WARNING: THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN WHEN I WAS UNDER THE PARTICULAR INFLUENCE OF WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A DANGEROUS SOCIOPATH. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN LOCKED UP IN A PADDED ROOM. HOWEVER, NOW THAT I AM SO FAR AWAY FROM THE THOUGHTS IN THIS ARTICLE, THEY DON’T HAVE ANY DANGER FOR ME. AND HOPEFULLY THEY DON’T FOR YOU.
LADY NYO…JUNE, 2013
No idea where I found this article, hence I haven’t the ability to credit it to an author… However, it’s very, very interesting.
However, IF anyone reading recognizes it, I will either credit the author or remove it, depending on what the author wants….
Today, I wanted to start another thread….or theme….about Submission. I have been interviewing women from the local BDSM scene. I have a feeling that this will give a better view on this blog about Submission when I finish these interviews done face to face.
I am thinking most of what I read on other blogs about submission isn’t exactly correct. There are many parts of this argument I agree with, but mostly they are through the eyes and experience of Doms. And that is only half the issue for me and many other women.
Lady Nyo
The Role of Slavery in Modern Society
It may seem mystifying that any modern woman (or man) would voluntarily subject himself or herself to the concept of being owned by another person. Surrendering essential personal freedoms to someone else seems to contradict every ideal of modern Western and even Eastern society. . Women’s liberation and a general move toward more democratic thought in our culture would seem to be totally at odds with anyone willingly agreeing to obey at all times the wishes of a Master. But it is not so much of an enigma to me based on the internal process this slave has personally gone thru. So please forgive if this is written from the male Dominant, female submissive point of view.
I think there are two key reasons for the viability of ‘slavery’ (in the BDSM context) in our modern world. There is a general need in humans to seek out structure, to find parameters that define their existence, and as well, to emphasize the natural proclivities of one gender over another, i.e. the biological imperatives that make certain approaches more likely. Also the pressure placed on modern women, and men, in their interactions with each other and the world as a whole is sufficiently ‘liberated’ that it can become a very confusing place. This creates the need to find a way of living one’s life that provides clear-cut guidelines for behavior.
In the first case, it’s inescapable that men are biologically designed to be more forceful physically and to ‘go out there’ and face the world in a rather independent, focused (tunnel-visioned at times) way. Their entire brain moves into a very concentrated usually physically oriented method of ‘attack’. Not that women aren’t capable of exactly the same thing – I myself am always told I think like a man – but I am speaking generalities. This approach requires that there be someone watching His back, not so much for direct physical support but more as in providing the constancy of sometimes-intangible support in the background. Since He is facing the theoretical dangers, the Master/Male needs autonomy; he must be able to respond decisively and without the hesitation brought about by uncertainty regarding the support He will receive – one captain of the ship. The slave/female, must multitask more effectively in order to preserve what the Male protects – a future, the culture, the young, the ‘home fires’. All these things require great capacity to balance emotional and physical needs but do not necessarily require instantaneous decisiveness or physical aggressiveness. The Master must know that His decision ‘in the field’ will be backed up. He is not ‘better’ but must make quicker decisions, which are followed with unquestioning loyalty in order to be effective.
The other aspect deals with the modern world’s pressures. The more that women are placed in a position in society where they are bearing the burdens of traditional male roles and still maintaining the traditional duties of the primary nurturer, the more need there is for a place they can go where they are relieved of some of these burdens. The structure of slavery allows the female slave to be protected and given the freedom to simply be the nurturer. It affords her an opportunity to have influence in a method more suited to her basic nature – through cooperativeness and attending to the pleasure of those around her, while the Master fulfills what needs He has to nurture by caring for her and yet is freed to do what He does best – physically protect, decide quickly uncluttered with emotional diversions, take action with certainty. He will be able to make the important decisions for the M/s couple with no wasted time or bickering; she is able to express her femininity in its ultimate pure form and have no doubts that she will be in a secure constant environment in which to do that. There is no issue here of one gender or category being better than the other – this is about efficiency making best use of natural tendencies. Feminism is not about being the same, but about being able to express whom one is without being judged. The ideal Master/slave bond provides complete freedom to a slave where she can express herself fully as a caring, intelligent, confident sexual being with no fear of judgment or rejection. The Master is able to work effectively in a more focused manner, knowing the areas where He is less inclined to excel are attended to –not that He has no skills in the area of nurturing and communication but that He is hardwired to function more like the ‘targeted’ aggressive hunter/protector. He also has His strong (not stronger) sexual urges attended to with certainty.
The two complementary strengths between male and female are given free scope to shine – the one a high intensity, piercing kind of approach and the other the strength of endurance and patience, rich in verbal communication and intuition. Both partners are vital to the success of the M/s bond and whether male-Dominant and female-slave or reversed or any other combination possible, people that possess those qualities are allowed to express them fully within the M/s dynamic. There are few spheres of activity in the modern world where human interaction is so clear and formalized, sometimes even in a written contract, but certainly discussed and overtly viewed; few relationships where sexuality is overtly addressed and sensitive issues even stand a chance of being resolved in the light of day.
Tags: biological imperatives--or not, M/s, Role of Slavery in Modern Society, surrending personal freedoms
Lady Nyo's Weblog 
December 17, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Fair warning, this may be a bit of a rant.
—
I must say, when I read this article, the one word that kept repeating itself in my mind was: heteronormative. Concepts of femininity, of women’s roles and men’s roles – they are only social constructs.
Science, for one example, is only a traditionally male role because society has deemed it that way – not because males are better able to think critically.
“Feminism is not about being the same, but about being able to express whom one is without being judged.”
Huh?
Feminism is, quite simply, the belief that women have the legal right to political, social, and economic equality.
Anyone, regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, longs to be able to express themselves without being judged. This isn’t just a feminist ideal.
“The two complementary strengths between male and female are given free scope to shine – the one a high intensity, piercing kind of approach and the other the strength of endurance and patience, rich in verbal communication and intuition.”
These “strengths” are not biologically based; they are the traditional social constructs that most everyone has bought into. Suggesting that women have more endurance and patience and intuition than men is, IMO, downright silly. Suggesting that men are high intensity with a piercing kind of approach is also silly.
IMO, it’s a self fulfilling prophecy. When you grow up, you are inundated with these ideas of gender roles, and being of the young impressionable mind, you believe you need to fit into these gender roles. If women cultivate their patience, it’s not because biologically they are hard-wired to have more patience than their male counterparts, it’s because they were led to believe this is how they should be, and adjusted their behavior appropriately.
“The more that women are placed in a position in society where they are bearing the burdens of traditional male roles and still maintaining the traditional duties of the primary nurturer, the more need there is for a place they can go where they are relieved of some of these burdens.”
Bearing the burdens of traditional male roles? Who says they are burdens? And why do they need to be relieved?
Perhaps these so called burdens wouldn’t be burdens if society got out of the heteronormative state it’s stuck in, and started demanding that males begin to be nurturers and take on equal responsibility as females. There are plenty of single fathers out there in this world who do a fine job of raising their children. If they were, as this author suggests, biologically incapable or at a biological disadvantage of doing so, their children would most likely be taken away from them and given to the more biologically inclined females.
“…parameters that define their existence, and as well, to emphasize the natural proclivities of one gender over another…”
IMO, this writer seems to have totally bought into the concept of heternormativity (which is societal based, not biologically based), and is using it as justification of dominant/submissive and/or Master/slave play and/or relationships across the board.
If this writer personally sees justification of Dom/sub “roles” due to an adoption of heteronormative thinking, then that’s fine. But it seems to me that this writer is trying to justify this relationship for other people using the same “logic” which I personally find to be faulty.
I would willingly embrace heteronormative society as much as I would willingly embrace the variola virus.
Now, while we’re on the subject of domination and submission…
IMO, a submissive isn’t really a submissive. A submissive usually has use of safe words and is able to, with a single word, halt an activity if s/he takes issue with it. If you are a submissive and you are allowed to use a safe word, in reality, taking a step away from the immediate play acting scene, you are in control of everything. You say “yellow” and the dominant has to slow down and make sure everything’s okay. You say “red” and the dominant has to stop everything at once. So, even though the dominant may have some control over the steering wheel and gas, the submissive has full control of all the brakes, and can brake anytime, for any reason.
According to some, slavery is more of a true state of submission to another than just being a submissive. Most BDSM slaves (as opposed to submissives) have no luxuries of safe words, and they must endure whatever is put to them. However, the neglect of safe words is usually considered a very dangerous thing that deviates from the usual rules of SSC (safe, sane, consensual) in the BDSM community. People I’ve talked to point out exactly what I mentioned in the above paragraph – if there is a safe word, there is no “true” submissiveness to another because there is an easy out – hence, diving another level deeper into slavery – “true” submission.
But this leads to even more points to ponder on.
If an important hallmark of BDSM play is to be SSC, then “true” submission (slavery) isn’t [safe or mainstream] BDSM, or is it?
If BDSM SSC rules are obeyed, and submissives are allowed to use safe words, are they still in a submissive role?
Is there a difference between a submissive and slave? In my experience, it depends who you ask. And, do you care? If your play is restricted between you and your partner, do you care how else everyone else defines slave and submissive?
Respectfully,
Athene
LikeLike
December 17, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Brava! With your permission, Athene, I would like to move this to the face of the blog.
I floated it here, but haven’t had time to really consider an answer…
However, you have expressed just about what I would have said, but you say it so much better.
As to this issue of ‘submissiveness’….yes, and who ultimately is in ‘control’?
I also believe that there are degrees of submissiveness..and once tarred a submissive, it is not a life sentence. It ebbs and flows depending on the life course. Again, degrees.
I admit that I am not very versed in BDSM behavior, coming to it very, very recently, and frankly, being much confused by what I see and see practiced. I am also rather worried about the ‘submissives and slaves’ I see in this arena. For many reasons that I would like to discuss in the future on this blog.
Again, you have given a very considered answer to the first part, on heteronormative thinking/behavior. I agree that the basis is what we are fed and see early on. As with most things…it’s rather an issue of implantion. Is it true or the truth of the matter? Questionable.
“Feminism is not about being the same, but about being able to express whom one is without being judged.”
Huh?
Well, I was struggling to remember where I found this, and I think, frankly, it is way too ‘liberal’ or perhaps a better term: expansive …for it to be part of Gorean mindthink. However, bits and pieces remind me of this.
I am very glad you waded in these choppy waters and made your comments…
No issue of being a rant. A very succinct argument, at least to me.
Lady Nyo….let’s see if there are other ‘opposing’ comments.
LikeLike
December 17, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Of course you have my permission. 🙂 This is your blog after all.
I have explored BDSM a bit myself, as it holds interest to me and my partner (him being in a dominant master role and myself in a submissive slave role). While I would certainly not want to claim any expertise on the subject, I have done basic research and have discussed issues with people who are well standing in the community.
I, too, have been worried by behaviors I see in the more extreme corners of BDSM practices (a friend of mine was almost very much hurt by a mentally unstable dominant), and personally am very intrigued when I hear discussions/debates regarding if a true submissive needs/has a safe word. It is an interesting concept my partner and I discuss at times: are you really the submissive one when you have a safe word?
Apologies for the late response; I would have given a comment even earlier; however, I am only now able to connect to the internet with a borrowed computer and connection. My home is presumably still under layers of ice from the ice storm that cripped the northeast USA last week, leaving millions upon millions of dollars of damages in the region.
LikeLike