surprised people are questioning where this concept came from. Setting limits and using safe words clearly give the submissive some power, as well as negotiating the scene and relationship beforehand. It’s a two way street.

I remember a CSI episode years ago that said the submissive had all the power, in terms of setting limits and ending a scene with a dominatrix. It was a simple way of explaining the dynamic to those unfamiliar with it. But that is also a paid situation, and as such, I believe the client should get the experience they want and pay for.
 

I guess tropes are sort of like playing Telephone. When people hear things enough, they accept it, regardless of the veracity or lack thereof. 

"That’s not what I said"
Then I'm truly at a loss as to what it is you are saying
.
"Setting limits and using safe words clearly give the submissive some power, as well as negotiating the scene and relationship beforehand. It’s a two way street".

That's the point of the OP

"I remember a CSI episode years ago that said the submissive had all the power, in terms of setting limits and ending a scene with a dominatrix. It was a simple way of explaining the dynamic to those unfamiliar with it".

And yet D/s isn't a simple dynamic, a point which you agreed with Dorion on.
.
Saying that Stypes have ALL the power is naive and utterly untrue. Of course they have some power, as does the Dtype. D/s is clearly a relationship based on power exchange. The point of the OP is that the stype does not have ALL the power. The OP is challenging the viewpoint that they do because, by telling someone that they have ALL the power, ironically removes their agency.

[CopperKnob]

10 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

there's an old blog I really like from Lola Ruin : 2016, my, it did have an impact on me. It's entitled 'Control (and paying for the illusion of giving it up)...' and it's kinda like a musing on the topic.

She had posed a question on twitter, speaking wholly about Pro Domme sessions, who is in control.

The foot note is that the best experiences are a joint effort.

Most people fell into the "the submissive is the one in control" But that even in a paid scenario, the sub can list their fetishes, request an outfit, provide trigger phrases, so on - and of course can stop any time with a safeword.

However; excluding struggle workers, naive newcomers, or some US 'houses', the Dominants can and will decline sessions.  That sure, the sub can put in requests and so forth, but these are usually from a defined list on her website.

let's be honest; particularly when it comes to guys if the subs were the ones in control, there'd be less whiny single guys since they have all the control

If that were the case, imagine how quiet the forums would be 😂

[ey****]

5 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

If that were the case, imagine how quiet the forums would be 😂

it's also when they start on the 'submission is a gift' - yes, but so are socks.  And not everyone wants your socks. 

[CopperKnob]

6 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

it's also when they start on the 'submission is a gift' - yes, but so are socks.  And not everyone wants your socks. 

I'm surprised they've not shown up.

[ey****]

17 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

I'm surprised they've not shown up.

as a small disclaimer

there have been folk on this forum who talk this up really well; and I can see where they are coming from when that is a term they use

But then there are those not in relationships, nor have been, who are jangled about their submission being a gift while trying to handover a wishlist of kinks to try 

[Ki****]

1 hour ago, CopperKnob said:

"That’s not what I said"
Then I'm truly at a loss as to what it is you are saying
.
"Setting limits and using safe words clearly give the submissive some power, as well as negotiating the scene and relationship beforehand. It’s a two way street".

That's the point of the OP

"I remember a CSI episode years ago that said the submissive had all the power, in terms of setting limits and ending a scene with a dominatrix. It was a simple way of explaining the dynamic to those unfamiliar with it".

And yet D/s isn't a simple dynamic, a point which you agreed with Dorion on.
.
Saying that Stypes have ALL the power is naive and utterly untrue. Of course they have some power, as does the Dtype. D/s is clearly a relationship based on power exchange. The point of the OP is that the stype does not have ALL the power. The OP is challenging the viewpoint that they do because, by telling someone that they have ALL the power, ironically removes their agency.

Nowhere did I say that either has all the power. Read my original post. I basically said your way is not the one true way either. A point I felt your post expressed, although now I see that was your sense of humor. Again, not the best tone for educational purposes, as it creates misunderstanding. 
 

It seems you want to argue with me when we are making the same point. Every Ds dynamic is different. There is no absolute. 

[dorion]

This is a bit of a tangent. If you're getting ***d, then power is the thing to blame. But relationships can fail or feel (and be!) unfair without ***. I wonder whether doms and subs focus on power as the problem when it may actually lie elsewhere.

Power means the ability to do things. That seems positive, but the heart of submission is negative: limiting the power of one partner (in some areas). The point is to create inequality.

Power is zero or negative sum. Attention, investment, commitment: these things, on the other hand, are positive sum. Equality in these areas is desirable.

I used to imagine that one can increase the commitment of the other person in a (vanilla) relationship by investing effort into it. I came to realize it's the other way around: the more you invest, the more committed you are. It doesn't necessarily have any effect on the other person unless they respond by also investing.

Subs and doms invest in different ways. A sub might do it with service, obedience, or suffering ***. A dom might do it by giving orders, making rules, or punishing. From the perspective of power, these might seem like very unequal kinds of activities. From the  point of view of investment, attention and commitment, they are alike.

When people complain of topping from the bottom (something I've been guilty of), the problem is often that the sub is demanding more investment than they're putting in. 

A relationship can break when power is misused and becomes ***. But it can also go sour when there is too much inequality between the investment of the partners. Ideally, I would think, we create inequality of power because it's exciting, and to great a foundation for pushing both partners towards greater (and relatively equal) investment.

[CopperKnob]

21 hours ago, dorion said:

This is a bit of a tangent. If you're getting ***d, then power is the thing to blame. But relationships can fail or feel (and be!) unfair without ***. I wonder whether doms and subs focus on power as the problem when it may actually lie elsewhere.

Power means the ability to do things. That seems positive, but the heart of submission is negative: limiting the power of one partner (in some areas). The point is to create inequality.

Power is zero or negative sum. Attention, investment, commitment: these things, on the other hand, are positive sum. Equality in these areas is desirable.

I used to imagine that one can increase the commitment of the other person in a (vanilla) relationship by investing effort into it. I came to realize it's the other way around: the more you invest, the more committed you are. It doesn't necessarily have any effect on the other person unless they respond by also investing.

Subs and doms invest in different ways. A sub might do it with service, obedience, or suffering ***. A dom might do it by giving orders, making rules, or punishing. From the perspective of power, these might seem like very unequal kinds of activities. From the  point of view of investment, attention and commitment, they are alike.

When people complain of topping from the bottom (something I've been guilty of), the problem is often that the sub is demanding more investment than they're putting in. 

A relationship can break when power is misused and becomes ***. But it can also go sour when there is too much inequality between the investment of the partners. Ideally, I would think, we create inequality of power because it's exciting, and to great a foundation for pushing both partners towards greater (and relatively equal) investment.

Disclaimer, I do like to play devils advocate 😉

Is submission negative? I don't know that I perceive it to be.
.
But, let's try and bring it back to the OP
.
I think that in terms of all relationships we might think about different power types, particularly in relation to power and strength based theories.
So for those that are in an abusive relationship of any type, the ***r would have 'power over' the other person/s which is not consensual.
For me, a Dtype would also have 'power over' the stype(s), we hope, consensually and that this comes about because the stype has 'power within' which in turn means that they have the 'power to' relinquish their power. This, for me, is the stark difference between submitting to another and being ***d.

I also think that 'power with' is relevant to D/s relationships. Not necessarily in the traditional sense of the aforementioned theories but because the relationship is built on respect, shared power, mutual support, collaborative decision making and finally empowerment, on both sides of the slash.

[Xi****]

I couldn’t adore this post more! Thank you!

[Xi****]

September 4, dorion said:

I agree that subs don't have all the power - but there's more to it. Subspace can steal the ability to think or even speak. Submission can also suppress the will. If you don't have the will to use it, power is irrelevant.

Please don't be offended by anything I say. What I'm going to say may only apply to some subs and some relationships, your mileage may vary, etc. etc. And I'm not here to judge.

Talk of consent, power and assumptions of equality make submission seem rational. Power exchange is a transaction. We negotiate, strike a deal: I get something you get something. Everyone is happy. This contractual model for BDSM seems natural in a society organized around legal contracts and market exchange.

What is consent? Who can grant it? Under what conditions? What about prior inequalities of power? Often people give or appear to give consent at the time, then feel later that they were ***d or pressured. These are hairy enough questions in vanilla relationships, let alone BDSM. What about (non-BDSM) relationships where one partner is ***d - but refuses to testify against or leave (in most cases) her abusive partner? There are many situations in ordinary life where we consider consent invalid. One cannot consent to be an actual slave, for instance, even if one is of sound mind.

I'm not suggesting BDSM is *** or that consent is not necessary. I'm saying that the dynamics of power in human relationships are deeper, more dangerous and more compelling.

My experience is that submission, like sexuality itself, is an impulse that I do not fully control. Hormones make us feel and do things that we would not otherwise do. Puberty hits us like a truck. Submission likewise.

When someone presses the right buttons, I feel an almost overwhelming urge to submit. I feel as though I would do or agree to almost anything. It is quite possible that I would do things that I would not normally consider wise. That feeling of losing control, and the danger that comes with it, is a powerful aphrodisiac. Submission is attractive because it is dangerous - because it means allowing someone else to substitute her will for mine. What power do I have then?

How far could that go? I don't know, but I imagine pretty far. I think a bad actor might be able to leverage it into an abusive relationship: one that I would "consent" to. To prevent this I have what I think of as tripwires: things I believe so strongly that if she violates them, the spell will be broken and I'll recover my will. Or so I hope.

To me, this is the whole magic of submission. If it really were just a matter of contractual exchange of pleasure I don't think it would do anything for me. But the power exchange is real. It's as though there were an invisible leash reaching deep into the psyche, to a place more primitive and fundamental than reason. Someone who holds that leash has real power, until the spell is broken.

The modern world is all about control over nature. Our society and culture are organized around reason, technology, law. We imagine that we can consciously control our deep natures and label that control "consent." But that's just a myth to make us feel safe from the messy, dangerous, primal reality of our sexuality, desires, wills and inequalities. The dance of dominance and submission is a kind of magic: a power outside rationality. It can be beautiful, but that beauty is inseparable from danger. It is something to be celebrated, but treated with respect. The power is real.

Very well said. Thank you for your perspective.

[ED****]

Oh oh, here you are getting to the crux of real relationships where real growth versus stagnation or destruction of any relationship (s) foundations and beliefs lie and are exchanged in investment,

I may have gotten some of these the wrong way round so to speak in the past, but human development and growth of any kind requires investments & that illusory trust we all need not just want! Another interesting and logical debate going on here with much learning for those that need and want! I commend without meaning any judgement, hurray!

[ED****]

I should have added that another’s comment above is that enablement to sharing all that is necessary in any relationship where un equal power in play has to come from a relationship of real equality before play etc!